It's fair to have entire known categories in actual 404 status to sit around for months on end but when a single site has a few moments of trouble it gets removed. Is that story right? Go on and on about how I'm talking out my back side, but also keep in mind that those CNN links are still there in actual 404 status, and their 404 status have been that way for MONTHS. So when you ask if I think it's fair that a site that does down for a few minutes and get's removed is fair, then no, I really do not think it is...not when there are entire categories filled with 404ed pages that have all been 'dead' for months. Unbiased? Impartial? Fair? My opinion of the matter is biased as it's my site...but honestly, does that really seem fair? I'm not asking if you think it's within the guidelines, even I can agree that its well within those (though I did not agree with the circumstances), but I'm asking if it's fair. And for the record, no that is NOT the right story. The editor that removed my site knew how my site got listed, he's mentioned it several times.
So editors have to sit around for over 15 minutes, or could that be 30 minutes, well perhaps an hour or maybe a day, waiting to see if the 404 is only for a short time. NO, the correct thing to do is to unreview ANY 404 found. If you find sites that are 404 submit an update form, it will take priority over robo reds and submissions, but you know that from your editing time. And you submitted an abuse form because an editor followed guidelines. Sorry, no, you don't want an editor to follow guidelines when it comes to your site, you want them to ignore what they see and when they refuse to do that you submit an abuse form. Fair? Don't talk to me about fair, you just want your site to be treated differently and when its not you file an abuse report. Well I am glad that my understanding of fair is different from that. Oh you forget to address that you keep telling webmasters not to bother submitting, but you were so desperate to get your site back listed you submitted an abuse form. Strange that I would have thought you would have written to the Editor in Chief saying that you were pleased that you were no longer listed in the abusive, lying, bribed seo's directory. Mmmmmmm
I'm glad you feel that way about my site, now how do you feel about the actual 404ed CNN sites, of which there are HUNDREDS? Are those listings there because the guidelines say that it's OK for them? Again, I am not talking about the guidelines, I'm talking about impartial treatment. I get one listing that I had to list myself. It gets removed because it went down for 15 minutes. CNN gets tens of thousands of automated listings hundreds upon hundreds of which are dead yet still remain. How is that unbiased and fair? Sites are NOT treated the same, and you are supporting that. When the ODP itself was down for months was it removed from itself? When DP goes down weekly is it placed back in the queue? No...because editors know that these sites are having temporary trouble. While removing such links may be to the letter of the guidelines, the editor that removed the site himself once said "they are guidelines for a reason" meaning that some discretion should be used. Do you honestly think that was the case? Of all the people that post bad thing about the directory, you should know that I am one of the few that actually finds some value there, but when I see such things as what happened to me, my respect for the directory lessens, and then when such things are backed up by others thats even worse, as that not only shows the mindset of the editor that did the removing, but it also shows the mindset of those that support it. Now tell me, do you support my site getting removed because it is my site, or because you really think it does not deserve a listing based on some server trouble, server trouble that every site on the internet has had at some point. yeah, yeah, point to the guidelines again, and again I'll point to the hundreds of CNN listings that seemingly are OK.
So you had to list it yourself, tell me, I have asked before, how does that square with you telling people FORGET 2 SUBMIT? I say again offer an update on ANY 404 site and it will be checked and as a priority and I don't give a damn who's the site is if I review the update it WILL be delisted, but don't take that to mean that you can list them here and I will go an check what you offer, there is a process and me or someone else will look. If you want me to say it again, if I find a site 404 it is sent to unreview. Though I have to say that most are found by editor tools looking for parked and 404. When I check those sites and any are not working I look for a substitute and if none is found it goes out. Now back to the site you joined ODP to get listed yet tell other webmasters not to bother, if an editor found your site not working the proper course would be to delist, yours, mine, robjones, the President of the US..I don't care who it is. If I found DP not working I WOULD unreview it. And the editor tools certainly will. So now that I have set the record straight about how I edit, tell me which site you edited first? Remind me that you tell others not to bother offering their site and tell me if it is true you filed an abuse report because an editor did what he is supposed to do, OR do you want editors to say "This is Q's site, better not delist that one. He is the nice guy who always speaks highly of ODP, not like that nasty gworld, find her site and blast it" Yes, yes that would be fair. I know a saying "If your in a hole stop digging" and I suggest that is what you do, Q. If you will take a little friendly advice. Hey that would not be fair either. Just one last question. Is it fair that because I am an editor you are allowed to accuse me of being biased of supporting things I don't support? I say again, I am glad I don't share your view of fairness. (Perhaps another hint might be, why don't you complain on here that when one gets an infraction there is nothing to say that everyone else doing the same thinmg got one too. Just so you could be fair about where you ask fair questions, that's all.
Maybe I'm biased because I think he may be the product of an experiment in artificial stupidity, but I'm pretty sure Qryztufre's umpteenth iteration of the horror of having his personal site delisted a few days due to a buggy server has zero bearing on "How can you tell if DMOZ have your site on a pending list"
All you have to do is just email dmoz and they will tell you the status of your application, it's very easy and they will answer within a week.
Oh yes, the person that so kindly delisted me. Its nice of you to come and blame me for making the thread about myself. Now mind putting the blame of the topic wandering off on where it belongs? Anon & Crowbar turned it into a thread about favoritism. I only followed suit with a personal example. Though, ya know, it would not be a horror story if the editors were fair, unbiased, and used some discretion in their moderation of sites. But then, you would not really care about such things would you dear rob? After all, you are the one that called for discretion when Annie was fired, left because there was none, and then returned only to join here, where you said all the members were trolls...now look what you have become. It's no wonder that you'd take it upon yourself to remove a site that you knew to be functioning as long as you could stay to the letter of the "guidelines". Your compassion for the end user certainly has shown through in your actions. You knew that many of those CNN pages were dead, and you knew that my site was not. Thats not using discretion in the slightest. My site getting removed is not about me, it's about the end user and about the Editors of DMOZ. I'd have gone off on the subject as strongly if it were someone elses page. Don't believe me? Why do I keep bringing up Annie? The only end user is the editor. That should be clear to everyone now. Annie who favored the actual web surfer, the true end user, was fired for such favoritism. 404 pages from a site with THOUSANDS of deep links stay, while function sites get removed under the same "rule" An editor can have 10,000 deep links, but most webmasters can not even get a single site listed. Tell me how those things serve the end user, if the end user is not the editor, dear editor rob? So to get back to the actual topic, the only way to tell if your site is on the pending list is to be come an editor yourself. I'd love to see a copy of your reply email...
OK, let's see if I can get to the bottom of this claim that there are hundreds of 404 sites in the CNN archives (I am not going to debate whether or not they should be there - been brought up, bickered about and discussed many times). I have gone into the archives and just puttered around and can't find anything that is 404 (or a redirect or anything). Could you please point me in the direction of something that has gone 404 and I will look into it? I doubt many editors venture into that are of news very much, since it is so stagnant. So please let me know where you see these 404s. Thanks
http://www.dmoz.org/News/Online_Archives/CNN.com/2003/May/] Weather and US have at least a dozen between them. A randomly picked one from US: Rudolph's arresting rookie cop has FBI dreams I understand it can be a daunting task to sort through the 10 thousands deep links. Glad I could help point the way.
And to whoever left me the red rep exhorting me to "look better" - FYI I started going through the archive category and found a lot of the links still working. I decided that rather than floundering, I would ask Q for help, because he obviously had a good starting point for me. Now he has given me that starting point, I can work more efficiently to get rid of these broken links. I appreciate Q's help for bringing it to my attention and being positive in the way he pointed out the exact location, as it saved me a lot of time and probably resulted in a better job being done. Hopefully that explains my method to you, and reason for asking.
Please don't red rep the editors that are actually working to maintain the directory people. Alucard asked in hopes of not only a reply, but with full intention of looking into the matter. Red repping him discourages him from seeking our help, and if that is what is truly wanted then this board has not need of being here. *shrug* I fuss and moan all the time here about the ODP, but I do so in hopes that what I am complaining about will be seen by those that can make a difference. Alucard is seemingly making a difference, and as such my hat is off to him, and I truly thank him for being one of the good guys. It's people like him that give me hope that there is in fact hope for the directory still.
So glad you manged to influence someone to do what you wanted. Personally I would not like to take too many things away that you complain about,Q. Don't want to spoil your nights entertainment.
@Anon, When someone gives a tip on something wrong with the directory I feel it's at least worth looking into. Sometimes there is a real issue that needs to be worked on, and someone "tipping us off" to it gives us a place to look that will help the quality control of the directory. In this case I have already found upwards of 1,000 broken links and removed them. Is the directory a better place for that or not? In my opinion it is, regardless of how the information comes into a editor's hands.
If Q were interested in the directory, rather than beefing about it, he would not deliberately use some of things that he does to deliberately skew what has been said. Now I don't have issue with anyone doing anything for any reason in the directory, but, as I said I think Q may regret offering the information its just one less thing he can complain about.
If I was an editor with that mindset I'd not be posting under my real name either. Its clear you now would rather troll ex-editors then actually make the directory a better place. DMOZ FIRST? Certainly not in your case! I keep hearing that I am wrong time and time again, but it's strange I can give links to the ODP to back up my claims, and in most instances the only counter proof is my editcount, the fact I added my own site, or some other non-public information used as a personal attack. So by all means, don't spoil my nights entertainment, but keep in mind, by doing so, you are helping to spoil the directory you are supposedly defending.
With a mindset that sends an abuse report because their site was delisted when it stopped working but won't bother to fill out an update report on sites you have found not working says something about you, Q. Someone who says they want help the directory, uses it to list their own site and then jumps ship, when there is something they don't like, but yet spends hours allegedly trying to help the directory that they hated so much they got out of says something about you too. Saying that you want to help the directory but the skews comments that are plain, about SEO work, to try and prove that bribes happen by the back door, says something about you. Trying to say that an editor doing his job, when if he looked the other way, because it was your site, Q, says something about you. And quite frankly I don't like what it says. Certainly not someone with a balanced attitude trying to help the directory. But hey, the fact I spend hours reviewing does jack sh*t, aint that right?
Alucard, thanks for taking this on, I started it early this year but didn't have a chance to finish. I wish I could give you accurate information about what is done and what isn't but I must go from memory, so I'm guessing that at least the most recent two years are done, possibly some of the third year going backward, as well as most of the first year (if not all). IMO the CNN archives have been an embarrassment and they really do need the attention. Anonymously, you know I like you, but with all due respect, to purposely ignore that fact simply because you may not like the person pointing it out could be taken as a bit self-serving, don't you think. After all, a problem is a problem. I think you're forgetting that it's very difficult to do an update request because the captcha is broken. Multiply that by the couple thousand 404's in CNN and, well... does it sound do-able?
If there was any evidence that Q had any real interest in the directory, I would not have made the comments, unfortunately he prefers to score points by skewing information, so I rarely take anything he says seriously.
Does the ODP become a better place by having upwards of 1,000 dead links removed? * Yes * No (pick one) I don't give a tinker's cuss what the motivation of the poster is. When someone says to me "why don't you list my site" and the answer is because we don't list sites of that type, and the poster comes back and says "ah but you listed site X which is of that type", do you ignore it, dismissing it as sour grapes on the part of the poster, or do you at least go and take a look at site X to see if it really does deserve a listing? If the former, then you are descending into the personalities and pettiness that abounds on fora. If you use it as an opportunity to better the ODP, then you are being a good editor, in my opinion. Often you get howls of protest when you delist the other site, because the reason the poster mentioned it was to get his/her own site listed. For me it comes down to "do I feel like looking into this?" and "would the directory be a better place for me spending some of my time to try to fix this?" We're never going to be perfect - no computer is, no human is - all we can try to be is better (by our OWN standards, not those imposed on us by someone else). I get my "tips" from many, many sources, and most probably don't even know they are actually helping. I'm sure most other editors are the same.