Dmoz Lawsuits

That isn't relevant.

If someone slips on the rug outside my office, or on the front steps of my home, or slips into my swimming pool and drowns, I am liable for damages if that event occurred as a result of my failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it. It doesn't matter whether or not I invited that person to my door and whether or not any money exchanged hands.

Check this with the AOL legal advisors if you wish. That's why most businesses and even personal residences carry liability insurance.

 

Actually it's extremely relevant.

Not all countries are quite so 'follow the ambulance' minded.
Different laws apply where I live. Slipping on a rug would be classed as someone who, well, slipped on a rug basically. It happens, it's an accident and no-one made you stand on the rug. (Or should everyone with welcome rugs have disclaimers ??? )

Perhaps some nations here are a bit more sue happy than others Minstrel and I guess that has to be taken into account too. But for some of us that sort of thing is unthinkable really, something the daily papers in the UK laugh at regularly when anyone tries to bring these sort of 'where's theres blame there's a claim' type things. "Hi.. I stood on a rug and I lost my balance, but I was put in touch with these really nice solicitors at www.wheretheresblametheresaclaim.com. I got £1000 from them on their no win no fee basis (they got £5000, thumbs up and smile ! cut)." You surely cannot put Dmoz in the same sort of league ?

You've got to prove the actual blame first right ? And who is where Dmoz is concerned. The organisation as a whole ? Or the editor in charge of the category ? If it's the latter then the topic here in question is void.

And then there's this :

To be competely frank. You'd have to actually PROVE that the editor had the time to do so as a volunteer, given that perhaps the category has loads and loads of sites to plough through. How would you do that ? Time to give, is in essence, the only factor involved in volunteer work.

 

If we consider DMOZ to simply be a service provider - then we now have a reference case

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5984880.html that is somewhat related.

 

shygirl and macdesign - don't give up your day jobs, okay?

The case you cite isn't even remotely relevant, macdesign.

And your comments about the UK, even if accurate, don't have a lot to do with AOL and DMOZ, now, do they shygirl?

 

Maybe it is relevant if you try to file a lawsuit against an editor living in the UK.

But if you all are so sure a lawsuit against DMOZ is possible why don't you start one. Would be usefull and informative to see what happens.

 

At least try to be sensible here, pagode

Nobody is going to sue an editor. If anyone sues, it will be the organization: AOLand DMOZ.

 

Look lets just say someone does decide to take up a case against AOL for their apparent non-inclusion in AOL owned entity, Dmoz. Just for starters :

Is there proof that the site has been treated any differently to any other ?

First they'd have to prove that the site had been declined out of hand, without a fair look over and evaluation according to the guidelines and rules governing Dmoz. If it's still sitting in the review pool of the category it was submitted to, then essentially, it can not be proven that it has been treated any less fairly than any other site also still waiting on review.

Has there been proveable intent and collusion ?

Secondly, you'd need to prove that Dmoz/AOL knowingly allocated or gave access to, an editor who has dubious intentions towards that particular site. This would involve everyone up the chain right up to metas and staff.

Other reasons why the site has not been listed ?

Thirdly, as stated, you'd have to prove that the editor(s) in question have had ample time to go through these listings. And that would probably involve asking volunteers extremely personal questions about how they live their lives online and off, and how much effort they put into Dmoz related activities. Thats getting into some pretty heavy 'big brother' stuff bearing in mind that the organisation is based on the efforts of volunteers.

And lets not even go there with the fact that the 'harm' caused by non-inclusion in this AOL owned organisation is mainly percieved as being 100% Google related.

 

This is the only thing you'd need to show.

Not necessarily... depends on how long it has been there...

Not necessary. All you need to show is that DMOZ (not the specific editor) has been made aware of the unfair practice and has done nothing about it.

No, not at all. The specific editor has nothing to do with it. You make DMOZ aware of unfair practices. DMOZ the organization does nothing to remedy the situation. That's your case.

Read previous posts more carefully. It would need to be shown that the site met the criteria for inclusion or met the criteria at least as well as listed sites.

Utter nonsense.

This thread alone could be used as evidence that DMOZ is aware that the listing provides some advantage to sites listed over sites not listed. That's all you'd need.

 

Blimey you're quick off the mark.

And how exactly would you show it had been treated any differently to any other as yet unlisted site ?

And if there are other sites that have been waiting just as long due to editor manpower and time constraints ? What makes this one any different ?

I did read carefully. Dmoz is aware that there are listable sites still awaiting attention, all meeting the criteria. They have to be reviewed first, and once again, the speed taken to review sites is dependent on individual volunteer time and effort.

You talk a lot about 'all you'd need to show is ' and 'there's your case' etc. But very little as to how you'd actually go about proving it ?
Which as far as I'm aware is something the law generally needs in order to work properly. Mabye you could give potential lawsuit bringers a few pointers on how they'd go about finding this proof ?

Utter nonsense... and I'm leaving this thread here, as I know Minstrel will never let anyone else have the last word

 

Could you please explain what these "unfair practices" might be.
Please give a serious answer, and not the normal response you seem to give to me. I'm realy interested in what you see as unfair practices.

 

Well, a good example is jsut what we're talking about.

If you have an editor, who is listing his sites in DMOZ, but not listing competitor's sites in order to gain a competitive advantage, that would be unfair business practices.

 

For starters,

1. it meets the criteria as well as already listed sites
2. it has been "in queue" longer than already listed sites

See previous post where I suggested you might want to read the rest of this thread more carefully.

Where's the nonsense? Are you trying to suggest that DMOZ is NOT aware that a DMOZ listing provides some competitive advantage to listed websites?

Actually, it's pretty obvious that you're leaving the thread, if indeed that happens, because you've run out of silly arguments and irrelevant comments...

 

See above. In addition to the scenario described by Joey, I've already answered your question with some different scenarios that have nothing to do with having to "prove" editor corruption, as some have tried to suggest would be necessary.

I generally respond in kind. When people, including DMOZ editors, post in a way which insults one's intelligence or involves mindless repetition of canned DMOZ responses or character slurs, I respond less politely or kindly - as I've said more than once, if that is your interest, you already have the Resourceless Zone for that. I don't post there so you'll never have to read my replies there.

 

I'll stay if you want ! But you've got to promise to keep the 'girly pettiness' you've just displayed above out of things. It's soooo last thread. And character slurs, as you point out yourself, really have no place in any kind of serious discussion and are off topic.

 

No, that's okay. I'm sure you have lots of work to do watching your DMOZ queues grow...

Neither do empty threats to leave a thread because you have nothing left to say... especially when we know you won't follow through (your last post being a case in point).

 

How could you "prove" you were losing money because your site wasn't listed in DMOZ? The traffic a site receives from DMOZ is negilible, but how could you "prove" you would have had any financial gain from any traffic? How could you prove your site would have gained in the SERP's? I think the benefit of a DMOZ listing is pretty small, but there is no proof that a listing helps every single site. While I do believe there is a small benefit to a DMOZ listing, I couldn't prove it by comparing my listed sites to my non-listed sites.

DMOZ is basically an editorial review of a site, much like a movie review. There is no doubt that certain movie critics can have a huge impact on a movie gross depending on what they say about a movie. Millions of dollars can be lost by a bad review, and I don't think anyone would argue certain critics favor certain directors style of movie making. I think the protection they have would extend to an editor of DMOZ, who is bascially reviewing a site and making a subjective call. There is no criterial of what site MUST be excepted. The guidelines can be so vague that you could deny almost any site and still stay within the DMOZ guidelines. I could find critical reviews of movies that won best picture of the year. If 90 out of 100 movie critics gave a positive review, could you sue the 10 who didn't? Were the 10 wrong in their opinion?

Now if you could "prove" that an editor was only listing his own sites and establish a pattern of excluding all others, you might be able take some legal action - but I suspect that would be very hard to do. There is no single editor that exclusively controls any one category. There are countless complaints from editors about how another editor has added or deleted sites in the category they have been assigned.

 

mjewel, please reread the previous posts.

The issue is whether a site is at a disadvantage due to unfair practices, not because the site sucks.

In other words, if you have a spammy site or even a non-spammy one that does not meet the criteria for inclusion in DMOZ, there is no case. But... if you can show that you do meet DMOZ inclusion criteria at least as well as listed sites and that other sites of similar quality are listed and yours is not, then I think you could have a case.

It has nothing to do with editors listing only their own sites - for one thing, how do I know what are actually his/her sites in this day of "private" domain registrations? or which sites belong to his/her friends? I don't. And it doesn't matter. The editor is not the issue.

Your example of movie reviews doesn't apply. That is (1) offering an opinion on a movie, and (2) offering a comparative review of quality and originality. DMOZ doesn't do that, or anything like that.

 

I won't say would, but it certainly could be unfair.
In all cases of suspected abuse report it to DMOZ. It will always be investigated.

Remember not listing or even not reviewing a specific site is not seen as abuse by DMOZ. But if the editor has only listed his own site and none of the other sites he most probably will be spoken to and if he doesn't listen he most probably will be removed.

But what if a editor has listed already 20 out of 100 suggested sites. He just needs more time to review the other suggestions. Unluckely for you he can only manage to review 5 sites each month (he has a life outside DMOZ which prevents more activity). This isn´t abuse. He is just volunteering as much time as he wants to DMOZ. We (the DMOZ editors) and you can not change anything about this.

 

One of the guidelines for DMOZ is that you compare it to other sites ALREADY listed and judge if the site being considered offers something that is noticeably unique and different. That is HIGHLY subjective.

DMOZ doesn't have rules for INCLUSION, they have guidelines for what should be considered. The take the approach of what should NOT be included - and then if a site meets those minimum requirements, then an editor should make a call as whether adding the site would offer something unique to the category. That sound almost exactly as what a movie reviewer does.

DMOZ is really about rules of what NOT to include, not what to list. That makes it's very hard to make a legal case. You can prove your site met all the requirements, but that doesn't mean it should have been included. An editor must be of the opinion that the site is offering something new. Proving an opinion is wrong is impossible by definition.

As far as private domain registrations, that is supposedly reason enough to deny a listing. You are supposed to check ownership of a domain to make sure someone isn't dominating a category, or as you said, owned by an editor (and not disclosed). Again, the vague guidelines don't make that a rule set in stone (to my knowledge), but leave it up to the editor.

As an editor (and believe it or not, I don't even have a site even remotely related) I try my best to follow the guidelines and include all sites that I feel are appropriate. I have nothing to gain by including or denying a site. A LOT of the sites are very close calls. I'm sure that some sites I have accepted on one day would not be accepted on another day and vice versa. I wouldn't be surprised if you have applied to be an editor before, and I would encourage you to do so again just to get an idea of how crazy the whole system is. It isn't as black and white as a lot of people think. It isn't like the Yahoo Directory where you pay your $299, and if you site meets a set of requirements, it is included.

 

That's really part of my point, mjewel. It is (sometimes) more about exclusion than inclusion and that's what opens up the whole process to an unfair practices issue.

Some time ago, I read a post somewhere from a DMOZ editor commenting on a real estate category. Now I have nothing to do with that industry personally. However, the editor's reply to an inquiry from a real estate site owner was NOT "your site doesn't meet our criteria" or "your site sucks" but rather "we already have X number of sites in that category - why would we want to add another one?".

So imagine you're a real estate company/site owner in that area. Your competitors are listed. You aren't. And you are told it won't happen because DMOZ feels it has enough sites already. You know that increasingly people looking for real estate are turning to the net to find properties. You also know that ranking well in search engines like Google is critical to being found in that market. You also know that a DMOZ listing can help you achieve a better Google ranking. What do you do?