Dmoz Lawsuits

yeah i guess the same as any other country in that respect.

 

That business about there are X number of sites already listed ... why would we want to list another one ...

If it were a real estate agency or agent in a town then that would be a completely wrong statement to make - every agent should have a unique set of properties being marketed so each and every one would be listable as long as they met the criteria - it would be abusive to reject a site on the basis of already got enough listing in this category.

In other circumstances the comment might have some validity. For example let's say the site was a multiple listings site - different countries, different terms - but the sort of site agents use to market properties above and beyond their own. And this site contained the same listings as other sites already listed. Then it serves no purpose to list it - it does not add anything new in terms of information. And if DMOZ had to list every competitor site in every market - real estate isn't a good example really as every agent has a different set of unique products - but say contact lens sellers or sunglasses - it would end up useless as a directory. If you want competitive choice then search engines are the only real way to find what you want.

An example of where this has already happened is with web designers - there are so many web designers listed, tens of thousands, that as a directory it is useless - who would ever want to find a designer whose name starts with T because that is how they are categorised after breaking down by very broad criteria? You are more likely to want a local web designer so the Regional branch where only a handful of designers in your town are listed is a far better option for someone using a directory to find a service. If you want one that specialises in a particular commercial market and don't care where they are located then a search engine is your best bet, DMOZ can't do that one very well.

So it depends entirely on context as to whether the statement would be valid or not. It isn't easy to see where a standard real estate agent's site might fall foul but you would have to reference the site and category to get a proper valid comment.

Going back to whether you could sue DMOZ for an editor listing only their own site and rejecting competitors - only guessing but as a corporate entity DMOZ would probably use the clause in the editor guidelines that prohibits an editor from that type of action.

"In exchange for the opportunity to serve as a volunteer editor, you agree to waive any claim that relates to, arises from, or purports to arise from your status or activities as an editor." is a clause on the copyright page - basically I would take this, as a layman, as being a warning that if you get into legal problems because of editing activities then you are on your own.

BTW as far as I know there was a single case of legal action brought against an editor by a competitor. It was a federal case brought by tax lawyers J K Harris. Injunctions were involved but I don't know the full details or the final outcome - if anyone can dig out the information it may be useful.

The primary difficulty would be to prove an editor was discriminating against a competitor. In all cases of allegations I have looked into the accused editor was entirely innocent and the rejection of the competitors site was made by another or even multiple other editors from all corners of the world. In all of those cases the reason for rejection was noted and was confirmed as proper by reference to guidelines. The difficulty with starting a case is that you have absolutely no idea which editor made the decisions. And you could spend a lot of money only to find your "abusive competitor" in Connecticut is actually a farmer in Japan or a South African kindergarten teacher. And how do you go about suing them even if you still thought you had a case? The only way I would think you could do it is if the abusive editor themself somehow admitted it - the idiots do have a tendency sometimes to boast about how they abused their position.

If you went for DMOZ the organisation then you are taking on the might of AOL's legal department - probably not a wise idea financially for all but the very wealthy - and then over something as intangible and indeterminable in value as a DMOZ listing it is probably not worth the hassle. We all know you can get good Google PR without a DMOZ listing - that would be a very difficult to challenge defence against claims of damage IMO.

The only practical solution is to use the Abuse Report system which will result in the editor concerned being removed if there is evidence of abuse. At least the block is removed if there was an unfair block actually in place. How do you tell if an editor is no longer an editor? Check their profile page and if there is no link to send them feedback then they are no longer an editor.

 

In the real estate MLS example you mention, brizzie, would it not be more reasonable to ensure that NONE are listed rather than creating an advantage for certain realtors and a relative disadvantage for their competitors?

Note: unlike some of the posters in this thread, I'm not talking about editor corruption - I'm talking about policy (and I guess given Annie's comments what is and is not DMOZ policy, since again it seems there are ambiguities and differences in interpretation). The issue of editor corruption is a different one.

 

That would be a way of doing it and it has been done before for some categories of sites. Getting agreement to take down categories built up over years of hard work is rarely easy though. But in this case it really would be important to know the site and category to make a judgement - I don't personally recall ever listing an MLS site and I don't recall ever coming across a category for MLS sites, only ones for real estate agencies and agents where I cannot imagine how a limit of any kind on the number of site could ever be justifiable. In reality most categories of any popularity will reach a certain point where editor interest in adding more simply dries up and that is what prevents new additions, not any policy or deliberate moving on.

Yep, that causes all kinds of problems internally and externally. I understand there may be moves to update documentation starting next year but it is a major undertaking. I'm told by those in the know about such things that trying to find a form of words that everyone understands is a hell of a job. What I think is crystal clear comes over to someone else as totally ambiguous. Having 100 nationalities all with different ways of using the English language can be a issue in itself. Having resigned as an editor no doubt I'll start getting out of date fairly soon with what is going on but I do hope they continue with the intentions.

 

The evidence points to the google algorithm favoring DMOZ sites. For commercial sites, having a "bad apple" editor adding his own sites and rejecting competitors does cause large money damages. These facts can be easily proven and will be someday in court. The editor will have also be subject to litigation regardless of the disclaimer. There is a principle in law that states just becaue someone signs their life away, if you bend them over and do them wrong, they can sue you.

Google is liable for negligence as well .....they should know that the commercial catagory editors are allowed to have a conflict of interest by selling in their catagory. Full discovery will open a can of worms so big I predict it will bring google down. Yes, I said that, bring google down. Nobody will trust google commercial search results after all of this starts to get debated in the public eye. Stay tuned for more info on this subject....it's going to become very relevant in about 1 week.

 

Really? What evidence is that, exactly?

Predicting things about Google is a mug's game but it's your dime - knock yourself out. Just one point though: Have you not noticed that this has already been and is already being "debated in the public eye", to use your words?

What is?

 

With all the SEO going on nobody should have trusted search results for commercial sites during the last years.

Why didn't you listen to your husband.

 

Ok so lets have a big court case and point out that Google and Dmoz are in the wrong because webmasters miss out on revenue.

Then Dmoz lists everyone and anyone who applies within a 2 week time frame ( or else the cat editor is 'sacked' as a volunteer ).

Sooo that means absolutely everyone who asks will be listed, because they all say they have the best site going and who are Google/Dmoz to argue anyway ???

and then... In the words of every candid camera show, You tell me ? what happens next...

 

Nothing, zero. Except the plaintiff(s) losing their shirt. DMOZ and Google general search engine do not provide services to webmasters, therefore do not charge webmasters for services that don't exist, and have absolutely no duty towards webmasters in respect of those non-existent services. They can include or exclude whatever they want. Exclusion does not cause any damage to a business, it only gives a debateable minor boost to businesses that are included, a minor boost any decent webmaster will tell you is easily overcome using other legitimate SEO techniques. Since only 1% of listable sites are actually listed, on average only 1% of anyone's competition will be getting any kind of even minor benefit.

You cannot force a website with a good PR to publicise another website so they can benefit from the PR boost a link would provide. And that applies from the smallest to the largest. From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs - I think that one went out with the Berlin Wall.

And DMOZ is the wrong target altogether. The only reason a DMOZ listing is of any possible PR value is because another company gives it credibility, and that is outside DMOZ control.

I will provide some evidence that a DMOZ listing provides little if any commercial advantage. This is about PR right? So if a site is listed on DMOZ you would expect to see a PR boost then. Scoot round some Google directory categories - DMOZ clones - and order in PR rank. Notice something? Sites with PR0. Sites with PR1. Now prove damages for exclusion from DMOZ.

I predict that if you are betting money on it you'll be living in a cardboard box by next winter. And deserve to be - with all the free advice, expertise, and knowledge available here and elsewhere a webmaster has no-one but themselves to blame if their site performs badly. Blaming the likes of Google and DMOZ is just pathetic.

 

^^^ What brizzie said.

 

The google algorithm based on their patent applications and also doing searches for commercial products does favor DMOZ listed websites. If one can prove 1) DMOZ editors are sellers withing their own catagory thus have a conflict of interest 2) Said editors are not adding quality sites and adding many of their own sites to gain a market advantage....then said editors would have caused financial damage to the relevant, quality websties they censored and google would have been neglignet for their reliance upon such an obviously tainted source.

Anytime someone cost you money, you can sue. (and win) I predict google will not value DMOZ listing in the future. I also predict editors will be sued on a case by case basis once discovery determines all of the DMOZ editors going back several years. I know a class action is going to happen on this subject. You can say you heard it here first and pat me on the back later, lol.

 

No it doesn't. Please specify where Google has ever said or done anything that you think would support this conclusion.

Everything after that opening statement is invalid because your premise is incorrect.

Or how about we just smack you upside the head instead?

 

What are you smoking?

 

This may very well be the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this forum. Congratulations!

 

Well, I suppose it is true that any time someone costs you money, you can try sueing... But you are unlikely to win if there is no legal basis for the claim. (And if you want to file baseless lawsuits, you will have to pay your attorney in advance. )

 

Sure, you can sue (and be counter-sued for bring a frivolous lawsuit). Enjoy your cardboard box.

 

All these DMOZ people agreeing with me.

Something... wrong...

Must... get... to... ER... stat!

 

But you seem so lovable, minstrel!

 

And you agreeing with all these DMOZ people...

Could be the start of a beautiful relationship

 

No. I am definitely NOT agreeing with DMOZ people. THEY are agreeing with ME. Stop this attempted reputation smear immediately or your people will hear from my people.