Dmoz Lawsuits

Don't fight it minstrel, we're all one big happy family. Hugs..

 

Hummm, does any one know a good lawyer (or a shrink)? ((Ooops, I meant a psychiatrist.))

We are family,,, I have all my sisters with me,,,, (yah, I know - stop singing, gb!)

 

I'm not sure your people understand who my people are. One of them is gworld.

 

And you two,,, (you and gworld) don't know who I am. Hugs all around!

 

And gworld, for all his bluster, is an editor and therefore a DMOZ person under the skin. He loves it so much he signs up time after time. So you are already a DMOZ person by association. Now where do you want to edit?

 

There is not a chance in hell of that happening with (1) the current chaos and ineptitude in even getting agreement on DMOZ's own rules and (2) the fact that DMOZ is still encouraging the practice of listing the kind of sites they have been listing and continue to list in Adult. Frankly, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to have my name associated with such an "organization".

 

With comments like "your people will hear from my people" and "I'm not sure your people understand who my people are", minstrel, you seem to be inviting someone to suggest that you are associated with a certain organization whose bad reputation is almost legendary.

I'm not going to go there.

 

Just as well, orlady. I think most people with a sense of humor would recognize those comments as posted in humor.

 

Minstrel, orlady's last post in this thread was posted in humor as well. You are all wonderfully witty and beautiful people. Hugs to all! So shoot me!

 

Hey now, lets not allow any shooting of dogs.

Besides, my Grandpa used to say if you shoot it, you gotta eat it.

 

I'm thinking that virtually all of the people defending DMOZ are either DMOZ editors or have a site listed in DMOZ.

If you didn't know that google's algo favored DMOZ listed sites, let this be a newsflash to you, it does! If you didn't know that DMOZ editors are allowed to sell withing their own catagory, let me clue you in, they do! Do you beleive that is a conflict of interest? If not, explain why not.

As for as the premis for this litigation being baseless, I'm sure a major class action firm wouldn't take the case if it were not legit, don't you agree?

The time has come for DMOZ editors to be bent over much in the same way they've bent over their competiton. Karma is a MF, don't you agree?

All I can say is this. Yes it does.

 

I'm hardly a defender of DMOZ. I'm definitely not an editor. And I do have some sites listed.

But that doesn't mean I don't think your post is baloney.

 

Much of what you are saying, cleanairguy, apart from being baloney is very close to libelous. Perhaps 7500 editors should sue you, don't you agree?

It is somewhat foolish to launch legal action against a major corporation when clearly, from your statements, you have so little actual knowledge of what you are talking about. It is a guaranteed route to bankruptcy. Let us know where your cardboard box is located in a year's time and we'll do a collection for a can of beans.

I am not an editor though I was. I don't defend DMOZ where it is in the wrong. There are about 8 sites listed to which I have some affiliation. None of my own have particularly good PR as I don't have the time to devote to promoting them properly - the DMOZ listing has zero effect.

From another post on this forum -

I assume that none of these are DMOZ listed but clearly you have got the hang of getting good PR without a DMOZ listing.

Looking at http://www.google.com/Top/Shopping/Home_and_Garden/Climate_Control/Air_Cleaners/ none of them seem to have done so well as a PR7.

If you have been spamming DMOZ and Google with your air purifier sites frankly you deserve to lose your shirt on a futile legal action. Sorry, I won't be contributing personally to that can of beans collection. And I do hope someone from Google is watching so they can dig out your PR7 air purifier related spam and remove it, perhaps adjusting their algorythms to stop people like you destroying the value of the search engine.

 

Brizzie as much as I tend to agree with you on most subjects, this one I must disagree. As you all know my only area is real estate, therefore I can only comment on what I know pertaining to this area. Take Las Vegas real estate as an example, 9 of the top 10 listed sites have Dmoz listings as of the top 10 last week.

Now this may not be hardcore proof but I believe it shows that a listing in Dmoz does carry some weight with Google. Las Vegas real estate is one of the most competitive phrases to get in any real estate market. I have always said if a true Seo wants to find a difficult phrase to Seo for try Las Vegas real estate...that will put some hair on your chest..LOL.

 

It's not really that it has zero effect. It's that it doesn't have any special effect deriving from the fact that it's a DMOZ link. It isn't any more important than an equivalent link from any other equal PR page with the same number of outgoing links. This, the claim that a DMOZ listing can make or break a website just isn't true - in any industry.

Non-DMOZ listed websites outperform DMOZ listed websites all the time.

 

Interesting discussion, I'm sorry I missed it.

From what I've read, anyone hoping to start a lawsuit for being excluded would first have to prove that their site complied with the guidelines, their suggestion complied with the guidelines, and had been submitted to the appropriate category. On that basis alone, the chance of a successful suit fall to near zero.

Almost 999 of one thousand declined suggestions could easily be shown to be non-compliant, and therefore ineligible to be listed.

Of the one in a thousand left, most would - wait for it - get accepted.

So finding that needle in a haystack - sorry, that declined site that was compliant - would be difficult enough. To then demonstrate a Lee Harvey Oswald / Grassy Knoll conspiracy to the court's satisfaction would be, shall we say, "difficult".

And it doesn't really need a lawyer to see that, does it?

 

More fundamentally than all that, they would have to show that dmoz has a legal obligation to list submitted sites that meet the guidelines. That's impossible (0 chances out of 1000). Dmoz has no legal obligation to the people who suggest sites.

 

I would be happy to give you a short little legal lesson. Most of this would fall under the UCC code as it would apply to civil action. § 1-303

Also included in this legal who's who would be... Copyright, Defamation ( this will be a hard one for some of the editors ) Links to copyrighted material has been ruled by some federal courts as being illegal. You say editors go out and find sites. What if those sites dont want Dmoz to link to their copyrighted material. This is called contributory infringement and can be pursued through civil court.

Defamation is simple, your description may not describe this object in a suitable manner. Example: you call someone a real estate agent and they are a Realtor.

If it can be shown that Dmoz conspires to either add or exclude sites based on bias, favoritism or Restrictive Trade Practices that would meet the first obligation of the courts.

Dmoz through the rejection of some sites, editor applications, site inclusions has engaged in unfair or predatory practices which has restricted, hindered or eliminate actual or potential competition, even present and past editors have admited to this.

If it can be shown that Dmoz has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices or unfair methods of competition it would be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

This is one of your own


If it can be proved where an editor has monetarily gained by excluding competition from a category that constitutes fraud and violates the FTC rules of the Monopoly & Restrictive Trade Practices. Which IMO would meet the courts criteria for civil action. So your excuse of this is our directory will not hold water in a US court.

This is the statement from the social contract. I dont see the above post by a very well respected internet guru as being free.

Dmoz published specific rules for websites to follow, yet those that meet guidelines dont get included. As many editors have said your guidelines are not arbitrary, so this can only lead us to believe they are aimed at restraint of trade.

This leads me to this quote from an editor.

Even those who use to edit for Dmoz know the internal issues you face. Let me point out another quote from a past editor.

This kind of sums it up. Will a single person file suit against Dmoz/AOL...I doubt it, hell I have plenty of money but why waste thousands on attorney fees to get listed. I prefer to let public presure, media and govermental agencies take care of it.

Are some of the things Dmoz is doing illegal...YES. However as the frustration grows and more is exposed about Dmoz, at some point these people will find the right law firm to handle a class action and you guys will soon be out of a job/money pit. Hell the FTC has already settled a case with AOL over unfair practices. This kind of leads me to believe that with enough complaints to the FTC they might look in to this.

If anyone is interested the FTC phone number is 1-877-382-4357


One of the signs of a corrupt system is its inability to accept criticism. For years webmasters have asked Dmoz to change, for years Dmoz has ignored them. Once webmasters decide to band together, whether through legal channels or public outcry Dmoz is history.

 

Aren't they both the same in description that practically buy, sell properties ? Nothing meant here just asking.

 

That's an inaccurate reading of the social contract, lasvegashomes. Anyone who offers a dmoz listing in exchange for payment or favors is attempting to sell stolen or nonexistent goods -- something that they do not have the authority to sell. Treat them as you would a sender of Nigerian e-mail spam (for example, report them to the FTC).

Furthermore, any dmoz editor who solicits or accepts payment for site listings will lose editing privileges. If you know of such a person, report them using the abuse-reporting system on dmoz.org -- that system is far more effective at getting them removed than ranting here or in a blog.

Additionally, editors using their editing privileges to further their own personal or business interests at the expense of others will be removed when identified -- please report what you know using the abuse-reporting form. Most ex-editors who claim to have been fired for something like "criticising how ODP operated" were actually removed for abuse (or maybe they criticized ODP for not giving them free rein to list their customers' sites all over the directory ).