DMOZ Submission Reward - $1K

Those are the rules, it isn't abuse. Most sites are added to the directory by experienced editors with thousands, up to hundreds of thousands, of edits to their name - maybe 95% of sites are handled by these people. And the vast majority have nothing to do with web services. If they have their own site it is likely to be a hobby site. If they have added their own site(s) in the process they have more than complied.

I think it likely that there would be a lot less editors. A large number come across the invitation to edit when trying to suggest their own site. They usually submit their own site as one of the examples. When a meta checks them they will ensure that this personally-owned site is listable and listable in that category. The new editor is also obliged to declare any affiliated sites and checks are made to make sure they are being honest about that. Any hint of an omission and there will be a rejection. The new editor is then monitored regularly by metas and editalls to see what they are up to. Any hint of self-promotion and they are out on their ear. But many of those who join and list their own site get caught by the editing bug and stay and add thousands upon thousands.

I am sure it happens. I know it happens because I have come across it a maybe 5 times. This is no secret and is the reason for the Report Abuse link. Always in small and obscure categories so the damage overall is minimal. The process is to report the miscreant, though often they have left the building (and won't be allowed to return). You then tidy up any damage that has been done including removing any sites added that are not up to standard. The point is that wherever abuse of this nature occurs, whether it is spotted by another editor or by an outsider, it will be found sometimes sooner and sometimes later. And is then dealt with quite severely. It is a real pain in the butt - the last thing I want to do is to go into a category I am not interested in and fix it - so there is no sympathy.

But there is something else in that quote - competitors - DMOZ doesn't care about who competes with who (unless it suggests abusive editing). The primary player in a particular field may not have the most definitive site and it is the site being judged not the owner. Take real estate. I have listed 3 sites in a town's category then opened the 4th. Nothing except a request for my email address and they will get back to me. Not a chance in hell. Or let me see their listings. Not a chance in hell. Yet they may be by far the biggest real estate agency in town. Do I care? No. They may have the best selection but because I can't see it I can't judge. I'm not, but suppose I was also a real estate agent in that town. That big player might lodge a complaint against me but there is no case to answer. So every case is treated on its merits.

There is a potential risk with the 5% of sites handled by less experienced/known editors. But only a low risk because they will all have been checked out quite thoroughly. And the risk is primarily on the less commercial categories newer editors are allowed rights to. As I say the monitoring generally catches the worse offenders but some do slip through and by keeping a low profile avoid detection for longer. But they all get caught in the end.

In my own experience when a report has been made by me it has been handled within days - needed because a metas need to gather and review the evidence. Sometimes cases take longer because getting the evidence together can be time-consuming. In one case I know of it took about 18 months to nail the guy - eventually he showed his hand and was kicked out. Editors are often the subject of spurious abuse reports or those founded on misunderstanding of a situation - it is right that the evidence they are abusive is very carefully considered because the consequences are complete and total ostracisation.

 

True, but if people spent more time listening than talking, then people wouldn't have to post the same things again and again trying to get thru. That goes for people on both sides of the fence actually.

 

Why should I listen to you? You're not an editor. You don't know what goes on it the super-secret editors playground. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

 

my post

The rep I've received.


Please explain!

(I'm not complaining about the rep, was only 1 point which means nothing, but the principal and the message which makes no sense to me. If I don't see eye to eye with DMOZ, does that make me less of a grown-up?)

 

I've just got one too....from the other side of the coin. So don't feel you're being victimized.

I take it red is not good ??? How terribly lame and the message was not particularly polite either.

Whoever it was, in the best of grammatically correct british language, "Up yours pal".

Glad I got that off my chest and at least I'm not hiding anon about it.

As you were chaps and chappesses. I've got some listing to do.

Shygirl xxx

 

My red is for

Sure - whatever.