How to get listed?

There is of course a recourse: Open Directory Public Abuse Report System.It is of utmost importance that you have all relevant information to substantiate your allegation.

 

Oh pulleaze...

The issue was raised previously. The promotion was withdrawn. He's still an editor. Brizzie has posted links indicating that it's not "illegal". Hence my comment about the Liberal party here: The last guy resigned because of allegations of expense account fraud. The investigation found that there was no evidence that he had comitted a crime per se but that he had in fact overcharged the public purse by a few hundred thousand dollars. Now the guy is suing for severance pay and wants his old job back. The fact that evidence of criminal behavior is lacking or that something isn't expressly prohibited doesn't make it morally or ethically acceptable.

 

I think all DMOZ editors are altruistic and out to benefit the entire internet community. They give their blood and sweat to make the internet-specifically and the world, in general a much better, and safer place for all of us.

You want the truth about DMOZ?

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in an internet that has Directories, and those Directories have to be guarded by men with keyboards. Who's gonna do it? You? You, punk Webmaster? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for low serps, and you curse DMOZ. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know - that your site's rejection, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that Directory -- you need me on that Directory. We use words like "backlinks," "content," "google." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the Internet that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard and become an editor. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
​

<bows>

 

That's Chinatown, Marge. And when it happens, you'll know what to do.

 

@ aeiouy -- Bravo!

...and thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

Perhaps this will help:

May 9, 2005
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/archive/index.php/any-tips-on-getting-into-dmoz/t-15622.html

But I was wrong: the site is in fact still there:

http://www.open-directory-status.com/

 

minstrel, this is what the guidelines say: Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges. If this statement seems vague and ambiguous, I will suggest contacting Netscape/AOL to rectify this. I have no doubts in understanding the underlying issue this statement is addressing.

 

riz, are you even reading this thread? Stop telling me what the DMOZ guidelines state about editor abuse. This is a DMOZ editor. DMOZ policy is not to give feedback to webmasters. macdesign is offering to sell that information. He is using his status as a DMOZ editor in an attempt to profit from that status.

One last time: I don't care whether or not this is explicitly forbidden by DMOZ policy. I think it is morally and ethically wrong. And it is a clear example of WHY much of the internet world sees DMOZ as corrupt.

 

The fact remains that the same information that DMOZ refuses to give out and editors defend that policy because "it encourages spam" is sold by an editor for a fee.

 

http://www.open-directory-status.com/faq.htm

http://www.open-directory-status.com/sample_report.htm

If you read the FAQ and check out the sample reports - it looks like this is something anyone with the knowledge of how to interpret the data readily available could do. An editor is allowed to do anything that anyone else without internal knowledge can legally do.

An editor is not required to follow the ethical guidelines of a "person in authority" to avoid even the potential implication of impropriety, because an editor is not a person in authority.

 

*shaking my head*

It's hard to tell whether some of you really don't get the point or if you just refuse to get the point...

When you see things like this, ask yourself this question: Does it really surprise you that DMOZ has such a negative reputation?

 

http://www.kenkai.com/seo-tools-page-header.php

 

DMOZ OFFICIAL POLICY IN ACTION
​

 

Boy I didn't think it took me that long to write a reply - the posts just keep piling up.

That's not quite true - automatic feedback is frowned upon. Providing information as to when an unreviewed suggestion is rejected is inappropriate. Giving feedback to webmasters about suggestions for minor improvements that would make a site listable (or listable in more than one category) is up to the individual editor. Giving feedback about where a site is listed is acceptable.

There are many times when feedback to a webmaster is appropriate (and done) - just as there are many times when it is inappropriate (such as someone who knowingly suggests a site to 100 different categories)

 

lmocr, you are still missing the point. macdesign is selling this information. macdesign is using his status as a DMOZ editor for personal profit.

Why don't you see a problem with that?

 

He's using RDF data. Nothing wrong or corrupt about using publicly available information. macdesign could offer such a service without being an editor.

The point I believe minstrel is getting at (but I could be wrong) is the way such a service might look to someone that doesn't understand mac is using the RDF data. To a point I can agree with this, if one doesn't understand the RDF dump, and doesn't understand the report comes from the publicly available information, it would seem corrupt. Just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means they need to be educated. (Sounds like a job for a PR person)

From reading the site, it's pretty obvious to me he's trying to tell potential customers he is using the RDF data and that the report will not include editor only information. The problem is most people would not bother to read the details.

Actually, it's a problem with society in general. People refuse to read. It's an on demand world and reading just slows things down. It's easier to read the headlines and draw conclusions, even if those conclusions are wrong.

 

That's part of it, DustyG - a point I've tried to make repeatedly. DMOZ sucks at public relations.

But it isn't all of it. This is a case of using one's position for personal profit. I don't know how many times I've said that in this thead. I can only conclude that many DMOZ editors don't have a problem with that.

And that astounds me.

It also worries me more than a little that in your last paragraph above you resort to the typical RZ strategy of blaming the rest of the world - anyone but a DMOZ editor, right?

 

It seems the DMOZ defender team needed a back up, so they called another one of editors to register and post.

DustyG, what section do you edit?

 

No he isn't though, he is/was doing something anyone can do without being an editor. How many times has that been said in this thread.

It is Resource Zone policy not to give status reports. RZ is not an official arm of DMOZ.

I would expand but real life intervenes...

 

No argument from me, there are many aspects DMOZ needs to address. Actually, there are many things currently being discussed "within the walls" and there have been steps taken to consider and hopefully provide improvements in many areas.

I respectfully disagree. What it is, is someone using publicly available information to provide reports to webmasters. If macdesign were not an editor, he would still be able to feed the RDF data into some sort of script and produce the same report.

I'm not saying I'm overly thrilled with the way it appears to some, but the bottom line is what he is doing has nothing to do with his editorship.

There are some editors that work in the online world (actually not as many as you might think... but regardless). It would be really hard to require them to give up their incomes to be a DMOZ editor. We have web designers, web site owners, even SEO types in our ranks and so long as they don't use their position to harm the directory, to benefit their site, or to give their customers an unfair advantage, then no problem.

But if they are, I would hope it would be brought to my (or any other editor's) attention. I've investigated many allegations of corruption and have no problem seeking the removal of any editor abusing their position.

Hey, it was a comment about people in general, just a little something life has taught me... most people don't read the instructions. I work with the public every day and it amazes me how many problems are self-induced because someone didn't read the instructions.

Customer: "Such and such is not working..."
Me: "OK, lets see if we can figure out what's wrong... flip it over, remove the battery cover and check to make sure the batteries are properly installed..."
Customer: "It needs batteries?"

So while you might not be thrilled with my generalization, it does happen to be drawn from my life experiences. (Not unlike your generalizations about editors drawn from your past experiences ) But I'm hoping we can both get past the other's use of generalizations so they won't detract from what we are saying.