No luck getting listed with a primo site... been told my competition is moderator

Not trying to get on any sides here but I was in the same boat with a site that I submitted. May I ask how you were told this was so? In our case for the site I submitted, the moderator would brag on the forums for this topic about how she was the mod and would only allow sites in that she wanted.

Again, not trying to pick sides here. Just curious.

 

Did you file an abuse report? Was the editor removed?

Just curious to know if you had reported it and if the outcome was obvious.

 

Actually I made a forum post about the issue and was told that the outcome was between DMOZ and the editor in question. Not sure if the editor was removed or not (I no longer deal with that topic much anymore and the site is long gone) but the topic is marked as being without a moderator and the questionable sites are still listed. I would prefer to not list the category in questionable sites (We're talking about a foolish television show I used to enjoy 10+ years ago) but a three thousand fanfiction story site with over 50k screen caps wasn't listed over a couple single page "OMG! This show is so cool!" sites on geocities that were. Make your own judgements there.

To be honest, I really am curious about how the poster found out. I understand the purpose of DMOZ and have in fact submitted sites to it even with this occurrence. Did two just yesterday in fact. I personally think the secretive nature of what goes on in the background does more harm than good though. I also think the policies seriously lack some basic manners. "Oh we may get back to you but chances are we never will and that's the way it is and you have to accept it" comes off as very rude to me.

But heck, if that's what they want to do with their site, so be it. It's not for me though.

edit: By the way, I'm trying to be polite here and see both sides. Just for reference. Seriously. I'm curious. Believe it or not.

 

Answer provided above made this post unrequired.

He typed too fast

 

You still believe in that load of _ _ _ _

 

Nope.

Just trying to find an example of it actually happening.

 

That's a tough one since that process does not exist.

 

What an odd thing to say; of course the process exists. Several regular posters here could testify that their editor accounts were closed, and this only happens if there's proven abuse of some sort.

What triggers an abuse investigation is irrelevant. It might be a public or internal abuse report or it might be a meta's spidey senses. Removal Procedures.

 

Actually his statement is probably somewhat true.

Considering every occupation known to man has someone involved who is corrupt, this includes cops, priests, lawyers, and others we put our trust in, only to have it tossed in the trash at some point.

Hence, there is every reason to believe DMOZ too has corruput editors..

So while it may seem hearsay from 3rd party, unfortunately there is a 100% chance that it is true as well.

 

Considering the poster hasn't logged in since the day after they posted this and that was a couple days ago and they posted elsewhere without coming back to this thread, I have a feeling that this topic isn't that important to them. Take that as you may but why don't we move on? We've all heard each other's opinions on the topic and this is all just more flamebait for each other.

 

I've seen no proof of abuse for the removal of any editor... and when I see proof given here on DP editors are quick to point out that its NOT proof.

So exactly what is proof?

I've certainly seen many editors get removed for abuse... but I've yet to see any proof of such abuse. I have seen nearly all the editors that have been removed for abuse stand up and say they have done nothing wrong however... so who am I to believe? The ODP that is not willing to accept proof or offer up any because they hide behind confidentiality guidelines, or the ex-editor with nothing to hide?

I ask again... what is proof?

 

Q, they won't answer that. You see. They have abuse reports reports and claims in one hand, they have a bunch of editors removed in the other hand. As long as they don't make public the connections between those events, nobody is going to see the corruption inside.

If they post here, they will avoid the subject.

 

What is your position within DMOZ that you should be privy to proof of abuse?

Do you have a "need" to know? Probably not, and in any organization those who do not "need" to know, usually don't

Walk into any jail or prison anywhere in the world, and 95% of the inmates will claim they are innocent.

So considering that fact, who do you believe now?

I know I would have a hard time believing those 95%

 

And likely bring up my edit count. It's odd that me listing my own site was/is bad for some reason, yet it's perfectly within the guidelines and if my site was not listable when I added it, it WOULD have been removed, as they certainly looked at it, especially when they called me a "digital point troll" on the internal forums...

I've been asking what type of proof is needed for nearly a year now, and for some reason no editor has yet to give an answer. It's clear that a COMPLETED transaction for a PAID LISTING with POSITIVE feedback is NOT PROOF... so I really do wonder what is.

Forms sighed in triplicate, mothers maiden name, DNA sample...

 

Well, it's quite simple. There is no enough proof for those who refuse to see.

 

Not true. I have read every word of this thread.

 

What you forget is that any court record is matter of public record and all the prisoners have gone through due process. On the other hand ex-editors have been convicted in secrecy by people like jim"noble" that any old posters in this forum is quite aware of their record of dishonesty and multiple accounts.

 

It's like being banned from any forum, say DP, everything is in the open here, isn't it? So DMOZ is out on its own everyone else gives full disclosure.

Hmm...something doesn't seem right about that last statement

 

DMOZ suppose to be a volunteer organization, isn't it? But it is anything, except an organization run by volunteers.

 

When editors get banned from places outside of DMOZ for ANY reason, it says a lot about their moral integrity... especially the ones claiming to be of the cloth...

You are correct though, getting banned from anyplace is generally something that is not talked about... HOWEVER most places do offer at least enough proof to the person being banned. The ODP can NOT claim that, DP can.