[dajeffster]

The link you provided is not a dead link. The site is active.

[foetusized]

Quote

I'm obviously curious to know on what grounds dmoz persist in referencing this dead (and, in strictly legal terms, fraudulent) site, yet refuse to acknowledge the real thing.

It appears to be the lack of anyone editing within that category. Out of 8 submissions in that category, five were from you about this matter. I've made the change.

As a volunteer organization, we all pitch in and help, but there are areas of the directory that sometimes become neglected. There's a difference between refusal to make a change and the lack of someone to do the work. However, when such problems are pointed out, most all editors will do their best to fix them.

Hope this helps -- Foe

[foetusized]

The old listed link is not dead, but did contain information about the band's new domains http://www.galahadonline.com/ and http://www.galahadonline.co.uk/ , both of which forward to http://www.galahadonline.fsnet.co.uk/ which I listed. So it wasn't dead, but did give evidence that it was out-of-date and superceded by the new site -- Foe

[giz]

>> Instead of the Feedback form, why doesn't dmoz simply provide a link to this forum instead! <<

This forum is actually *unofficial*. It run by the Editor Community (a few prominent Metas). It is not run by dmoz or AOL/TimeWarner, neither do any of their *staff* participate in it (as far as I know). This forum hasn't been active very long.



>> Yet umpteen (well three or four!) communications to the dmoz organisation via the official Feedback form over the last few months on this particular topic go totally unacknowledged. <<

I already gave an answer in another thread where you made similar comments: http://www.resource-...#38;Number=6445

This was not a refusal to change the details, simply the fact that no-one had looked into that category for several months so your change note was still waiting to be actioned. It has been sorted now.

I haven't listed any new sites today. I have been going through doing quality control, moving back into unreviewed all those sites that are now unavailable. The automatic checker has flagged up thousands of sites as '404' today, so those have also got to be sorted out, along with all the other ongoing jobs.



[100]

[foetusized]

Quote

Yet umpteen (well three or four!) communications to the dmoz organisation via the official Feedback form...

Feedback on the main feedback form ( http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi ) goes to staff, and is likely to not get a response as they are quite busy and more concerned with the "big picture."

Feedback to specific editors (follow the link at the bottom of a category page to their profile, and follow the feedback link from their) is more likely to get results, but one's mileage may vary -- Foe

[dajeffster]

scormie,

You do have to realize, anyone can say a site should be removed, but that doesn't mean we will remove it.

Scenario: My site competes with your site. I contact ODP and say your site is "unofficial" and "damages the reputation of x." It doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that ODP should remove your site.

From an editor's persepective, how do we know? An editor will look at a site and if that editor feels the site has enough content and is useful, it is listed. Anonymous people saying a site should be removed could be trying to be helpful, just as easily as they could be someone trying to get their competition removed.

So please don't think we aren't hearing your requests.