Welcome to Resource Zone.
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

filemakers

Thread starter #1
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
They suggest that the editors must have integrety.

We are a property website and we happen to know that a member of our competators from <Competitor's name removed for your own protection> is a editor on the section we have requested to be listed on, we have seen the people come to out site from the Dmoz editors page, and we dont get approved, We cant help but believe they are abusing their power to affect our rankings, I think its appauling!
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Location
Southern England
Vague and unsubstantiated accusations don't help anybody and I've removed your competitor's name from your post to avoid possible legal complications.

Suspected editorial abuse is best reported by visiting the category in question, clicking on the report abuse/spam link at top right and filling out the form.
 
Thread starter #3
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Already did 8 months ago, nothing was done then either, whilst I appreciate you defending Dmoz is something you would do as a editor, you have to be open to genuine comments of corruption in a open project, which is losing credability daily, and the sooner bing and google stop using it to point score from, the sooner the corruption will be reduced.
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Location
Southern England
Already did 8 months ago, nothing was done then either
I can find no such unresolved report in the system and I've also searched all reports, resolved or otherwise, for your email address and the domain name. When you made the report, you would have been sent an immediate response by our systems quoting a reference number (eg 730748898016155158436e8fcda59291). Perhaps you could let me know it - or even the actual date that you made the report.

whilst I appreciate you defending Dmoz is something you would do as a editor
Not defending but trying to investigate. I'm a meta editor and investigating abuse is one of the things that I do. Sometimes, I find it :(.

I can see that you've suggested your website to three different categories - one at UK level (January, May and December) and two different localities in January. It offers no locality specific services so I can't imagine why the latter. Incidentally, our Submission Guidelines, that you agreed you'd read on each occasion, require that a website be suggested just once to the one best category.

If you reported the abuse 8 months ago, that would make it some time in April - around 3 months after you first suggested it. Be aware that failure to list a website in a time scale desired by a website owner is not editorial abuse. Rejecting a website for no good reason is editorial abuse.

That national level category is much abused by your industry sector which seems unable to read the bright red large font warning just above where it enters their website's URL. In consequence, it suffers from a huge amount of spam. It's no fun editing there in the hope of finding a gem amongst the rubbish. I know, I've tried.

There is no assigned editor for that category or its parents until we reach Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom where there are several senior editors named. That one of them works for your competitor seems unlikely.

You might have misunderstood our objectives and how we operate here. ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby. Editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not primarily a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them.

Some volunteer will process your listing suggestion in time but we can't predict who or when that might be. Elapsed times can range from a few days to a few years. There is no need to re-suggest your website and doing so could be counter-productive because a later suggestion overwrites any earlier one.

That's as much time as I'm willing to spend on your case because I think it's all conjecture on your part with no hard evidence. If you have some, please report it properly.