[submitted via "report abuse" on November 15, 2008]
Dear Meta Editor,
I'm writing to report an instance of an editor abusing his or her editorial privileges.
I run a business called "".
Customers send us their keypunch cards, and we convert the cards to a modern digital form.
We recover data.
On September 16, we submitted our URL for consideration by the Open Directory.
We submitted our business to the Computers/Hardware/Storage/Data_Recovery/ category.
The editor listed our business promptly, as I'm sure your records show.
On October 1, only 2 weeks later, America Online (which hosted our website at that time)
notified all customers that AOL would terminate its hosting service at the end of October.
Naturally we got busy and moved all of our websites.
On October 8 we completed the move and notified our Open Directory editor of the change of address.
(The category is currently edited by "clement" and "bencarmitchel".)
We explained the reason for the move:
"AOL will no longer offer hosting service after October, so we bought a domain and moved the business."
Frequent checking showed that (by October 22) the editor(s) had made numerous changes to the category,
but had not included the address of our new website,
even though our old web page gave the new address (as Google cache will show you).
On October 31, right on schedule, AOL turned off the old server.
On November 1 we checked the Open Directory listing for our business.
It had still not been changed.
We submitted the change of address a second time, writing:
*** SECOND NOTICE *** This is a change of address. AOL no longer offers hosting service. This forced us to move our website. So we bought a domain and moved the business.
[This change-of-address request was first submitted to you October 8, 2008 (24 days ago).
Analysis of your page shows that you made numerous other changes to your category but you ignored this change-of-address request.
A report of your inaction is being sent to Open Directory management.]
A routine check of the category listing on November 7 showed that our business's listing was
DELETED.
Subsequently we asked the editors to explain. We were ignored.
The timing of this deletion suggests that this is a case of retaliation by an editor against a user.
We suspect this is a case of editor abuse as described in the page "Editor Abuse and Removal", http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html ,
which reads in part:
The ODP has a no non-sense policy toward those who chose to
abuse the the directory and refuse to follow basic editing policies. It's extremely important that Metas combat abuses by acting
swiftly and severely. Abuse is distinguished from honest editorial mistakes, which may be due to gaps in knowledge and understanding. Abuse should receive
the harshest blows from the Meta community.
Because the deletion of our listing gives the appearance of retaliation,
we ask that you investigate this situation,
and if you find that the editor(s) acted improperly,
we ask that the editor(s) involved be reprimanded and terminated from the Open Directory.
We take professionalism very seriously, and I'm sure the Open Directory does too.
Sincerely,
(Mr.)
[Letter 110708-A]
Thanks for your abuse report regarding
.
The former was delisted by one of our robots and the latter is currently
awaiting evaluation in the more appropriate
Computers/Data_Formats/Conversion category - to where it was correctly
sent by an editor. 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.
The threatening tone of the 'second notice' you sent to our editors
suggests that you haven't understood how we work. ODP is a volunteer
organisation and editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as
much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have
no system to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do.
ODP is not a free listing service for website owners and it does not
attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales
desired by them.
We discourage editors from responding to emails because the ensuing
conversation often ends badly. Editors are, of course, free to act upon
any information that they contain.
There is no evidence of editorial abuse.
--
Jim Noble
Meta Editor
Problems with Mr. Noble's position statement:
Mr. Noble is playing the "Customer Idiot" card, in which all staff misconduct is painted as the customer's failure to understand.
Mr. Noble apparently feels that the alleged "
threatening tone" is a worse crime than editors not doing their jobs!
In our experience, this is not the first time that a category reassignment (with an extended stay in limbo) has been used as a
punitive measure against users who complain about the Open Directory's slow service.
Let's be real: When you call the phone company and tell them you're moving, they don't immediately
cut off your phone service and then wait a month before re-establishing it; they do the connect and the disconnect at the same time, because they're considerate of your downtime. And also:
If editors were really so interested in reducing their workloads, then the deleting editor would simply move the listing in one step and have it over with --
delete from one category, insert in another -- just to save a step; clearly it's more
mental work when TWO editors have to get involved and must consider the move on two separate occasions.
The only credible reason for the first editor not to complete the move is when the destination category is controlled by a different editor (editors naturally
respect each other's territory). But a quick check finds that Computers/Data_Formats/Conversion
*has* no editor. Our listing was going into limbo and the editor knew it.
Mr. Noble uses the language "
where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish" as a
euphemism for editorial laziness. We encourage Mr. Noble to find a job in a business having customer service as its primary focus -- we believe he will come to understand that "doing as you please"
is not the standard of professional behavior.
Apparently the only "no-nonsense policy" Open Directory has is toward its users!
It is important that other users of the Open Directory be aware of these patterns of editorial action.
It is important that the designers of new search engines be aware of the deficiencies and failings of
outdated technologies of the past.
An early list of Open Directory problems can be found here.
Concepts: search engine, search engines, rating, ratings, rated, ranking, rank, de-index, de-indexed,
dmoz, dmoz problems, dmoz complaints, open directory problems, open directory complaints, reviews of the open directory