I was deleted from several other forums.  Seems there is nothing you
can do when ODP has no more use for you.


I applied in December 2002 and was accepted on my second try. I was
open about my affiliation to www.area-codes.com from the very
beginning (also the category which I applied for).

After reading hundreds of "new editor" threads in the forums, I
figured I was ready to give it a try and start editing.  I edited my
category to the best of my ability and when I was done, I asked for
a "category check" which means that an editor will look at what you
have done to date and tell you where you may have made mistakes.
This is a recommended course of action and I agree a good way to make
sure you are on the right path with your editing.

My category check turned out "good" from an "experienced" editor.  So
I was happy to be doing a good job and applied for another category.

When a "Meta" reviewed my application, I was rejected because my
original category was not properly edited.  So of course I brought up
the fact that I had my category checked and it was "good", to which
the response was, well the editor who checked your category missed
some stuff.    That was fine with me, as everyone makes mistakes,
even experienced editors.  I corrected them, reapplied, and was
accepted to the new category.

When I was done editing the second category, I applied for a third.
One of the sites that I was submitting for review and inclusion was a
site that I had an affiliation with, which I listed in the
application.  What I had read many times in the ODP forums was that
if you are honest about your affiliations, your affiliation will not
be held against you, as long as you are fair, which I tried to be.  I
understood completely why I should not have an unfair advantage over
other sites listed.

I was rejected from the third category twice, the first Meta said it
was because I put "United States" in the title of the site I was
affiliated with and didn't put that same "United States" in the other
two sites on the application which gave the site I was affiliated
with an unfair advantage.  I personally did not understand this but I
left it to the judgement of the more experienced.  I asked if this
was the only problem and the answer was "yes".  I asked the Meta if
they could just resubmit the application without the "United States"
in the title, the answer was "no, sorry, you have to reapply".  Of
course, this is more work to do.    But I did it.

Shortly thereafter, I resubmitted without "United States" in the
title.  I few days passed and I was rejected again by a different
Meta.  Of course I emailed  her and asked how I could possibly be
rejected after complying with the first Metas recommendation.  The
response was now that the she (second Meta) didn't understand what I
meant by the phrase "zip + 4 lookup".  It's a pretty common phrase in
the zip code arena but because she didn't understand it, I was
rejected for a second time.  She also listed some problems with the
second category that I had  and the original Meta did not mention.
At this point it is getting quite frustrating.  I am a CPA and am
very busy outside of doing this volunteering and do not have time to
play games like this.  This letter is my final service to the ODP.

So as you can see, they do not communicate amongst themselves and do
not look at what  has transpired in the past.  For everyone, a waste
of time.

I asked if this same problem would come up everytime I added a new
category and the editor said "we DO talk amongst ourselves and I will
make a note that this was already resolved".  All is fine and dandy.
Of course they made me submit for a THIRD time which I did.

A couple days later, they removed my login ID.  Judge, jury, and
executioner.  No warning, no advice, nothing at all.  One minute all
is peachy, the next you are gone.

The original reason I became an editor was because my site was taking
so long to become submitted to ODP, so I figured I could so something
to help out by volunteering.

TO TOP EVERYTHING OFF, I looked shortly after I couldn't log in to
see if my site was still listed and it was gone.  All this work I did
for the ODP and they delist my site which is one of the best sites
for the category which it was in.  I know I am a little biased about
my own site but I don't think you can find a more appropriate and
professional site for that category.
www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_Code
s
My site again is  www.area-codes.com

So that means they are turning this into something personal which
shows their level of professionalism.   If they had a problem with my
editing and they felt it couldn't be corrected, fire me, it's
completely understandable.  But by taking my site off of ODP, they
are showing that they really do not care about the quality of the
directory, all they care about is protecting their little
dictatorship where they do not allow people to defend themselves in
any way.  All their decisions are final and nobody but themselves
know what they based their decision on.

I have been very patient with them, never arguing , no dissention,
always polite.  I really do not know why they removed me.  Following
their own rules as I did, apparently means nothing.

I have been building my area codes site to something where it will
include over 70,000 pages of content.  It will  be one of the most
useful sites of its kind .

If you read my wonderful experience here, at least you won't be
surprised if it happens to you.  Take my advice, submit your site and
be patient.  Do not volunteer to edit - as this could happen to you
and if it does, they have benefited from your work and you lose your
time, effort, and listing in the directory.

----- Original Message -----

From: lewised62

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:08 PM

Subject: [xodp] Judge, jury, and executioner.

I was deleted from several other forums.  Seems there is nothing you
can do when ODP has no more use for you.


I applied in December 2002 and was accepted on my second try. I was
open about my affiliation to www.area-codes.com from the very
beginning (also the category which I applied for). 

After reading hundreds of "new editor" threads in the forums, I
figured I was ready to give it a try and start editing.  I edited my
category to the best of my ability and when I was done, I asked for
a "category check" which means that an editor will look at what you
have done to date and tell you where you may have made mistakes. 
This is a recommended course of action and I agree a good way to make
sure you are on the right path with your editing.

My category check turned out "good" from an "experienced" editor.  So
I was happy to be doing a good job and applied for another category.

When a "Meta" reviewed my application, I was rejected because my
original category was not properly edited.  So of course I brought up
the fact that I had my category checked and it was "good", to which
the response was, well the editor who checked your category missed
some stuff.    That was fine with me, as everyone makes mistakes,
even experienced editors.  I corrected them, reapplied, and was
accepted to the new category.

When I was done editing the second category, I applied for a third. 
One of the sites that I was submitting for review and inclusion was a
site that I had an affiliation with, which I listed in the
application.  What I had read many times in the ODP forums was that
if you are honest about your affiliations, your affiliation will not
be held against you, as long as you are fair, which I tried to be.  I
understood completely why I should not have an unfair advantage over
other sites listed. 

I was rejected from the third category twice, the first Meta said it
was because I put "United States" in the title of the site I was
affiliated with and didn't put that same "United States" in the other
two sites on the application which gave the site I was affiliated
with an unfair advantage.  I personally did not understand this but I
left it to the judgement of the more experienced.  I asked if this
was the only problem and the answer was "yes".  I asked the Meta if
they could just resubmit the application without the "United States"
in the title, the answer was "no, sorry, you have to reapply".  Of
course, this is more work to do.    But I did it.

Shortly thereafter, I resubmitted without "United States" in the
title.  I few days passed and I was rejected again by a different
Meta.  Of course I emailed  her and asked how I could possibly be
rejected after complying with the first Metas recommendation.  The
response was now that the she (second Meta) didn't understand what I
meant by the phrase "zip + 4 lookup".  It's a pretty common phrase in
the zip code arena but because she didn't understand it, I was
rejected for a second time.  She also listed some problems with the
second category that I had  and the original Meta did not mention.  
At this point it is getting quite frustrating.  I am a CPA and am
very busy outside of doing this volunteering and do not have time to
play games like this.  This letter is my final service to the ODP.

So as you can see, they do not communicate amongst themselves and do
not look at what  has transpired in the past.  For everyone, a waste
of time. 

I asked if this same problem would come up everytime I added a new
category and the editor said "we DO talk amongst ourselves and I will
make a note that this was already resolved".  All is fine and dandy.
Of course they made me submit for a THIRD time which I did.

A couple days later, they removed my login ID.  Judge, jury, and
executioner.  No warning, no advice, nothing at all.  One minute all
is peachy, the next you are gone.

The original reason I became an editor was because my site was taking
so long to become submitted to ODP, so I figured I could so something
to help out by volunteering.

TO TOP EVERYTHING OFF, I looked shortly after I couldn't log in to
see if my site was still listed and it was gone.  All this work I did
for the ODP and they delist my site which is one of the best sites
for the category which it was in.  I know I am a little biased about
my own site but I don't think you can find a more appropriate and
professional site for that category.
www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_Code
s
My site again is  www.area-codes.com

So that means they are turning this into something personal which
shows their level of professionalism.   If they had a problem with my
editing and they felt it couldn't be corrected, fire me, it's
completely understandable.  But by taking my site off of ODP, they
are showing that they really do not care about the quality of the
directory, all they care about is protecting their little
dictatorship where they do not allow people to defend themselves in
any way.  All their decisions are final and nobody but themselves
know what they based their decision on.

I have been very patient with them, never arguing , no dissention,
always polite.  I really do not know why they removed me.  Following
their own rules as I did, apparently means nothing. 

I have been building my area codes site to something where it will
include over 70,000 pages of content.  It will  be one of the most
useful sites of its kind .

If you read my wonderful experience here, at least you won't be
surprised if it happens to you.  Take my advice, submit your site and
be patient.  Do not volunteer to edit - as this could happen to you
and if it does, they have benefited from your work and you lose your
time, effort, and listing in the directory. 





The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[lewised62:]
>
> I was deleted from several other forums.  Seems there is nothing
> you can do when ODP has no more use for you.

From what other forums were you deleted?  If you are talking about the ODP
Editor Forums, that's standard operating procedure.  Beyond that, when an XODPer
tries to complain about being discharged, there is usually an ODP editor close
at hand on most online forums ready to complain to the powers that be that the
XODPer is trolling.  It's an easy charge to make, and virtually impossible to
defend against as most people would rather not get involved in such
controversies.

[lewised62:]
>
> [*snip* -- detailed narrative of application to become an editor,
> reapplication to become an editor, and disclosure of Web site
> affiliation (< http://www.area-codes.com/ >); careful review of
> material in ODP Editor Forums, conscientious editing, and request
> for new categories (denied, then granted after complying with
> meta's conditions); subsequent request for another new category
> (denied twice by different metas, each with his or her own
> conditions) resulted in unceremonious removal of ODP editing
> privileges in lieu of third denial.]

I wish that I could say that this was an unusual story, but what you have
described is indicative of the infighting that is common among ODP's meta
editors.  They take great pride in second-guessing each other, and such
conflicts are often resolved by removing the editing privileges of the junior
editors who bring such conflicts to a head.  Simply put, you were used as a
scapegoat.

[lewised62:]
>
> The original reason I became an editor was because my site was
> taking so long to become submitted to ODP, so I figured I could so
> something to help out by volunteering.
>
> TO TOP EVERYTHING OFF, I looked shortly after I couldn't log in to
> see if my site was still listed and it was gone.  All this work I
> did for the ODP and they delist my site which is one of the best
> sites for the category which it was in.  I know I am a little
> biased about my own site but I don't think you can find a more
> appropriate and professional site for that category.
> [<
http://www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_Codes
>]
> My site again is [ < http://www.area-codes.com/ >].

The fact that two metas reviewed your Web site without deleting it indicates
that its subsequent deletion was the result of meta infighting and junior editor
scapegoating, which is business as usual at ODP.

[lewised62:]
>
> . . . All their decisions are final and nobody but themselves
> know what they based their decision on.

You'd be surprised.  At least one ODP editor has been sued in federal court for
abusing his editing privileges and eliminating a competitor's site.  The case is
still pending in the Northern District of California.  Meanwhile, the powers
that be at ODP decided to list the competitor's site.

[lewised62:]
>
> If you read my wonderful experience here, at least you won't be
> surprised if it happens to you.  Take my advice, submit your site
> and be patient.  Do not volunteer to edit - as this could happen to
> you and if it does, they have benefited from your work and you lose
> your time, effort, and listing in the directory.

That is excellent advice.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

From: David F. Prenatt, Jr.
> [lewised62:]
>> I know I am a little
>> biased about my own site but I don't think
>> you can find a more appropriate and professional site for that
category.
>> [<
http://www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_
Codes >]
>> My site again is [ < http://www.area-codes.com/ >].
> The fact that two metas reviewed your Web site without deleting
> it indicates that its subsequent deletion was the result of meta
> infighting and junior editor scapegoating, which is business as usual
at ODP.

You may want to have a (closer) look at the said site, David. Seems to my
not so tutored eyes the http://www.area-codes.com/ is an unlistable
affiliate site ...
| ACTION="http://7search.com/scripts/pls.asp"
| NAME="affiliate" VALUE="55967">

Ref: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#affiliate ...
| Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose
| is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of
| commission sales, provide no unique content and are not
| appropriate for inclusion in the directory

regards, sabre23t =^.^=

[lewised62:]
> > >
> > > I know I am a little biased about my own site but I don't think
> > > you can find a more appropriate and professional site for that
> > > category.
> > > [<
http://www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_Codes
>]
> > > My site again is [ < http://www.area-codes.com/ >].

[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > The fact that two metas reviewed your Web site without deleting
> > it indicates that its subsequent deletion was the result of meta
> > infighting and junior editor scapegoating, which is business as
> > usual at ODP.

[sabre23t:]
>
> You may want to have a (closer) look at the said site, David. Seems
> to my not so tutored eyes the http://www.area-codes.com/ is an
> unlistable affiliate site ...
> | ACTION="http://7search.com/scripts/pls.asp"
> | NAME="affiliate" VALUE="55967">

As _ex post facto_ explanations go, that's a good one for why ODP terminated
lewised62's editing privileges.  Nonetheless, it is an explanation that suffers
from an incorrect premise.  To wit, it assumes that < http://www.area-codes.com/
> is using a script from 7search.com to return information about area codes, and
7search.com does not provide such scripts.  Rather, 7search.com uses
pay-per-click advertising to compensate its affiliates. (See <
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Promotion/Pay-Per-\
Click_Advertising/Search_Engines/ >.)

Could this all be a big misunderstanding?

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Hi,

I don't normally respond to these sorts of things, but I feel I need
to here...

> You may want to have a (closer) look at the said site, David. Seems
to my
> not so tutored eyes the http://www.area-codes.com/ is an unlistable
> affiliate site ...
> | ACTION="http://7search.com/scripts/pls.asp"
> | NAME="affiliate" VALUE="55967">

Actually, take a closer look at the site's source. That particular
form is only for the "Search The Web" form at the top-right of the
page. The main form (which is the site's primary content) reads:

<form method="post" action="results1.php" name="areacodeform">

...and no affiliate tag in sight.

(to David: yes, I am still an ODP editor, but I didn't understand why
this site was deleted either. I can't do anything about it though.)

Ciaran Hamilton
ODP editor "ciaran"

[sabre33t:]
> >
> > You may want to have a (closer) look at the said site, David.
> > Seems to my not so tutored eyes the http://www.area-codes.com/ is
> > an unlistable affiliate site ...
> > | ACTION="http://7search.com/scripts/pls.asp"
> > | NAME="affiliate" VALUE="55967">

[Ciaran Hamilton:]
>
> Actually, take a closer look at the site's source. That particular
> form is only for the "Search The Web" form at the top-right of the
> page. The main form (which is the site's primary content) reads:
>
> <form method="post" action="results1.php" name="areacodeform">
>
> ...and no affiliate tag in sight.

I noticed that too, and I thought I had pointed that out in my response. 
However, your response was much more clear.  Thank you.

In other words, < http://www.area-codes.com/ > is not an "unlistable affiliate
site."  Rather, it provides original and unique content, and it uses scripts
from 7search.com to display small, innocuous advertisements and/or generate
advertising revenue.  Nonetheless, there is no doubt in my mind that the powers
that be at ODP reached another (erroneous) conclusion.

This is what I refer to as "the ongoing conspiracy of ignorance and
incompetence," and it's not limited to ODP.  It's worldwide, and includes much
more serious matters, such as death penalty cases where attorneys sleep through
the proceedings. (See < http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5778 >.)

One might say that, in the grand scheme of things, ODP's failure to admit that
it can and does make mistakes isn't all that important.  But I am inclined to
believe that "the world globes itself in a drop of dew," making small injustices
just as wrong as large ones.  The difference is that small injustices can be
corrected much more easily than large ones.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

"Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose
is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of
commission sales, provide no unique content and are not
appropriate for inclusion in the directory

regards, sabre23t"



Sabre - the site does not consist "primarily" of affiliate links, it
has ONE search box.  The content is unique and it is the best in the
category. (IMHO)

I was told time and time again and read in the forums, "if the site
has ANY unique content, add it.  Period.

So I guess what you are saying is that the first 4 Meta's that
reviewed the site and editing were wrong and the 5 one was correct.
Does that mean that 4/5 (80%) of the editors don't know what they are
doing?






--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "sabre 2/3 tiger" <sms@s...> wrote:
> From: David F. Prenatt, Jr.
> > [lewised62:]
> >> I know I am a little
> >> biased about my own site but I don't think
> >> you can find a more appropriate and professional site for that
> category.
> >> [<
>
http://www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Ar
ea_
> Codes >]
> >> My site again is [ < http://www.area-codes.com/ >].
> > The fact that two metas reviewed your Web site without deleting
> > it indicates that its subsequent deletion was the result of meta
> > infighting and junior editor scapegoating, which is business as
usual
> at ODP.
>
> You may want to have a (closer) look at the said site, David. Seems
to my
> not so tutored eyes the http://www.area-codes.com/ is an unlistable
> affiliate site ...
> | ACTION="http://7search.com/scripts/pls.asp"
> | NAME="affiliate" VALUE="55967">
>
> Ref: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#affiliate ...
> | Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole
purpose
> | is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of
> | commission sales, provide no unique content and are not
> | appropriate for inclusion in the directory
>
> regards, sabre23t =^.^=

[lewised62:]
>
> Sabre - the site does not consist "primarily" of affiliate links,
> it has ONE search box.  The content is unique and it is the best in
> the category. (IMHO)

No doubt this is true.

[lewised62:]
>
> I was told time and time again and read in the forums, "if the site
> has ANY unique content, add it.  Period.

Once again, this is true.

[lewised62:]
>
> So I guess what you are saying is that the first 4 Meta's that
> reviewed the site and editing were wrong and the 5 one was
> correct.

Actually, I think sabre23t just made an honest mistake.  As for the metas who
reviewed your site and your editing, there is a very good possibility that they
made the same mistake.  Of course, ODP's "cone of silence" prevents anyone who
is in the know from actually commenting, much less admitting such an error, so
the conspiracy of ignorance and incompetence just blissfully blunders along.

[lewised62:]
>
> Does that mean that 4/5 (80%) of the editors don't know what they
> are doing?

That depends on whom you ask.  I am of the opinion that ODP reached its zenith
in quality control quite some time ago, and it has steadily deteriorated to the
point where quality control is now very sporadic and haphazard.  To wit, five
meta editors spent a great deal of time second-guessing each other as to the
merits of your editing and your Web site, prompting the oligarchical collective
to use its star chamber proceedings to jump to what can only be characterized as
the wrong conclusion.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

FWIW

site http://www.area-codes.com

was moved by: meta editor mcowley

to: Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L

on 4/1

No reason given for removal

Listing was also reviewed by:  meta editor mcowley

on 26/Jan/2003 and modified however it was obviously not moved at that
time and an acceptable listing as far as mcowley was concerned.

----- Original Message -----

From: billyjack_777

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 4:07 PM

Subject: [xodp] Re: Judge, jury, and executioner.

FWIW

site http://www.area-codes.com

was moved by: meta editor mcowley

to: Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L

on 4/1

No reason given for removal

Listing was also reviewed by:  meta editor mcowley

on 26/Jan/2003 and modified however it was obviously not moved at that
time and an acceptable listing as far as mcowley was concerned.




The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Warren" <W_Lauzon@m...> wrote:
>>>>> More typical ODP crap. They have been criticised many times for
keeping that ex editor site list, but they just won't give up.
<<<<<


Also, that meta broke the official ODP guidelines in that
"A reason must be given when deleting a site." which mcowley did not
do.

See: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html

"When adding, deleting, and moving sites, or changing a listing's
URL, automatic notes document the action. However, the you should
mention a reason so your actions are clear to other editors who may
edit the URL. A reason must be given when deleting a site."

Active ODP Editall reporting for duty.

The site in question is being discussed by the editalls and metas. I
can't tell you more than that.

> Also, that meta broke the official ODP guidelines in that
> "A reason must be given when deleting a site." which mcowley did
not
> do.

The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category. I think
you will understand from the name of the category why the site was
moved.

If you were still an editor, you will also know that the ODP software
will not allow you to delete a listed or unreviewed site without
including a reason in editor notes.

Is there no recourse besides taking legal action?

I appreciate all the help that everyone has given.

Jim

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "billyjack_777" <billy_jack7@h...> wrote:
> --- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Warren" <W_Lauzon@m...> wrote:
> >>>>> More typical ODP crap. They have been criticised many times
for
> keeping that ex editor site list, but they just won't give up.
> <<<<<
>
>
> Also, that meta broke the official ODP guidelines in that
> "A reason must be given when deleting a site." which mcowley did
not
> do.
>
> See: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html
>
> "When adding, deleting, and moving sites, or changing a listing's
> URL, automatic notes document the action. However, the you should
> mention a reason so your actions are clear to other editors who may
> edit the URL. A reason must be given when deleting a site."

[Neil R. Turner:]
>
> The site in question is being discussed by the editalls and metas.

That goes without saying.  It's too bad that a former ODP editor whose site has
been unjustly blacklisted has no official channel to seek redress for his or her
grievances.

[Neil R. Turner:]
>
> The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category. I think
> you will understand from the name of the category why the site was
> moved.

Well, yes and no.

I understand that a bum rap was pinned on a former ODP editor, that the editor
in question was unceremoniously discharged from ODP, that his or her site was
blacklisted, and that -- but for said editor complaining about said
circumstances here at XODP -- no one would have noticed that this is business as
usual at ODP.

What I don't understand is the smug complacency of the oligarchical collective
known as ODP.  I didn't understand it when I was an ODP editor, and I hope I
never do.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

[lewised62:]
>
> Is there no recourse besides taking legal action?

Giving the Devil his due, the powers that be at ODP are probably in the process
of trying to put things right now, at least in terms of relisting your site as
appropriate.  However, if your objective is to get your editing privileges
restored, that's not very likely.  The powers that be are wary of the bad blood
that they themselves create by their misguided actions.

As for legal action against ODP:  Many people consider it, but few people
actually file suit.  Without pretending to offer a legal opinion or legal advice
on the merits of such a suit, I (personally) would not choose that route,
regardless of how justified I might feel in doing so.  A free ODP listing is
just not that important when you take into consideration that Yahoo! and
LookSmart will process a site submission for a relatively modest fee.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

----- Original Message -----

From: Neil R. Turner

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 7:17 AM

Subject: [xodp] Re: Judge, jury, and executioner.

Active ODP Editall reporting for duty.

The site in question is being discussed by the editalls and metas. I
can't tell you more than that.

> Also, that meta broke the official ODP guidelines in that
> "A reason must be given when deleting a site." which mcowley did
not
> do.

The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category. I think
you will understand from the name of the category why the site was
moved.

If you were still an editor, you will also know that the ODP software
will not allow you to delete a listed or unreviewed site without
including a reason in editor notes.




The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: billyjack_777

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:07 PM

Subject: [xodp] Re: Judge, jury, and executioner.

FWIW

site http://www.area-codes.com

was moved by: meta editor mcowley

to: Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L

on 4/1

No reason given for removal

Listing was also reviewed by:  meta editor mcowley

on 26/Jan/2003 and modified however it was obviously not moved at that
time and an acceptable listing as far as mcowley was concerned.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/VygGAA/2TholB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----- Original Message -----

From: lewised62

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:08 PM

Subject: [xodp] Judge, jury, and executioner.

I was deleted from several other forums.  Seems there is nothing you
can do when ODP has no more use for you.


I applied in December 2002 and was accepted on my second try. I was
open about my affiliation to www.area-codes.com from the very
beginning (also the category which I applied for). 

After reading hundreds of "new editor" threads in the forums, I
figured I was ready to give it a try and start editing.  I edited my
category to the best of my ability and when I was done, I asked for
a "category check" which means that an editor will look at what you
have done to date and tell you where you may have made mistakes. 
This is a recommended course of action and I agree a good way to make
sure you are on the right path with your editing.

My category check turned out "good" from an "experienced" editor.  So
I was happy to be doing a good job and applied for another category.

When a "Meta" reviewed my application, I was rejected because my
original category was not properly edited.  So of course I brought up
the fact that I had my category checked and it was "good", to which
the response was, well the editor who checked your category missed
some stuff.    That was fine with me, as everyone makes mistakes,
even experienced editors.  I corrected them, reapplied, and was
accepted to the new category.

When I was done editing the second category, I applied for a third. 
One of the sites that I was submitting for review and inclusion was a
site that I had an affiliation with, which I listed in the
application.  What I had read many times in the ODP forums was that
if you are honest about your affiliations, your affiliation will not
be held against you, as long as you are fair, which I tried to be.  I
understood completely why I should not have an unfair advantage over
other sites listed. 

I was rejected from the third category twice, the first Meta said it
was because I put "United States" in the title of the site I was
affiliated with and didn't put that same "United States" in the other
two sites on the application which gave the site I was affiliated
with an unfair advantage.  I personally did not understand this but I
left it to the judgement of the more experienced.  I asked if this
was the only problem and the answer was "yes".  I asked the Meta if
they could just resubmit the application without the "United States"
in the title, the answer was "no, sorry, you have to reapply".  Of
course, this is more work to do.    But I did it.

Shortly thereafter, I resubmitted without "United States" in the
title.  I few days passed and I was rejected again by a different
Meta.  Of course I emailed  her and asked how I could possibly be
rejected after complying with the first Metas recommendation.  The
response was now that the she (second Meta) didn't understand what I
meant by the phrase "zip + 4 lookup".  It's a pretty common phrase in
the zip code arena but because she didn't understand it, I was
rejected for a second time.  She also listed some problems with the
second category that I had  and the original Meta did not mention.  
At this point it is getting quite frustrating.  I am a CPA and am
very busy outside of doing this volunteering and do not have time to
play games like this.  This letter is my final service to the ODP.

So as you can see, they do not communicate amongst themselves and do
not look at what  has transpired in the past.  For everyone, a waste
of time. 

I asked if this same problem would come up everytime I added a new
category and the editor said "we DO talk amongst ourselves and I will
make a note that this was already resolved".  All is fine and dandy.
Of course they made me submit for a THIRD time which I did.

A couple days later, they removed my login ID.  Judge, jury, and
executioner.  No warning, no advice, nothing at all.  One minute all
is peachy, the next you are gone.

The original reason I became an editor was because my site was taking
so long to become submitted to ODP, so I figured I could so something
to help out by volunteering.

TO TOP EVERYTHING OFF, I looked shortly after I couldn't log in to
see if my site was still listed and it was gone.  All this work I did
for the ODP and they delist my site which is one of the best sites
for the category which it was in.  I know I am a little biased about
my own site but I don't think you can find a more appropriate and
professional site for that category.
www.dmoz.org/reference/directories/address_and_phone_numbers/Area_Code
s
My site again is  www.area-codes.com

So that means they are turning this into something personal which
shows their level of professionalism.   If they had a problem with my
editing and they felt it couldn't be corrected, fire me, it's
completely understandable.  But by taking my site off of ODP, they
are showing that they really do not care about the quality of the
directory, all they care about is protecting their little
dictatorship where they do not allow people to defend themselves in
any way.  All their decisions are final and nobody but themselves
know what they based their decision on.

I have been very patient with them, never arguing , no dissention,
always polite.  I really do not know why they removed me.  Following
their own rules as I did, apparently means nothing. 

I have been building my area codes site to something where it will
include over 70,000 pages of content.  It will  be one of the most
useful sites of its kind .

If you read my wonderful experience here, at least you won't be
surprised if it happens to you.  Take my advice, submit your site and
be patient.  Do not volunteer to edit - as this could happen to you
and if it does, they have benefited from your work and you lose your
time, effort, and listing in the directory. 




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/VygGAA/2TholB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Netesq and all,

I did mean legal action regarding my site listing, not editing.  I
would not edit again if they said it would include a salary, bonus,
and benefits.

Thanks so much for all the help everyone, I am amazed to read about
all the similar cases and ones that are even more severe than mine.

I feel so stupid for wasting so much time reading all the rules and
forums, as well as all the time I spent searching for sites and
editing the ones that were there.  I feel bad for everyone who this
has happened to, but at the same time it is nice to hear that I am
not the only one who feels that they have been wronged.  (misery
loves company :)

Thanks too to the "covert" editor who is supplying information on the
status of my site.  I am already feeling better just knowing that the
site was never deleted.

Regards,
Jim


--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
> [lewised62:]
> >
> > Is there no recourse besides taking legal action?
>
> Giving the Devil his due, the powers that be at ODP are probably in
the process of trying to put things right now, at least in terms of
relisting your site as appropriate.  However, if your objective is to
get your editing privileges restored, that's not very likely.  The
powers that be are wary of the bad blood that they themselves create
by their misguided actions.
>
> As for legal action against ODP:  Many people consider it, but few
people actually file suit.  Without pretending to offer a legal
opinion or legal advice on the merits of such a suit, I (personally)
would not choose that route, regardless of how justified I might feel
in doing so.  A free ODP listing is just not that important when you
take into consideration that Yahoo! and LookSmart will process a site
submission for a relatively modest fee.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Neil R. Turner" <sashworld@y...> wrote:
> Active ODP Editall reporting for duty.
>

>
> The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category.

Nice try, but it was indeed removed/deleted from the *public*
directory and placed in:
http://www.dmoz.org/Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L
which is accessible to the public. The only reason it was kept on the
server at all was to keep tabs on the owner.

Show us that some humans do the right thing.

[Neil R. Turner:]
> >
> > The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category.

[billyjack_777:]
>
> Nice try, but it was indeed removed/deleted from the *public*
> directory and placed in:
> http://www.dmoz.org/Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L
> which is accessible to the public.

Shouldn't this read "which is *NOT* accessible to the public"?

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
> [Neil R. Turner:]
> > >
> > > The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category.
>
> [billyjack_777:]
> >
> > Nice try, but it was indeed removed/deleted from the *public*
> > directory and placed in:
> > http://www.dmoz.org/Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L
> > which is accessible to the public.
>
> Shouldn't this read "which is *NOT* accessible to the public"?
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq


Thanks for the correction Netesq.

To clarify the original message the area to which http://www.area-
codes.com was placed is *NOT* accessible to the public hence the site
was_removed from the public directory.

This has the same results as deleting the site completely and as
dictated by the ODP official guidelines "A reason must be given when
deleting a site." to which mcowley did not provide in the editing log
per the ODP guidelines.

See Open Directory Editorial Guidelines :
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html

[billyjack_777:]
>
> . . . [T]he area to which http://www.area-codes.com was placed is
> *NOT* accessible to the public hence the site was_removed from the
> public directory.
>
> This has the same results as deleting the site completely and as
> dictated by the ODP official guidelines "A reason must be given
> when deleting a site." to which mcowley did not provide in the
> editing log per the ODP guidelines.

ODP's meta editors have only one guideline, one which supersedes all other ODP
guidelines:

"All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others."

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

----- Original Message -----

From: David F. Prenatt, Jr.

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 10:36 PM

Subject: [xodp] Re: Judge, jury, and executioner.

[billyjack_777:]
>
> . . . [T]he area to which http://www.area-codes.com was placed is
> *NOT* accessible to the public hence the site was_removed from the
> public directory.
>
> This has the same results as deleting the site completely and as
> dictated by the ODP official guidelines "A reason must be given
> when deleting a site." to which mcowley did not provide in the
> editing log per the ODP guidelines.

ODP's meta editors have only one guideline, one which supersedes all other ODP guidelines:

"All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others."

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/VygGAA/2TholB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----- Original Message -----

From: billyjack_777

To: xodp@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:34 PM

Subject: [xodp] Re: Judge, jury, and executioner.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Neil R. Turner" <sashworld@y...> wrote:
> Active ODP Editall reporting for duty.
>

>
> The site was not deleted. It was moved to another category.

Nice try, but it was indeed removed/deleted from the *public*
directory and placed in:
http://www.dmoz.org/Test/Meta/Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/L
which is accessible to the public. The only reason it was kept on the
server at all was to keep tabs on the owner.

Show us that some humans do the right thing.




The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  xodp-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Warren" <W_Lauzon@m...> wrote:
>  Uhm......... DUH
>
>  That site is *NOT* available to the public.
>
>  Get a clue.
>

Right, it was mistake/typo and was corrected in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2026

FWIW, it is easy to make a mistake, own it, and correct it. I hope
that the ODP does the same for lewised62 :)

You edited for substantially less time than 18 months, wlauzon.

I knew you'd find this board eventually.  You tell a great one-sided
story.  I admit (sadly) that I am the one who accepted you in the
first place, and I believe that was a mistake on my part.

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "Keith T." <kctipton@y...> wrote:
> I knew you'd find this board eventually.  You tell a great one-sided
> story.  I admit (sadly) that I am the one who accepted you in the
> first place, and I believe that was a mistake on my part.

"You tell a great one-sided story."

Boy if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black......

You have the nerve to come in here and say that something that
someone else has done is "one sided"?

You delete editors and their sites without any notice, warning, or
explanation.

What you do is paramount to a jury in a trial saying that:

"we do not need to explain to you why you are going to jail, nor will
we let you defend yourself as WE the jury, have given it VERY careful
consideration, and WE find you GUILTY.  Please do not ask us WHAT we
find you guilty of as that is not really your concern.  Just know
that we did not come to this decision lightly.  Also, please do not
try and contact us in any way as we will ban your IP from the forums
if you question our authority."

That is very funny kctipton - it shows the audacity that some at ODP
have.