DMOZ description replaces META TAG

I know that Google uses DMOZ site descriptions in place of Meta tag descriptions on occasion - apparently depending on the search term, etc. However is there a way to prevent this? We are cross listed on DMOZ and the people there create the stupidest site descriptions for us, and we have tried to request being deleted from DMOZ but they refuse to listen. Anyone know any other way to increase the odds of META TAG descriptions being used instead of DMOZ descriptions? THANKS...

 

If Google decides to take the description from the directory, there is no way that I know of to prevent it from doing so..

Now on the other hand, If it was taking the meta tag and you didn't want it to, you could just remove the meta tag and you would force it to either display the decription from the directory or from onpage text, but there is no way that I know of that you wopuld be able to do the opposite..

 

(... unless you get your site delisted in dmoz...)

I for one much preferred when google only used body text snippets in the search results.

 

You could of course email Google and complain... if enough people do that, maybe it will have an effect.

On the other hand, although I have seen other complaints like yours, I haven't seen it for my sites. I'm not sure what this means but I would suggest you use one of the spider simulators and see what Googlebot is seeing...

Try:

Poodle Predictor Google simulator

 

thanks guys.

yah its so frustrating. I tried that Poodle thing and it doesn't show my meta tag description...is that normal? hmm...but it does show the meta description under "diagnostics."

Im so sick of DMOZ...there are way too many power trips going on over there. And too many people who can't even write yet are in charge of changing the world's largest decription database. I even tried to apply to be an editor, went through the process of giving examples, and got rejected. So I can't even control my own site's descriptions which keeps being changed in 2 different DMOZ listings so its not even consistent. What a joke.

yah i guess i will have to email Google, good idea...

ARRRR!!!

 

According to DMOZ, the most effective way to get deleted from their database is to spam it... Their mailbox seems to be input-only, I've tried contacting members 1000's of times, never had one single reply. (and I was actually asking serious things -- imho)

 

What's the URL for your site, yarman?

 

That's method #1. Method #2 is NOT to spam it.

The real question is what is the most effective way to get IN to their database?

And the answer is:

1. submit your site
2. wait until the site lapses or you die, whichever comes first
3. after a long time, your heirs find the submission info in a dusty old trunk in your basement
4. your heirs post a polite message at the Resource Zone asking about the status of the site their ancestor submitted in 1995
5. Hutcheson posts a polite reply and immediately lists the site, since it has been over 6 years since the last inquiry, in accordance with RZ regulations

 

you know first i tried to be extremely nice about it...
first i tried to "update" my dmoz listing, many times. and they updated it allright. to a horribly long description that i didn't request. then i tried to email the section editor, and also email the "report problem" and got no responses...although the "report numbers" all came back as "resolved." then i tried to "report abuse" and still it camed back "resolved"...then i tried to "submit new url" and still nothing.

so then...i spammed their mailbox atleast 50 times with different things saying DELETE US PLEASE!!!! and still, they won't delete us. so neither ways worked for me...and i know the editors have visited the site at least 7 times because we have their visits logged. funny thing.

minstrel...haha...how terribly depressing.

oh, my url is spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/ (add http:// to the front, the forum rules wouldn't let me post it...being a new member..? that is dumb)

it has been around a while since its a club for a public university. so that makes the issue more complicated...SIGH

I really really hate DMOZ and their horribly managed monopoly.

 

This is a rather unfriendly page from the point of view of a spider...

1. title

<title>UCI Campus Crusade for Christ</title>

Code (markup):

Expand this to include some of your most important search terms. Then find a place on your actual index page to use the same terms in natural sentences (e.g., titles set out with <h1>...</h1> and <h2>...</h2>. But you're right... I'm not sure what's going on in your code with all the scripts, iframes, etc., but it just doesn't look like the gtitle is being seen by spiders... see below...

2. image alt tags -- for example

<img border="0" src="1FLAME8.jpg" width="144" height="180">

Code (markup):

change to something aproppriate like

<img border="0" src="1FLAME8.jpg" alt="campus Christian club" width="144" height="180">

Code (markup):

using different phrases, appropriate to the image/section, for each image

3. you need more spiderable text on the page, not embedded in frames or javascript-fed boxes: For example, that page includes two "daily devotionals" which the human reader can read as text. Here's what the spider will see:

<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.biblegateway.com/usage/votd/votd2html.php?version=31&amp;jscript=1">
</script>
<!-- alternative for no javascript -->
<noscript>
<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/usage/votd/votd2html.php?version=31&amp;jscript=0">View Verse of the Day</a>
</noscript><!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" endspan i-checksum="837" --></font></span></address>

Code (markup):

or

<iframe src="http://281217.myshoutbox.com" width="698" height="150" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" target="_self"></iframe>

Code (markup):

4. You've got about a million links on this page pointing to itself:

<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">Campus Crusade for Christ</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>
<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">UCI</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>
<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">Campus Crusade for Christ</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>
<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">UCI</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>
<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">Campus Crusade for Christ</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>
<a href="http://spirit.dos.uci.edu/crusade/"><font color="#010066">UCI</font></a><font color="#010066">
    </font>

Code (markup):

etc., etc., etc. (this is just an excerpt).

This serves no purpose at all -- a link from a page to itself is just wasted space.

According to this tool: http://www.stargeek.com/crawler_sim.php -- THIS is what a spider sees on your page:

This isn't an exhaustive analysis... I'm sure that others can do a view source and pick out some other problems... but the bottom line is that for a spider there's just not very much to work with there.

And of course, the other problem is this:

And finally, I am (obviously) not a fan of DMOZ at all but, to give credit, in this case the DMOZ editor's description is far better than anything on your page:

 

look at result #1 here

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=carroll+communications

 

What are we looking at there, ROAR? Looks okay to me... straight from your meta description:

<META NAME="Description" content="VoIP Solutions: Avaya IP Office telephone systems and PBX phone systems from Carroll Communications your source for all office telephone systems including IP Office, Partner phone system and Merlin Magix PBX and VoIP solutions.">

Code (markup):

 

Sorry for not being clearer...The description is fine. I was referring to the title shown.

It is not the title of the page, but the name of my company. Is that "normal"?
The site has been in DMOZ for a few months...but obviously I do not search for my company name frequently.

 

yarman The DMOZ editors love your site so it's going to stay. They personally hate you for all your email spam, so maybe they are going to block your email - that's probably all that will happen.

 

ROAR - Company names - are in Business categories - the correct title for sites - it really should be Carroll Communications Inc.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#titles

 

Things may make sense in DMOZ land, but I agree with ROAR - it just seems wrong to me that the page title should be changed in the Google SERPs.

Who knows better how to best describe a website? The person who owns and designed the site or some DMOZ editor in his mom's basement who spends maybe 5 minutes browsing it?

It seems to me that DMOZ can, of course, do whatever the hell it wants but I do find it extremely disconcerting that Google should data from DMOZ to override the webmaster's decisions. The correct title for this page (site) should NOT necessarily be the name of the company that owns the website anywhere in the real world. Since I am a one-man operation, by that logic all my websites should have the title "David Baxter".

 

Perfect. Robotic Hutcheson clones...

 

so do the robots affect current listings or just filter out spammy new submissions?

 

Yarman, you are waving a red flag there. btw Hutcheson is a Christian, you may wanna PM him, he edits the Christian categories.