Try this in the head section of the page, this will help. <HEAD> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"> <!-- Original: Ronnie T. Moore, Editor --> <!-- Begin var refarray = new Array(); refarray['DMOZ.org'] = "http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712"; for (var i in refarray) { if (document.referrer.indexOf(i) != -1) window.location.replace(refarray); } // End --> </script> http://javascript.internet.com/user-details/referrer-redirect.html
Assuming that the OP has school children visiting his site - this is the quickest way to get his site blocked by every school out there.
I suppose you didn't read his post. His DMOZ traffic is less than 1%, plus he is just informing the users about about what other sites are listed in DMOZ, so may be schools be more careful before recommending any of children to use DMOZ.
Although the editors there are very knowledgable, please understand that resource-zone is not an official DMOZ forum. If you read their forum TOS and FAQs you'll learn that they refuse to discuss any individual site at that forum, and they really do stick to their rules. Yes, some of us are DMOZ editors but no editor has the authority to actually "officially" offer you anything. Even the opinions expressed at resource-zone are only opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore, they are opinions of individual editors and not meant to be an official representation of DMOZ. Your impression of DMOZ is wrong. We are not a secret society, we do have rules, and it's true that none of us has any authority. In fact we are so not secret that you're free to join us as an editor if you have the time and ability. We'd love to have you, but I'm afraid you'd be dissappointed to find there is no secret society...it's all hype. It's not a problem if we disagree. We're expected to disagree and we do it all the time. Common sense should tell you that you can't have that many editors who always share exactly the same opinion on everything. It wouldn't be human. Your inability to understand the way we do things does not mean we are secret or arbitrary. On the contrary, the guidelines are there for all to see. You were even given a link to the title guideline that we all must follow, but you called it stupid and said you reject our rules. That's fine you can reject our rules, but it's only your own arrogance and bad attitude that makes you think you can force us to ignore our own rules and guidelines. You saw the guidelines yourself, how can you say it's secret? No, editors don't make deals or negotiate with site owners. That's not arrogance, it the way it is. DMOZ editors are treated exactly the same when it comes to their sites being listed, some are rejected, some don't get the wording they want, some have to wait years for a review. There is no special treatment available and there are no deals you can make. Trick question, no one said graphic = title. We said you have to change the title you go by, that could include the graphic on your site. It could also mean changing text throughout your website to your desired title. It could mean any number of things. You would have to go back to the guidelines that you rejected, but with a different attitude. Understand them and how they are applied to your site. Once you do this you will have your answer. No one, not even meta editors ever have assurances when it comes to the listing of their website. No one has the authority to give you assurances. Not here, not at resource-zone, and not via editor feedback at DMOZ. We are required to edit according to publicly available guidelines. Where in the guidelines did you see that putting "DMOZ: Please de-list us!" on your site would get your site de-listed? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There is no "DMOZ editting cabal" so you're really talking to no one at this point. Since you're talking to no one, you're not likely to get what you want using this method.
Just stating on the web site that it's illegal does not make it so. See http://dmoz.org/Society/Law/Legal_Information/Computer_and_Technology_Law/Internet/Linking_Law/ Also However, there is no law prohibiting deep linking, and no U.S. court has prohibited the practice. In one case decided in March 2000, a federal court ruled that the use of deep links did not violate copyright law. In this case, Tickets.com, an online ticket service, provided deep links to Ticketmaster pages to provide users with certain ticket purchases. Tickets.com prefaced the link by stating "These tickets are sold by another ticketing company. Although we can't sell them to you, the link above will take you directly to the other company's web site where you can purchase them." This disclaimer eliminated the claim of unfair competition as well, because there was no confusion as to the source of the ticket purchase. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc, 2000 US Dist. LEXIS 12987 (2000).
Please read the thread. I noticed the repeated drop in traffic every time Google showed the DMOZ title, long before the 27th of June. My old title would come back sometimes, and traffic would return to the previous levels. The DMOZ title settled into Google about two weeks before the 27th, and traffic was bad from then on. It did get worse when Google choked on the 27th, and that problem will (everyone hopes) be straightened out soon. BUT, the DMOZ "short, wrong title" and "short wrong description" DID affect traffic to our site.
One of you (not clear if he/she is a DMOZ secret editor) asked me to prove that I was the authority for the site, so I added that to our website to prove it AS ASKED. Also, several of you (secret editors? - I can't tell which of you are, and which aren't) were suggesting that IF I changed my site title, THEN they would change the listing. The suggestion to me by <whomever> was: Explore the Taj Mahal - A Virtual Tour But before that, editor "Eirc-the-Bun" said that I could NOT HAVE "virtual tour" under ANY conditions, and that other sites using this would have to be changed! I am getting vastly different stories from different "editors". Every time I turn around, ANOTHER "editor" (they imply they are editors, I can't tell) has a different story! Can you blame me for being confused? Shall I list all the conflicting suggestions I have had from at least 15 "editors" ? Please read the entire thread for references.
donelson, go to the Google Site Maps Blog, specifically to http://sitemaps.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-control-over-page-snippets.html and follow the instructions. All your problems will be solved as far as Google showing your dmoz title in their index. If there are other problems with your site after making the appropriate change, then you will have to look elsewhere to pass blame.
Luna, WOW! That is dated TODAY ! Perhaps my public suffering and endless protestations (25+ hours) to any (poor souls) who would listen (including Matt Cutts) has WORKED! Hurray! NOTE: It looks like the SAME tag that MSN started using a while back.... Just announced today --- AVOID DMOZ TITLES <meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOODP"> <meta name="msnbot" content="NOODP"> <meta name="GOOGLEBOT" content="NOODP"> http://sitemaps.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-control-over-page-snippets.html THANKS Google Guys !
That's seems a bit narcissistic, don't you think, donelson? I prefer to believe that it has been in the works at Google for awhile now. It just happened to be announced today. You are not the first person that has complained about Google's index having an ODP title and/or description. Google just appears to be following what MSN decided to do about that particular issue. BTW, just for your information, most reputable directories would have listed your site with the same title as the ODP has for your site. If you want your sites title to include Virtual Tours, then it would server you to put that on the actual site. Most directories (at least the ones that count) do not use the meta or page title. That has been the case for years, nothing new.
Yes, I am sure you are right. But I have been complaining to Matt Cutts for over six weeks now, so perhaps I was at least an additional straw on the camel's back... We were told point-blank by several DMOZ editors that "virtual tour" would NOT be allowed at all in ANY titles, and that those words would be removed from exiting titles, e.g. Cornell University Virtual Tour (on DMOZ).
Not quite. You were told that if 'virtual tour' appeared inappropriately in any titles, then those words could be removed. The last post by nea on http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44205&page=3 makes it clear that Cornell University Virtual Tour is acceptable.
I had a private message from an editor who stated that these titles should NOT be allowed to keep "virtual tours" in their Titles.
Hmm. Seems some confusion around. We don't add keywords to titles, but some acceptable titles contain keywords. I'd need to investigate each one of the cases you cite before making up my mind. I remember a similar discussion about using the keyword 'forum' in a title. In some cases we do, in others we don't.
sorry if this has been said, i dont have time to read through the whole thread but just wanted to help out if no one has posted this yet. Google sitemaps just added the following, may be of use to you: URL: https://www.google.com/support/webm...4&query=open+directory+project&topic=0&type=f Hope that helps!
Yes, that's a different method altogether, and doesn't appear to address DMOZ titles. And it may be overkill for most sites as it appears that those tags kill the Site Description in the SERPs as well... One thing I did notice: it says in the fine print that it kills the Google cached pages as well, which could be VERY useful, e.g. if you use the NOSNIPPET for a month to clear a "broken" cache, then remove the tags later. MAYBE...
I am happy to report that Google's adoption of the NOODP tags has started working for me, and my visitor rate is up by around 20% as a result.