DMOZ watching us??

hey!

well, some days ago i bought a pr4 domain dmoz listed..so,i run to an domain forum to ask for appraisals saying that is a pr4 domain,dmoz listed and blablabla.
some hours after,my domain was deleted from Dmoz! the user from another forum said that the dmoz staff stays online on these domains forums to delete the domains that was bought.
did this have happened before with somebody here?

 

Yes it did.

They delisted most domains they found out it changed owner even if new owner doesn't change anything on the website and marking to need new review which seems to takes longer then regular submission if that is possible.

And DMOZ listing is hardly worth mentioning in domain appraising unless it is in adult section and it is bringing thousands of horny visitors each day.

 

Sorry, but we have said on here many times, there aint no shortcuts to getting listed.

 

He's speaking about being DE-listed, not listed. >_<

 

Was the purchase of an already listed domain name not an attempted shortcut ?

If it wasn't, what's the OP's problem exactly?

 

And instead of editing, editors are wasting time constantly surveying seo forums for such cases, no wonder it takes so long to get listed.

 

Depends on why it was purchased. Many people don't look at it's directory listings, they look at it's content and traffic. While directory listings may be considered a perk, I do not think that too many would bother buying a site simply because it's listed in the ODP.

I also think that in most cases, the de-listings should be taken on a case by case basis. If it's simply delisted due to a change in ownership, that is bad form. Look at how often the ODP itself has changed hands, and it's still pretty much the same as it ever was.

When Google or Microsoft buys a listed site, is that site delisted, or do these things only happen when one webmaster sells to another? For instance, was Netscape removed when it was taken over by AOL?

I could see if it had a major overhaul like a business site being converted to a wordcloud page, but simply the change in WHOIS info?

 

Gees, Ivan, I am glad that I am not in your paid employment, you would demand 25 hours a day and blood. Sorrythat is what you want from ODP voluntary editors.

Sorry, sir, will not spend any more of my free time doing things I like doing, will spend all of it editing in future, crack as whip falls.

 

Are you saying your hobby is hanging out on SEO forums looking for sites linked from the ODP that are sold?

 

microsoft and aol does not need traffic from dmoz

 

25 is for wussies, anything below 50 isn't even paid!

Why did you volunteer in the first place then? Wait until I buy DMOZ and introduce minimum of 100 edits a day - work or die will be the new motto.

 

Besides those pills and porn affiliate website probably no other does.

 

Traffic is not the point here. It's delisting a site that transfers ownership.


If the ODP is truly about the end user, then why punish them every time a site is sold? Because it *might* change? yeah, that's the way to go...

 

That's interesting, I didn't know we did that, but I'm certainly all for it. The only reason I can see for a person buying one is to hijack the site and change the content to something else, like porn or some other topic that's unrelated to the original intent of the site.

I would imagine that a site with high traffic might not be the main factor for hijacking a site, but it would be a big plus, because they're only going to be in the Directory for a very limited time.

It makes a lot of sense for us to delist it before the content has a chance to change, and some kid looking for widgets suddenly finds himself looking at something he has no business seeing.

I'm sure none of you here would be against protecting children.

 

Talk about how much vanity DMOZ editors have to believe that people are buying websites because of DMOZ listing so they can get those massive 5 visitors DMOZ sends them a month to make a fortune with porn.

English please?

I have yet to see website ownership change (NOT expired domains which get bought by cybersquatters) that did some drastic change to worse, most simply continued where previous owner has stopped and added even more useful content - what is the point of paying big sum of cash for a established website (or did DMOZ start to list websites which are under construction? ) and then trash it by putting on some junk?

That must be why DMOZ was listing pedophilia and still has adult and pills junk.

 

That's a little off topic, but let me comment on it anyway.

If I had my way, all porn (of any kind) would be wiped off the whole Internet, but as there's such a big market for it, and there's so much money in it, that's unlikely to happen.

Many of us would like to see it gone from the Directory, and perhaps that will happen someday, but, until it does, you have to look at the larger picture of what the Directory started to do and still does. It catalogs the content of the Internet, and unless it's something illegal, collects and organizes that data for the free use of "everyone", not just those we approve of.

We may not like a lot of the stuff that's out there, but should we then ban all gay and lesbian sites, nudist sites, certain religions, escort services, gambling sites, or perhaps all occult sites? Where do we draw the lines and still be considered the "Open Directory"? And who is going to make those decisions? You? Me? I can assure you, if it's me, all occult sites would be gone, and many others.

As an editor, I may not like certain sites, but unbiased editing means unbiased editing. Now, if something makes me sick to my stomach, I don't have to review it, and most times I won't, I'll leave it for an editor who has a stronger stomach (which is perfectly ok to do), but, to delete those types of sites because I don't approve of them would absolutely be editor abuse, and I should be removed. As I've said before, "Good intentions don't count, only your visible actions count." Editor abuse is editor abuse, no matter what the reasons are.

If there is any pedophilia material listed in the Directory, I'm not aware of it, personally, but then I don't visit the Adult section of the Directory. And, if there is, who's to say it's not there for a reason other than titillating some warped monsters imagination. Perhaps law enforcement would have a great interest in such sites (and any new ones that pop up)and who visits them, I don't know.

Why do you suppose the Directory has a Kids and Teens section that is more prominently displayed with colored font in order to stand out and that they are very careful about who edits there?
http://www.dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/

And, why do you think the Adult section isn't prominently featured here:
http://www.dmoz.org/

Does that look like the Directory features Adult sites, or does it hide them and make them difficult to get to?

Just like with politicians, you may not like everything in the package, but, you vote for the one with the least amount of onerous issues, and learn to deal with what you don't like.

 

I started believing that I could look after a small category, in which I was very interested, spending a couple of hours a week was stretching it, but as with all addictions, it got a little more and more and I can tell you I have done 100 edits and more in a day! In my old age I do a little less and enjoy passing the time of day on quiet nice editor friendly forums like this one. One meets such nice affable folk, who want to logically discuss and reason. But there that's what getting old is about, I guess most of you are oldies, seen life and now want to kick back a bit and relax, so you come here for the stimulating conversation with people like (banned but not forgotten) gworld and Q together with the sintilating humor from Ivan. How else would I want to spend my Sunday afternoon?

 

Would it not be better to simply keep an eye on the site? I mean, why de-list something that had nothing wrong with it on a case of the "maybes"?

I do find it sad that the only reason you can see buying a site is to change it to porn...there is no wonder why sites get delisted because someone else owns them.

And we should assume that if a man losses his job he will resort to murder and prostitution, or that his new employer will then pimp him out.

It's nice that DMOZ shoots first and asks questions later.

 

Delisting a site temporarily for investigation, is different than deleting a site.

Though, I can't imagine why a person would want to own a site that had someone elses content on it, unless they intended to change the content in some fashion, or were wanting the traffic that came there.

I have seen sites change from being a company site for a restaurant, to being a website builder site (who is already listed under another url), so, it's not just porn, it's an attempt to get mirrors listed by taking over a different existing site listing. We frown on those kind of tactics.

 

Sites are bought and sold all the time - not to convert them to porn but to capitalize on the traffic the site is already getting with its current content. I know DMOZ prides itself on knowing nothing about SEO or webmasters but at least have the sense to refrain from publicizing your ignorance on a webmasters forum.

Hmmm... ingorance plus... With that logic, shouldn't you be delisting ALL sites in DMOZ? I mean, what guarantee do you have that anything listed won't change. Best to get right on that and delete them all before they have a chance to change...

Well said. You are expert at parroting the comments of senior editors, though, and that will garner you some brownie posts.

See above. Ignorance isn't always bliss.