Remove Listing from DMOZ

And it's the name of the site.

Webmasters want a DMOZ listing when it helps their manipulation of search engine results, they don't want it when that helps their manipulation of search engine results. In, out, in, out, shake it all about. Why should DMOZ be a party to that? The issue is not with DMOZ but with what Google does with DMOZ data and DMOZ has no influence on that whatsoever - the best approach is to lobby Google over its algorythm.

 

LVH:

1. What aspect of copyright is DMOZ breaching?
2. Most editors are outside the jurisdiction of US courts - how are you going to sue them effectively?
3. Editors are not responsible for categories
4. Can't see AOL / Google / Yahoo etc rolling over on that one so if you're going to take out a case make sure you have the best team of lawyers your millions can buy.
5. If it all goes arse upwards for AOL / Google / Yahoo etc all they need to do is move their operations to another country. American IT jobs lost to India. I'm sure it'll go down well.

Added: DMOZ knows editors by their editornames - be amusing to see court papers trying to sue a Ms Compostannie or a former editor Mr Oneeye or Mrs Orlady or maybe someone called Sid but I don't know his last name (or even if Sid is his real first name.)

 

1. Links to copyrighted material has been ruled by some federal courts as being illegal. This is called contributory infringement and can be pursued through civil court.

2. Lets hear it for the BS. Just for arguement sake. Lets say they are. If AOL is sued because a particular editor wont remove a listing or give the site a proper description. I would say that editor is gone, bye bye no longer working for Dmoz. To also correct you. There are several countries that comply with US judgements. However considering it would be small claims it would not be worth the effort to pursue the editor if they are out of the US. The rules of small claims are not as stringent as those of the federal and district courts.

3. Editors are responsible for the the links they place and the descriptions that they wrote. If a owner of a website can show and feels this description is wrongfully depicting their website. The editor who wrote this description or placed the listing is responsible legally.

4. This is why you file in small claims. No matter if it is a copyright violation it isnt worth going to district court over. However there are other reasons which I will no disclose here...

5. Thats not even worth responding to LOL.

The point is since editors are running the show at Dmoz, it is time to make them accountable. Some editors play their games, screw their competition and are hell bent on proclaiming they hold the power.

 

If they are engaging in editing practices designed to self-promote and screw their competition then it is abuse and they will be removed if this is proven. Editors hate these people more than webmasters I assure you. There has been, AFAIK, only one case ever brought against an editor by someone claiming unfair editing practices - there is no result published anywhere on the Internet for the results of that case.

Can you point at any actual legal precedents people can examine to support that position? I've had a quick look and it doesn't seem to relate in any way to publishing a link to something that is being promoted by the owner.

I can understand you have a particular issue with one word, "realtor". But this is not the case in the vast majority of requests for removals and not in the case above. An editor who gives the name of the company and a brief description of the site's contents isn't wrongfully depicting it, even if it doesn't do the owner much good in the search engine manipulation stakes. And a case against an editor only stands up if you can identify the editor responsible. No-one has so far succeeded in getting DMOZ to release such information and then you have the task of tracking that editor name to a real live person. And even if you could get their full name you have no chance of identifying even which country they reside in as editors do not provide their addresses to AOL or DMOZ.

 

No. I don't agree. We're not discussing DMOZ rules here - we're discussing Google, who is ignoring a page title in favor of a company title. That may be DMOZ rules, but as far as listings in search engines go, what webmaster in his right mind would use the title of his company for every page on his website, which is what you are suggesting, whether you realize it or not.

See above. I am amazed at how consistently you miss the entire point, orlady, and/or how little you know about building websites.

Et tu, brizzie? I can usually count on you to be a little brighter than the rest. This is NOT, repeat NOT about the (albeit questionable) DMOZ rule of listing a site by the company name (or what DMOZ editors THINK is the company name in some cases - remember the Vicious Enterprises debacle?). This is about Google.

Google. Google. Google. Google. Google. Google. Google. Google.

Got it now? Sheesh!

 

Then why are people having a go at DMOZ? You pasted the sentence I used - lobby Google! It is what they are doing that is the cause of this. Ask them why they are doing it, and to stop. Next month you might get people demanding to have their category changed because Google has decided to factor it into the algorythm, is returning that information and it is hurting their search engine manipulation. DMOZ has no control, no influence, no knowledge of the algorythm and cannot respond to it. Google, Google, Google, go talk to Google about it!

 

Who's having a go at DMOZ? Organix was complaining about Google using the title from DMOZ. Vulcano and orlady made it about DMOZ (well, and maybe Las Vegas Homes - I just got back and I didn't read his post yet - but vulcano was making it about DMOZ before Wayne posted and orlady was chiming in with the same song).

 

I'm not arguing with you minstrel - I said it is not a DMOZ issue but a Google one and you are saying the same. LVH is suggesting suing editors who don't comply with a removal request but his problem is highly specific relating to a copyrighted term - DMOZ incorrectly describing someone or a business using this term. Not only has orlady indicated that editors are discouraged from using the term but his issue cannot be translated into the general issue of removing sites on request. Suggesting people sue DMOZ is having a go!

 

I understand some/many webmasters aren't happy with their position in Google's search result, but come on LVH, you seriously want them to sue me over it? I guarantee Google doesn't even know who I am. I just hope I can keep from LOLing in court.

 

75 F. Supp. 2d 1290; 1999 U.S. Dist.

This is one of 8 cases I have found. I picked this one because it was the first case I located. I would post more but why let the wolf in to the hen house. There are a few more cases that are more compelling than this one.

There are also several legal reviews about this case above that have speculated the same conclusion as I have.

Brizzie I am not just referring to just the term Realtor. I do not wish to go in to detail but it goes deeper than this.

 

This has nothing to do with their position in Google. Thats an editors ego speaking there. Once again a Dmoz editor just doesnt get it. Because some of you are so consume with the idea that you control a lot of what happens in google with the Dmoz directory( IMO it does to a degree ), you assume that when a webmaster wants to have a certain description its meant to manipulate Google.

 

LVH, whatever you're smoking or drinking, I think you've had enough. Take a break buddy.

Minstrel said it was about Google, see above. I know I don't have any influence on Google, I already said that you just forgot to read the whole post before responding.

 

Granted. However, I'd point out again that the stage was set for that with vulcano and orlady jumping in to make it a DMOZ issue and defend DMOZ when up to that point it WAS a Google issue for organix.

 

No Annie thats later tonight I understand though when you start to get in to complicated legal issues even though a lot of editors posting here claim to have an understanding of ..they dont. So therefore you make the best comment you can in hopes that you are covering your a$$.

 

So, a lot of webmasters are really upset that their sites aren't listed in Dmoz. And a few are really annoyed that they are ?

Essentially SEO reasons are why the OP wants his/her site out I assume. Most want theirs IN also because of the percieved SEO benefits.

You're annoyed if it isn't listed, and you kick up a fuss when it is but not 'quite' the keywords you were after.

Make your minds up either way Do you want a listing or not ?

 

You are 100% correct minstrel. I never would have posted the info I did if they had not made this a Dmoz issue. The thread was really a google issue but since the two you mentioned made it a Dmoz one I thought I would share.

 

To be honest I am glad I didnt get my wish with a Dmoz listing. Now that Google is doing what they are. There are a few exceptions though. Those that got great descriptions and keyword rich titles are happy. We all know though how they got those...right..

 

So you don't want a listing then ? Yes/No ?

 

LOL, yeah right, grab whatever excuse you can for your silly comments.

Go back and read what organix wrote in his original post then tell us who blamed dmoz for their Google results. Hint: it didn't start with vulcano and orlady.

 

Not now with the current Google algo. It is a disadvantage because of the way editors seem to discount the sites with their descriptions and titles.