Remove Listing from DMOZ

Thanks for the link imocr. Non-editors obviously do have the latest information and I missed it.

 

Minstrel, I can only speak for myself. It was not my intention to defend anything about how titles and descriptions are defined at the ODP. I simply stated:

Going further, we are not talking about any simple page of this office oragnix, but the homepage. Again, on several spots on this very homepage you can read Office Organics in pretty nice tags starting with h1. It is true that this is the name of his business, if it should also be the title of his homepage, there are certainly pros and cons. The problem arises at the point where he decided to create a title and description where he obviously ran into some conflict with Google's algo. You can't blame the ODP and in such cases as there are only those keywords used in such a spammy way, blame Google that they are not that stupid honoring that. Summarizing this whole thing, you are right when you write: The issue is that he feels... There are 3 alternatives, he might try to control his feelings, visit a psychologist, or get rid of the spammy use of keywords in both title and description.

 

Sure he did, organix bumped a 6 month old thread to post item 220 and start this discussion.

I didn't see that request, I only saw his complaint here. From what he says it appears he only requested it by posting at r-z. He didn't even give his URL here so I don't think he was looking for help or answers. Others have mentiond it but I'm not going to risk removing it based on someone elses guess. Sure, he gives a link to a r-z thread, but I don't go to that forum.

I'd like to know if he submitted an update request to the dmoz category where he's listed, because that's the proper way. I've processed update requests for removals that were properly submitted and have removed listings so you can't expect me to believe it's impossible to remove a listing.

 

My point was that brizzie is not an editor, hasn't been for quite a while, and doesn't know the inner workings of ODP anymore.

 

I think it is only a few months that brizzie left the ODP, thatfor I don't get at all why you are insinuating that he "doesn't know the inner workings of ODP anymore". I am not aware that the "inner workings" are moving at such a fast pace that would justify brizzie not having his thoughts and contributing in the way he does, with the experiences he made while he was an editor.

 

It's true you know. I'm not an editor any longer. Haven't been since December 05. And obviously as soon as you leave you get a visit from a local DMOZ representative who performs a memory purge and you are banned from ever speaking to a serving editor ever again. And even if the memory purge doesn't work quite right everyone knows that DMOZ moves like lightning to change its internal workings and never ever publishes information publicly. You might not appreciate me commenting and helping people understand DMOZ here, and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But then I am entitled to my opinion too so you'll excuse me if, whilst I retain the support of many of my former editing colleagues, I decide to exercise that entitlement. If I am ever factually wrong on a comment then please correct me instead of making a sniping comment, you will have my gratitude.

 

Brizzie the reason/s are not justified they have to do with a vendetta that a certain meta named Hutcheson has against me personally. I have inside sources( not 1 but 2) that have relayed info to me from the internal forum.

Dmoz has been used by several metas/editors there to carry out their own acts of vengence. I have shown in the past and can continue to show that a lot of the sites listed in the real estate category that dont meet all of the Dmoz guidelines, hense my thoughts have surfaced claiming Dmoz has been involved in restrictive trade practices.

Brizzie may not be an editor right now but from my understanding he was for a long time. This is like saying just because someone doesnt work for Googles sitemap team anymore they dont know the inter workings of the sitemap project. Sure things change but the process remains the same for the most part.

To me this just sounds like sour grapes from an editor who is upset with the fact that Brizzie has tried to enlighten a lot of us about how Dmoz works, whether negative or positive.

 

Without access to notes or internal forums I couldn't give an alternative perspective on a specific case. And you have admitted to attempting to breach DMOZ guidelines when applying as an editor so that is going to count against your credibility. Nevertheless a complaint of abuse against a meta editor should go to an Admin to investigate. If you've already done that and are not satisfied then you can write to AOL with your evidence. But from experience of checking on claims of real estate category abuse via forum reports I never once found a substantiated claim - assumptions that a competitor was blocking listings held no water in any case I ever looked at. And the "accused" had been nowhere near the sites referred to as evidence. That doesn't mean to say that abuse hasn't and doesn't exist or editors would not be removed for it, just that I never saw it in real estate categories I ever visited. It isn't unusual for real estate categories in many US States to be neglected and this often explains why someone has not been listed. Unless internal workings have changed there is no single editor or group of editors "controlling" US real estate categories - it is one of those topics where more or less everyone with the editing rights will have a go at some point in time.

Deliberate acts of vengeance do add up to editor abuse which can get the editor fired. So it is unlikely a high level editor would risk their account to do so. A lower level editor might do it, some probably have done it, but if caught would be looking at a locked out account. Sometimes you would face an impossible task proving it though. For example, if someone regularly submitted multiple related sites there comes a time when an editor will just stop looking at submissions from that source and divert their editing time onto sites from other sources. That is vengeance of a kind but it is also maximising your editorial productivity and you aren't going to get criticised for that. Other times webmasters devise such a complex web of sites that no editor has the time or inclination to unravel it so they leave the whole lot to rot. Exasperation not vengeance. If you can show definitively that your site meets every listing criteria, that you have abided by all submission guidelines, and the site has been rejected (not just ignored) without just cause then you might have a case. Have you ever been told the site is rejected and the reasons?

 

Brizzie no reasons have been stated that I am aware of. However I do not want to turn this thread in to a thread about my personal site. Lets just say I have good reliable sources that tell me Hutch is cock blocking my site.

This was way after I had been cock blocked. Just like most who apply I thought well if I cant get it in there on its merits I will become an editor and add my site along with the others that were deserving to be including in the dirtectory. Unlike a lot of others I have no issue with adding my competition to the same category. If any site meets criteria it belongs in the directory.

This is a business model flaw. Doesnt it make more sense to bring on some editors who would do nothing but handle the real estate categories? Yet if this is done it adds another layer of eyes to any wrong doings that go on in the real estate categories by those who may wish for them to remain a FFA.

Take someone like me. Yes I would add my main site. Also I would try to clear what has to be a HUGE number of submissions to that category. However because I have knowledge of that category the powers that be would not want me as an editor because it could expose any wrong doings going on with some present editors who are adding friends, clients and maybe anyone who is willing to kick back a little cash.

Another reason I would not be accepted to edit is the fact that I speak my mind. If I saw any wrong doings on behalf of editors within that category, you can bet your last dime that I would seek to expose those who attempt to use that category for their own personal benefits.

I would make a bet with any one here. If I was put in charge of that category ( which we all know would never happen ) it would be cleaned up.

I would agree with you if it was any other business structure. Dmoz however is made up of those that have power and those that are afraid to go against that power. Just like the comment Annie made on another thread. She said she would risk her editor account to list my site if I could show her a child porn listing.

This comment tells me something by her. It tells me she has some knowledge that if she listed my site she might lose her editor account or she wouldnt have made the statement that she would risk her account.

Brizzie even looking at it from the prospective of when you were an editor. You seem like a guy that has his head on streight and yet you were not able to change the issues you thought were affecting Dmoz. This tells us something. If someone like you cant change Dmoz, then who can.

 

Las Vegas Homes is a known abuser. Let's not give him any encouragement please.

 

Sorry if I chose my words poorly LVH, but that's not how I meant it. Really.

The only reason I think listing your site could be a risk to my account is that I really, really suck at Real Estate. I'm one of those people who don't know the difference between a realtor and a real estate agent, or broker, or whatever.

The only reason I'd take that risk would be if it helped me find and remove child porn.

 

Looks like we are hearing from the cheap seats again.

That is how it was preceived Annie. Also your comments back up as they are preceived by another editor who passed some info on to me as to why some were questioning why the site wasnt listed.

 

Are you saying categorically that a large number of editors are SEEN as stupid. Or just ARE stupid ? ( You're one too Gworld right ? ).

I'm annoyed that you would think that.
Why would you resort to that really, I mean REALLY... lame sort of arguement about anyone who edits there ? And how exactly, ( and Minstrel you must concur being an eminent psychologist).. would you define what exactly 'stupid' is in terms of Dmoz editing. We need a theorectial benchmark of what it means to be a 'clever' editor so we can define what a 'stupid' one is. Then you may prove either for or against your hypothesis that stupid editors are the norm.

Or, it is JUST your personal opinion.

Which one would you say Minstrel that the 'stupid editor' falls under ? Gworld's ''personal opinion', or should there be a line drawn somewhere ( feel free) so we can all define what it means to be a 'stupid editor' ?. At least we'd all know then which was which. Fine by me !

You webmasters SHOULD tell him how to save his business due to the fact he has (?) a Dmoz listing. Plenty of others are under the impression that it would be quite a nice thing to have, one way or the other..depending on your viewpoints of how important Dmoz is on the www.

Crucial problems from an SEO standpoint ?

Has anyone somehow staggeringly missed the 1000's of threads saying that Dmoz doesn't do Seo in descriptions ? Or is this guy a bit niave to the fact ? Someone wants to fill him in a bit and have a quiet word in his ear.

Dmoz + SEO = No, not really. Doesn't really work that way as far as I'm aware ?

Google + SEO = Yes ! I'd concentrate on Google personally. Since those are the one's with the massive global seach engine. If you have a beef. Take it up with them, SEO isn't really Dmoz's thing TBH.

OOOOhhhhh do spill !!!

In summary :

Prove I'm stupid just because I'm an editor.


If the OP is annoyed at having a listing tell me why there are 1000 times him annoyed they don't

Conclusion :

*Webmasters really want a listing even better if more, but only on their own terms and as long as it includes the words and phrases of their personal choice in the description otherwise they get pissed off and demand removal.

Phew, think that sums the whole thread up in a nutshell ! ( Wipes brow).

*Do feel free to point out where you think I've went wrong with this assumption, but I really do think that's about the whole thread covered in 2 lines.

 

Speaking your mind is not a bar to editing and is almost a prerequisite for promotion. As long as you are speaking your mind and not shit stirring. It is every editor's duty to expose abuse by other editors - I've reported a few in my time; some subsequently removed, some the evidence wasn't strong enough, and sometimes the editor was innocent but I figure better to report suspicions and let it be investigated than let it pass.

It would take Admins to remove Annie and she is far too valuable to lose. She might have gotten ticked off if the site is actually unlistable for some reason I am unaware of. If the site is listable then she would be totally within her rights to list it and expect it to stay listed.

The issues I personally thought important were not on the Admin list of priorities. They have the responsibility, it is their call, if it goes tits up they can't really say we were following brizzie's priorities, don't blame us blame him for distracting us from what we thought was important. In the meantime they were and are getting on with changing the things they think are priorities so change, as long as it is on the list of priorities, happens. When they've done those maybe one or two of the ones I think are important might appear on the agenda. All is not lost as far as I am concerned.

 

Shygirl Dmoz claims to not do seo in descriptions, but I can point you to a few that if those arent Seo descriptions I will eat my hat. I even back a few months ago pointed to some in my category. I am sure If I was to look further I would find a lot more. If you use those descriptions to compare to others in a category I am sure you can see those are seod.

Brizzie I would like your view on this next question. Who is in your opinion the most powerful metas with Dmoz right this moment?

 

Well LVH's so you've got someone now complaining that Dmoz editors don't do as you've stated yourself above ( doing nice seo descriptions) and it's pissing the OP off.

So lets say again that you want listings, but only nice 'seo phrases' that Google might use. Otherwise you don't like it and will demand removal if this isn't the case ? You want a listing on your own terms. You complain if you don't get them and complain again if you do but the listing isn't what you want to see.

You want to make up your mind mate.
If you do get a listing someone else WILL describe your site for you. Harsh, but face reality.

 

The Admins. http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/admin/

No meta has any more power than any other. Some may be more influential but judging from the Best Meta nominations twice a year more or less everyone has a different view on who those might be. If you are suggesting it might be hutch then you're way off the mark.

 

Both.

You can also add that they lack integrity and moral fiber but what can you expect? They have joined to list their sites and benefit from being an editor and not actually being a volunteer and do something positive.

The issue is not as complicated as you make it. Thousand of people may be complain about not being listed but that is not the issue. The issue is that there is one site owner who do not wish his site to be listed in DMOZ and his wish must be respected because it is his business and no one has a right to damage his business.

 

You have been part of the cult before, so I am surprised that you don't know the cult culture or may be you think that it shouldn't be applied to you.

Cult members are better than others, they know things that public or even former cult member don't know. Everything is secret and for cult members eye only, cult affairs should not be discussed with outsiders, specially the former cult members who betrayed the cult by leaving.

 

Shygirl from what I have seen of the real estate category most of the descriptions including my competitors do truly describe the sites. Real estate listings are a little different. In order to give a proper description you have to use as you put it some seo keywords in the description. This does not mean the title has to be this way.

What I have seen of these descriptions I would personally ask if my site was in there to have them changed or my site removed. You can look at some of the descriptions and see that an editor was either trying to hender a competitor or help a client based on the descriptions I have seen.

I saw one for my category that had Las Vegas Real Estate in the description twice. Now I dont know about you but that was done to help someone who was either a friend of the editor, a client or someone who paid them to do that. I have also seen titles loaded as well.

As stated real estate is difficult but IMHO requires to have some keywords in the description to appropreiately describe a real estate site. This includes my site and those of my comeptitors.

I agree 100% Gworld but some editors in his category may fight to keep that listing as is so it does hurt his business and benefits theirs.