Remove Listing from DMOZ

If you see a listing that is contrary to guidelines - title is not correct, title included in description, use of personal pronouns, etc. - please request an update to the listing. It's not hard, I just requested one myself. I searched for Las Vegas Real Estate (to see if the issue you reported still exists) and found a site that had been listed with the original description still in place. This particular listing had the site title repeated in the description and the word "our".

Sometimes editors are distracted while editing and list sites without changing the supplied title or description, even though they intended to. I've done it myself - and then hit myself over the head later - after changing the description (or title) to be guidelines compliant. Not every improper title or description is the work of a corrupt editor - sometimes it's the work of a tired editor, or a distracted editor, or a new editor, or .....

 

Imcor what I was referring to was not from a tired or distracted editor. It was a seo'd description and title tag. I know enough about seo to spot a loaded description and title tag

My whole point that I was making in my last post is the fact IMO real estate categories truly require to use some keywords in their descriptions..not titles but descriptions. Most that I have seen dont appropreiately describe the sites listed for a consumer to get an understanding of what the site offers.

 

My style was always along the lines of

Residential and commercial sales and rentals, land auctions, vacation rentals, and property management. Includes agent profile, buyer and seller tools, property search, and local information. Covers Smallville and Littleplace.

(last bit only if it doesn't match the locality category name)

What they do. What is on the site. Pretty bog standard technique. Some of that might coincide with keywords but it is coincidental - you don't jump through hoops to find alternative language in case it looks like a keyword. Are you seeing anything radically different LVH?

Note: in choosing the terms to use and the order I would either go for consistency for the category so it looks neat. Or with a virgin category or where it is already mixed up I might well use the terms the webmaster has used for menu links - if they used lettings instead of rentals then I might well go for that. If they used advice instead of tools then I might well use that. Etc.

 

Any time an editor finds and adds a site on their own, the system pulls the seo'd title and description tags from that site. I just found in the last few days a site that I personally had added to the directory before I resigned with an seo title tag. I had changed the description, but for some reason managed to add the site without changing the title tag that had been pulled from the site. So it does happen by tired or distracted editors. Most likely it has happened at least a few times with all editors. I reported it and it is changed to the correct title now.

 

I recall getting mad once when I saw an absolutely appalling title and description sitting in a category I used to watch over. I actually pulled the Abuse Report screen up in another window ready to cut and paste details. Opened the editing history, and the editor who had listed it was me. I didn't go ahead with the abuse report but did flog myself with birch twigs for 20 minutes. Oh, and changed the title and description.

 

It's not too late, brizzie. Turn yourself in. You'll feel a whole lot better once you're in a cell and the rest of society is safe.

 

The public confession was enough I think, my conscience is now clear. And it is too late. Even as I write this 500 editors are linking to that post in a posthumous abuse report to prevent any possibility of a return one day. But as one door closes another one opens and a new career as a former abusive editor troll awaits me on the Internet. You know, it was such a heinous crime that I might have done it just for the hell of it then blocked all memory of doing so out of my mind. I hear that happens to some criminals. Anyone know a good shrink? I need to know...

 

Brizzie think about the average consumer here for a second. Most of us are computer geeks and may understand that language. However I can tell that A LOT of consumers can not wrap their mind around residential and commercial sales. Also the avg consumer does not know what property management is. Buyer and seller tools, to a consumer that means WHAT?

Property search is to broad. IMO you need to say search for homes, condos and new home inventory. As for agent profile that again IMO is a puter geek term that most consumers wont understand the context.

I would write is something like this.

XXX with XYZ Realty offers information for buyers and sellers to help you purchase or sale your next home. Perform searches for homes and condos for sale in Las Vegas Nevada with photos. Get local information for Las Vegas and the surrounding areas.

If Dmoz is trying to make the directory for consumers IMO you need to speak/write descriptions in a way that most consumers will understand what the site is offering.

From my experience most consumers looking for real estate only care about a few things from a real estate site. 1. Being able to search for homes. 2. Pictures of homes and the city. 3.Information about neighborhoods.4. Information about the city. Everything else is very rarely looked at.

If your descriptions detail these commonly looked at pages within a real estate website, Dmoz would be offering a lot better information to consumers.

As I have shown there are better ways to describe a real estate site without the description being to seod. However as I have stated some of these real estate keywords need to be used to properly describe a site and to offer the description in a way that the average consumer will understand it.

 

Why else would you be looking for a real estate agent? You know what a real estate agent does or you wouldn't have reached a real estate category. What distinguishes them is the types of property.

If they were not in Las Vegas Nevada then they wouldn't be in the category of the same name. Where the property locations don't match the category name then it is worth adding. And you've repeated homes unnecessarily. There are few agents who specialise in a single type of residential property and it is superfluous to list them all time and time again. When one is a specialist, say in new homes, then it is worth mentioning.

Ditto, Las Vegas is superfluous in a Las Vegas category.

DMOZ editors are generally reviewing the site from a consumer or prospective consumer perspective. Everyone needs to live somewhere.

You have that little faith in the intelligence of your consumers? If you are in business and looking for premises then if you don't know what commercial sales are then you are going to go bust very quickly. As I said the terms are often dictated by what the webmaster actually uses. If they say they specialise in condos and new homes then that is likely to be in the description. Same with "tools" - agents use that term. If they say "advice" or "information" then an editor may well use those instead.

IMO DMOZ should not be writing descriptions for the lowest common denominator in the intelligence and education stakes. Most real estate agents don't.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html#descriptions controls how editors describe real estate sites. AFAIK it was drawn up by a group of editors some of whom with experience in real estate but it was before my time so someone please correct me if that is wrong. Nevertheless there are a few real estate agents prominent amongst senior editors and I have never once heard them complain about the format or that consumers would not understand it. Because of the potential for spam and corruption these particular guidelines are quite rigidly adhered to - I believe it is one of the most, if not the most, well developed set of guidelines pertaining to a single business sector.

When you are judging whether or not a description is correct or incorrect then it is in reference to those guidelines. They are highly unlikely to change because editors actually like them. At least no-one has ever said otherwise to my knowledge.

 

Well some of us do, do the positive 'non commercial' stuff just because we like it. The rest are either 'stupid' or 'clever' according to your definition, in listing their own sites ( you convieniently ignore that some have added 1000's of other sites also). Whatever you prefer ? Which is it ?

Oh get away with you Gworld ! You are living in dreamland if you think that Dmoz is the only entity on the WWW that annoys site owners. I've read a bit here, and I think Google with their latest little 'tweaks' and stuff are far more of an issue to webmasters.
"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 ".

Tell the same story to someone who has just dropped out of the Google index the last month or so, based on 5 mins reading today Google forum here. There are no 'rights' and if there are any, show them to me as far as listing a la Serps in Google or a listing in Dmoz are concerned ?? I'd be interested to hear just what 'rights' Google and Dmoz have to take into consideration ?

( Bet that one will be ignored )

Nah, you can just state your own opinions AND edit. You should come back Brizzie if you had no interest in Dmoz any more you would not be here. You should come back IMHO if you can. Dmoz needs editors like you.
I don't have many friends there due to a lot of my posts here, but I say what I see. I think you do too.

Anyway, answers to my questions appreciated

 

I was never going to quietly disappear. It is a different challenge to be a former editall and you get a different perspective on things looking in from the outside, with that internal knowledge (what has survived the memory wipe anyway) rather than vice versa.

I think you have more than you might realise. Those who refuse to engage with webmasters on their own ground are missing tricks. Those who do risk getting pilloried from both directions - it is a brave thing to do. Webmasters are the root of many DMOZ problems - submitting spam, scattergun submitting, multiple submission, misplaced submitting, and complaining. But some of the responsibility for that is DMOZ's by not making guidelines for submission, and the concepts themselves, clear and explicit enough. What is DMOZ? Well it is sort of... kind of... not a webmaster listing service. So what the hell is it? Well it is sort of... kind of... not a webmaster marketing tool. Come on what is it? Its a volunteer staffed directory. What does that mean then, for me that is? Well it's not a webmaster listing service. And that is about as far as most editors can get without struggling to find a form of words anyone can grasp easily. So how the hell webmasters are expected to grasp it easily I don't really know. Took me about 12-18 months before most things clicked into place like a light going on. And I'd been an editall for some of that time.

How about
Instead of fighting the explosive growth of the Internet, the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. As the Internet grows, so do the number of net-citizens. These citizens can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.

Yesssss.... that's why it is important that editors do venture outside and at least try and translate the complexities no matter who asks.

End of minor rant... shygirl, listen with an open mind, take back things that could genuinely improve the project, explain the workings, all positive things if only everyone realised that.

 

Do you know what is the difference between Google and DMOZ?

 

Nice attempt at evasion , but I am also interested in what 'rights' Google and Dmoz have to take into consideration. You obviously believe in the right to be excluded. What about the right to be included?

 

Google uses computers and algorithms that gives the same treatment to everyone but DMOZ uses arbitrary "rules" and "guidelines" that are not enforceable and many times abusive, not always fair and in many instances won't even make sense for editors. Do you understand the difference?

Like I said before, all this doesn't matter anyway. Anyone can use my suggestion and will be removed in less than 2-3 days. DMOZ understands and responds to only one language and that is force.

 

I think I understand now, because google use computers and algorithms no one has any rights, but because dmoz uses human editors another set of rules apply.

 

You still don't understand, they have the same set of rules for everyone but DMOZ actions are arbitrarily. If Google was arbitrarily including or excluding people, the same critic would have been correct toward them too.

 

Perhaps you are privy to Googles algorithms, I am not. For all I know there is no underlying principle or logic to some of their rules. Example: their alleged sand box mechanism seems entirely arbitrary and does not relate in any way to the value of the site. If a human editor were to make a judgment call then than that is surely less arbitrary. I guess you are one of those folk who enjoy automated phone answering systems.

 

The rules are applied evenly to all sites. You can discuss how good or bad the rules are but you can not say that it is applied arbitrarily. For example, do you know of any one that gets a better SERP because they are friend with Google computer or are paying Google computer? Do you know of anyone that is excluded from Google because Google computer is competing with that web site? How about giving multiple deep links to a site because Google computer is affiliate to some porn site?

 

Gurgle, splutter, snort... so you now revert to the hackneyed all dmoz editor are all corrupt/exclude their competitors/porn affiliates. Its hard arguing with logic like that. You are not a fundamentalist Christian by any chance?

 

It's hard to say whether you're intentionally being obtuse (aka, trolling) or just genetically that way. After the first post or two, I was leaning toward option 1. After this last post of yours, I'm leaning toward option 2.