Remove Listing from DMOZ

And you are totaly free to have such an opinion. But it would be nice if you also would let other people who believe DMOZ has a good reason to exist and who are willing to contribute their spare time to help build the directory do what they think is usefull. And it would also be nice if you did not continue complaining about the fact that these people don't have the same opinion you have and aren't willing to chance their behaviour in such a way that it will fulfill your desires. We don't force you to use DMOZ, we don't force you to suggest your sites to DMOZ. So don't try to force us to do things we don't want to do.

 

How am I forcing anything on you, pagode? Am I forcing you to read this thread? Am I forcing you to change anything you do or the way you do it? How could I do that even if I wished to?

 

Hah! I knew it! Ok, since you've admitted that, I'll admit that I believe Ottawa may actually bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada this year.

 

Actually, Annie - I've stated my opinion about the fundamental flaw in DMOZ many times before, both here and on other forums (Birdie I'm sure can help you find some of them at WebProWorld).

As for the organizational psychology part, I do think a number of things about the DMOZ business model could serve as an object lesson for others with similar or related aspirations... where else could you find an organization so widely either ignored or despised? (well, other than the Toronto Maple Leafs... and leaving aside the question of whether the reputation is or is not deserved...)

 

Yes, this I knew.

This I only suspected.

 

I don't think it's a question of forcing, Minstrel. I think it comes down to the idea of what the ODP is trying to do is at odds with what most SEOs are trying to do.

When webmasters come on and complain that the ODP isn't what they want it to be, that's ok - I think that's their right, and I can 100% understand why they think the way they do.

But to demand that the ODP change because of this is unreasonable. To make personal digs at editors and/or sweeping generalisations of the database is impolite.

The sooner everyone recognises that the world is the way it is for a reason, can accept that and move on, the better, in my opinion.

Proclaiming loudly in fora about how unfair the world is, and then making public attempts to "take the ODP down" is borderline sociopathic, in my mind.

Minstrel, you have done none of this - you make digs and you have said that you believe that the ODP has had its day and should be allowed to die the inevitable death you believe it needs. So this really isn't addressed to you.

Some people believe that the ODP is still relavant and can be revitalised - those are mostly ODP editors. What is wrong with giving that a chance, instead of throwing all the negativity around?

Where's the love?

 

I'm saving myself for Annie

 

We're here for you minstrel.

 

That reminds me... I need to make an optometrist appointment...

 

This is what I like about having my own directory. Want a site removed? Want something changed? Email us, we'll do it.

 

I like your directory, but I like a lot of directories.

I don't care for search engines and I lack the ability to make my own directory so dmoz.org lets me work there. Isn't freedom wonderful?

Keep up the good work!

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=436460&postcount=176

That is very helpful feedback minstrel. I'm not saying I agree with all the points - in terms that they are true - but I can't deny they are perceptions we should try harder to dispel.

DMOZ is a fortress against spam. We receive (rounding) typically 7500 suggestions a day. We list typically 750 new sites (net of deletions) per day. Of those 750 about half will come from other sources than suggestions. So only 5% of suggestions typically can be expected to make it.

The rest are:

Prohibited sites per the Guidelines and should never have been submitted. This is by far the biggest category and no, we don't want to ever give clues as to how we identified it as prohibited if it was disguised. This includes MLM, affiliates, mirrors, fraternal mirrors, redirects, the same site submitted to a hundred or more categories, and so on. How we detect spam has to remain confidential the same as Google would never reveal its algorythms. It simply isn't open to negotiation though we can debate and explain better why that might be.

Insufficient content - this is a tough one to explain and frequently contentious with webmasters. That is the nature of how we operate. That is one reason why the Resource Zone stopped doing status checks, to stop the continual arguments. This is the next biggest group. There is no reason an editor cannot tell the webmaster if this is the cause but it is now banned on Resource Zone, and at an editor's discretion by other means.

Technical omission - e.g. a broken link to key information such as contact details. Many editors might well let the webmaster know and give the site another chance. I have, many if not most others have. Very few editors would object to that information being given if the site is otherwise a good add. But it is a very small proportion of rejections.

But as a psychologist I am sure you can appreciate the siege mentality that affects many editors. It was made far worse by Resource Zone status checks when possibly as many as 60-70% of (even polite) requests came from proven spammers. I didn't particularly want to throw the baby out with the bath water - the 29.9-39.9% of requests that were probably quite pointless but harmless meant we were being responsive and communicating to some extent. And the 0.1% of absolute gems that had been missed and that editors broke records in listing once they came to the fore. But like many things in DMOZ a substantial majority for change will result in change and status requests on Resource Zone ceased.

Maybe we can make moves to explain ourselves better - the guidelines could be clarified in places, maybe we can stay resolute against spammers whilst opening up more for others. We need to work on such things but it always helps to know how your detractors (the ones with no self-serving interests) perceive you. So thanks.

I am not particularly bothered by the notion of DMOZ being hated by all and sundry. I think it is mostly a small but very vocal group, some of whom have vested interests and others who have issues about fairness and openness - to a degree we can work with the latter group and at least listen even if ultimately we reject the advice. I think there are more active editors than die hard detractors. But I think the vast majority have either never heard of DMOZ or if they have have only mild feelings one way or another. Before I became an editor I had never heard of it and knew nothing of its influence on the world of SEO. So I had no preconceptions. Others have. Perhaps we need to change some of our canned responses!

 

What else can you say about the above brizzie's post, excpet:

WHAT A BUNCH OF BS.

 

That's unfair, gworld. At least give a bit of credit to the few editors in forums like this who don't just show up to spout the party line and be offensive. Otherwise, all you'll be left with are the Resource Zoners.

Whatever my feelings about the ultimate fate of DMOZ, I can at least respect those who think otherwise and honestly have faith in the goodwill of the organization. I think they are in the minority and that the majority are self-serving. However, I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong about that and that the more visible and obnoxious Resource Zoners are in fact the minority. In fact, I'd be happy to learn this is true. I'm dubious, though, to say the least.

In any case, brizzie, Alucard, and Annie, if you can influence those who wield power to pay a little more attention to public perceptions and to try to break down this us-against-them Resource Zone mentality that is after all the only image most of the world gets to see of DMOZ, you might just find that some of the hatred and anger may begin to subside.

 

Coming from you? I think I will take that with a grain of salt.

 

The only problem is that none of those pages that are listed in DMOZ are accessible through home page of the site.
The only way you can ever see those pages is if you can find it through DMOZ directory or search engine. The main site is only 2 page and 3 affiliate links.

The pages have nothing to do with web sites business which is sex-phone service and are static page which means the pictures don't change (picture of 1 girl), therefore any one who has seen the page, has no reason to go back to that page again.

In what way listing of those pages are useful for those who are looking for porn? In NO WAY. It is only useful for editor/ owner of the site who has optimized the page for certain key words and generated back links to it through listing in DMOZ to get high ranking in search engine.

You can make as much excuse as you like but it does not change the fact that DMOZ is a corrupt organization run by corrupt editors.

 

These sites follow the guidelines for adult images sites and therefor can be listed. When sites like this are evaluated all links / banners are blanked out and only the remaining content (in this case the images) are looked at. Are there enough images and are the unique for this site. If 2x yes the site can be listed. You may not like these guidelines, and many DMOZ editors would like them to chance, but as long as these guidelines are in place listing such sites is allowed and can not be abuse.
I can tell you that the adult guidelines are discussed very often in our internal forum. Ofcourse I can not tell you what the exact discussion is but the subject of the quality of the image sites is certainly part of it.

BTW In DMOZ eyes there is no 1 on 1 relation between domain and site. 1 site can be spread over many domains or 1 domain can host many sites (as is very common within Adult).

 

Which, again, is a big part of the animosity toward DMOZ - there is no logic to this.

If ever an organization cried out for some Public Relations work, DMOZ has to be at the top of the list. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot... repeatedly...

 

Stop the BS. There are not many sites, in truth there is no site. Public has no use of those links. These are only couple of pages that specially designed to rank well through back links that DMOZ provides.

How can a page that can not even be found through home page of the site(there is no link to it) be useful for public or the domain owner even having any intention to show it to public?

The listing in DMOZ is for editor's benefit and no one else.

 

pagode, it might be best to simply ignore the ornery old troll.

btw...I'm not referring to minstrel.