Remove Listing from DMOZ

There is some good speculation/advice in that thread about why Google uses the ODP description for some sites. I really wish they would take the category into account for search terms....

 

I never visit there, I personally don't like the 'vibe'.

But the directory question, and the original topic discussed as in the anyone's 'right to de-list' still stands.

Do all the others do it ?

 

Look again. I think you can.

As for the DMOZ description, this is it according to Brian:

which as he said

I find it hard to disagree with him. The DMOZ description may indeed be within the "rules" for DMOZ but in a list of other internet marketing sites could well be a liability, as Brian said.

We're not talking about some black market viagra spammer here, or a purveyor of porn (indeed, if that were the case, Brian would probably have 12-20 listing for the site by now). I agree with him that the request was a reasonable one. If you don't agree that the description should be changed, that's fine - your directory, your rules. But what harm is there in complying with his request for removal? Is that going to destroy DMOZ? Is it going to harm DMOZ even a little? No, of course not. Could Brian possibly be telling the truth? Could it harm him? Yes of course.

 

Well, I can tell you that I would delete it, not because I necessarily think that the person has a right to "demand" it but because given a reasonable rationale I think it's the decent thing to do.

 

But how do you know the person asking is the owner of that site?

 

Not that difficult to check in most cases... there certainly wasn't any doubt that the site I, Brian was talking about was his own.

 

If Shawn Hogan were to send me an email and say that he wants his site listing removed from my directory at sitespromoter.com, it would be about a 3 to 5 second process to verify:
http://www.whois.sc/digitalpoint.com

 

Hah! Decency. Is there any on the Net? Sorry, just being cynical. Wow, what a lot of responses. Thanks guys. I guess you've kinda answered my question inasmuch as you can't get a site de-listed. I figured as much but thought it was worth asking people who know, rather than guessing. I've sent a feedback email to DMOZ saying that the site in question contains illegal matter. That's not strictly speaking true... but hopefully it should get it delisted. FWIW, I'm not the owner, I just work for them and have been lumbered with this thankless job.

As to reasons. Well, you've covered some of them in this thread. But primarily the reason is that the listing does this site actual harm in driving unwanted traffic to it based on the inaccurate and misleading DMOZ listing. The owner has tried for over a year and a half to get the site description changed, directory changed and all kinds of stuff, to no avail. So they made the decision that it was better to have no listing at all. Only time will tell if DMOZ drop it.

Thanks again for all the advice.

 

That was pretty much the same situation in the I, Brian case. Good luck. Although don't count on getting any cooperation from DMOZ - they've made it clear that they don't consider the fact that it may be actually negatively impacting on the site owner's business to be of any interest to them whatsoever.

 

Deliberately ignoring what I wrote Minstrel?

You do not know that the DMOZ entry is negatively impacting on the site's business - it might be giving it credibility. But the perception is growing amongst those whose site design has led Google to change the snippet that the DMOZ entry, the result not the cause, is damaging them and DMOZ is not geared up to allow a precedent to be set for delisting on demand. It is a practical matter. If your own directories were perceived in the same way and the consequence was that you would spend hundreds of hours simply responding to requests to delist sites, taking into account the need to verify the authenticity of the request (how long before someone complains DMOZ has delisted their site on request of a competitor spoofing their email address), you would soon take the same line. According to detractors DMOZ takes too long to list sites - what overhead would this new task add?

And you are right, DMOZ takes no account of the impact on a business through listing or not listing it. Apart from it not being part of the remit there is a ton of disagreement on what the impact actually is. And DMOZ does not control or influence the impact. If people don't like Google using DMOZ descriptions as snippets then lobby Google to get them to stop. We honestly don't mind if they do stop.

But bottom line is that this is not a cold callous decision, it was discussed a couple of years back in detail and taking into account all the pros and cons. The cons of delisting on demand outweighed the pros. Sorry if it inconveniences a minority by forcing them to re-examine their meta descriptions and site index page layout, but this is really not something caused by, or ultimately resolvable, by DMOZ.

If a description is inaccurate then a request can be made to update it, as long as the request is free of hype and keyword stuffing. Such hyped and stuffed requests are declined but reasonable updates are carefully considered.

 

No, although that's definitely tempting based on your other posts...

First, I know a little about I, Brian and frankly I trust his assessment of the impact far more than I trust yours. For one thing, he's an honorable internet businessman and I have no idea what you are. For another, he's looking at the bottom line of his web stats and you don't have access to those so the fact that you would even consider that you know better than him in this matter is additional evidence of that DMOZ arrogance the rest of the world hates so much. And for another, please tell me how the following description could possibly give anyone any credibility at all?

More standard DMOZ smokescreen. That's already been answered above in this thread. And there's no question in this case that it was Brian's site so it doesn't even apply here.

More arrogance. This was also suggested in the RZ thread, which is insulting to the site owner, especially in this case. Were you a participant in that thread under another name, brizzie? Or are you just echoing canned DMOZ responses again?

Given the huge database of pornography in DMOZ's directory, I guess not... Pilate washing his hands in a bowl of water?

What cons? Would it break your directory? Would it negatively impact on your income? Or is it just that it would negatively impact on your egos?

That pretty much says it all.

 

See the big manipulator. If the answer is not what you want to hear just remove the parts you don't like et voila you get the answer you want.

 

Hey kiddies, some of us aren't playing nicely here! Please go back to the r-z thread Mike referenced and read posts 15 - 18 ... the listing was updated and moved to http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Scotland/Clackmannanshire/Menstrie/
on the same day the thread was started according to the date on the category. "Last update: 16:58 PT, Tuesday, October 25, 2005"

All this is publicly available information. Mike seemed satisfied with the outcome in the resource zone thread. Has that changed?

(added) Mike's description was changed as well. It's all in the open to see, go look.

(added later) oops, you're right minstrel. MikeDammann provided the r-z link to Brian's thread, I confused the names. Sorry about that.

 

You mean Brian, Annie. I don't think he was satisfied that his original request was answered at all - I think it was just obvious to him that he was beating his head against a stone wall. He requested (a) a change in descritpion or (b) removal from the directory. What he got was neither, but rather (c) moved to a more appropriate regional category with the original issues unbresolved.

 

Unresolved? The new description says "Offers search engine optimisation, webdesign, webhosting and internet consultancy. Includes service details, webmaster articles, and contact details."

What on EARTH could be wrong with that, now?

The change in description came because, as it clearly says in that thread, there was no Web design category, so putting the text in the description is no longer redundant.

 

If that was mentioned anywhere in the RZ thread in question, I must have missed it. Kudos to whoever made the change. It still doesn't alter all the "we are DMOZ and we will do whatever we want and to hell with your business" comments in that thread, though.

Where did it say that in that thread? What I see is a statement that the listing had been moved to a different category, not that any change had been made to the description.

 

To be fair, minstrel got the quote right and I realised it could be read in such a way to elicit the response that came as predictable as the sun rising in the east so I edited to clarify.

I, Brian said "Apologies if I sounded demanding at first, but I am happy to see the situation resolved in this matter, and I am grateful that you took the time to address the matter as you have done so. "

Why do you assume that you are the only one who knows everything and anyone who disagrees with you is automatically arrogant? Or spouting some kind of canned lies. You truly are delusional. Editors are happy to visit external forums and answer questions to the best of their ability. Abusing them doesn't help anyone else here but if it amuses your ego, way to go, editors have tough skins.

 

Post 15 in that thread: "I'm moving the listing as I write and will look into the description as I do that. It may well need a new description from our point of view, if it does not go into a Web designer category."

Put that togther with what I mentioned above about not using redundant terms in the description, if they are already in the category name,and you will hopefully see why what happened, happened in terms of the description.

And as for the "we do what we want", yes, the ODP has its own set of guidelines about how sites should be listed, and the editors try to stick to those as much as possible. Much as many would wish to have influence over whether, when or how sites are listed in the ODP, that's not reality, nor has it ever been.

 

Okay. Thanks for the clarification, Alucard - I don't think it was very clear in the thread itself.

Nonetheless, all of this thread was about the OP's question about a site removal - Brian's site was introduced as an example. The fact that his situation resolved in a manner favorable to his situation doesn't alter the fact that there is a DMOZ policy here which is potentially hurtful to webmasters and to many people, including me, doesn't seem rational.

I remind you that the issue is why not honor a request for REMOVAL of a listing when there is reasonable grounds to believe that the listing is causing damage to the site owner? How does it harm DMOZ to acced to such a request?

 

Ecidently some have thick skulls, too