Remove Listing from DMOZ

Asked and answered a dozen different ways. Removing one site is neither here nor there, setting a precedent is an entirely different matter. And it is not the DMOZ listing doing the damage, it is Google's policy of the month doing any damage.

 

Not at all. Answered one way - it's not DMOZ policy - and repeated a dozen times. The usual non-answer.

Look brizzie - you already have the Resourceless Zone for this kind of crap - why don't you just join Motsa and Hutchenson and the rest over there where people actually want to hear and will applaud your mindless canned replies?

 

OK, fair enough.

The deletion of an existing listing is a form of update. To request a site removal go to the category in which the site is listed. Click on "update listing" and give your reasons. An editor will consider the request; we do it all the time. I'm always grateful when someone requests removal via the update request when there's something wrong with the listing.

 

Thank you again, Annie. A rare voice of reason and actual information in the DMOZ world.

 

But remember: when there is nothing wrong with the listing it will not be removed.

 

I didn't say "it's not DMOZ policy" nor did I give you a canned response. I gave you a reasonable and quite simple answer. It sets a precedent which could potentially, given Google's current policy, create a new task for editors when according to yourself there are insufficient resources to list submissions. I am truly sorry if that creates inconvenience for some but wouldn't it be more productive to lobby Google on their policy of using DMOZ data in this way. Surely if you can prove to Google that this policy is resulting in webmasters being penalised because, in your opinion, the DMOZ data is flawed they will listen to you. In fact there is also a post in the Resource Zone where a webmaster says they wrote to Google and told them the snippet they had used from DMOZ was inaccurate, and Google reverted to the previous description.

What do the personal insults achieve? Do you think I'm going to take it to heart and run away from helping people get decent quality websites included in DMOZ, and helping to guide them around guidelines that preceded me and will outlive me as an editor? You are on record as wanting to do all you can to see the demise of DMOZ after all. Forget it man, the more you throw the insults out the more need there is for some balance here.

 

Read your own posts again, brizzie. Then compare them to RZ threads. Notice the similarity?

 

brizzie, while minstrel does take a lot of snide, below-the-belt pot-shots at the ODP's expense, even if that means misquoting editors (it was that which got me going on this forum in the first place, as I recall), he has said quite clearly in this forum that his main goal is to try to get Google away from using the ODP as a trusted resource (be that for ranking, the directory, or descriptions). The posts he has made have been trying to point out why the ODP is not a resource that Google should be using. (And my stance is that those very same reasons are why Google DOES use the ODP). I feel that he has been pretty consistent in that.

If Google were to drop the ODP completely, I don't think Minstrel would have any more beefs about the ODP.

 

Hmm. Seems I'm getting some conflicting advice here because...

Anyway...it seems DMOZ have removed our site coz it's gone from the listing. Google are still showing it, but I guess that'll change when they next update, right?

So...it seems like reporting that a site contravenes DMOZ's AUP (which is what I ended up doing) gets a site de-listed. Or maybe someone was just feeling generous? Dunno. Anyway I'm glad that they acted on our requests.
Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing but the greatest respect for what DMOZ do and I think it's a great service, but when they get it badly wrong (as they did in our case) it just means a site gets swamped by unwanted traffic, increased hosting costs and so on and the visitors get pissed coz the site is not what the directory listing led them to believe they were gonna get.

Thanks for all your help guys. I guess all's well that ends well, huh?

Amen to that. I can't speak for other sites but it would be a lot better for us if they did.

 

Seems odd to do that by using personalised insults rather than sticking to issues. Seems counter-productive to the objective. Each to their own.

Fair enough but that is a Google matter not an ODP one. Personally I couldn't care less one way or another. It would certainly reduce the pressure on editors and let them get on with the job they joined for not the one webmasters have assigned to them.

The updates are irregular but yes that is what will happen. This should happen in other directories too as they take up new RDF dumps. Bear in mind that some directories take one update then never again so it could still be listed in some forevermore. [added: latest figures indicate in excess of 500 data users so it may take some time to perculate through]

 

Considering your own posts, that seems more than a little hypocritical.

I'm not just talking about this thread but for the moment, in this thread alone, I think you set the tone in post #41.

 

have posts been deleted since you made that post by any chance? The post #41 I'm seeing is

'Asked and answered a dozen different ways. Removing one site is neither here nor there, setting a precedent is an entirely different matter. And it is not the DMOZ listing doing the damage, it is Google's policy of the month doing any damage.'

I'm not sure where the personalised insult or deviation from the thread's discussion lies. I do however have some recollection of people accusing one another of making 'mindless canned replies', being 'thick skulled', making so many contentless posts that it's tempting to ignore all others from that one specific person, and so on... to have the temerity to call others 'imperiously insulting' is somewhat surprising.

Moving on... on page 3, I forget the specific post #, you suggested that 'Not that difficult to check [that a sire delisting request is genuine, i.e. from the site owner] in most cases... '

Firstly, can you suggest an appropriate verification procedure for an editor of a category when he gets a request like that? You may be intimate with I, Brian but pick any DMOZ category's editor and I assure you your statement that 'there certainly wasn't any doubt that the site I, Brian was talking about was his own' is certainly not as obvious as you state.

Consider additional complications, like sites changing owner (i.e. no longer being able to ask for delisting from the same email address as the one on the submission form), or the fact that some (misguided, IMHO) webmasters view a DMOZ listing to be worth $1000 - given the relative ease of email spoofing, you'd certainly be getting value for money if you hired someone to do that to a rival's listing.

The ratio of false requests:real ones will hence be very high indeed, given the SEO benefit of a DMOZ listing to your competitors. Certainly, DMOZ would have to be very thorough in these checks to ensure fairness. When one of the main arguments aimed at DMOZ, and a hideous source of anger amongst the webmaster community, is the perceived slowness with which sites are added to the listings once submitted, would DMOZ really be improving things? Would delisting a site that's good enough for the directory really be improving DMOZ? Does a webmaster have the right to go around the net requesting webmasters remove links to their site because of bad anchor text? If not, what makes DMOZ the exception - is it Google & co's reliance on DMOZ data? If so, should you not be taking up this enquiry with Google?

 

Why do you want to remove it? (probably already answered, but I can't go through 4 pages) I'd do anything for my site to be listed there.

 

Minstrel, while I can see your points and know that they are very well thought put and put across....

I really fail to see where and how you can have the slightest idea what it means to be a dmoz editor, or have to comply with the standards set within. Why would you ? You've never been there. You do not know anything really apart from 'hear-say' and 'circumstancial evidence' from the outside.

I see editor after editor here trying to tell you like it is.

DMOZ tries to be and institutes rules for editors in order to make most descriptions 'hype-free'. It's not a new concept, I think most others work along the same principles ?

The descriptions of sites have to be described as stated before, simply as an observation of a) what a site does and b) what it contains. Anything else sticks out like a 10ft big thumb... (and from what I've read internally, is exactly how most bad editors are caught).

Imagine what it would be like if we felt like listing sites with the words ' Absolutely fabulous site !!!! that is sooooo much better than any other one here, I love it, everyone please visit asap'.

Because I CAN assure you that's what most sites are submitted like. Of course they are !

But at the end of the day such descriptions cannot be listed like that, and the hype has to be 'pared down' a tad.

Sorry if this description didn't match what the website owner wanted. But removing hype sometimes means taking out the 'fab' and 'wonderful site best thing since sliced bread' aspects. Repeating the category header words in every description also not necessary, though can be a pain to comply with.
But if a site is in 'website design' then 'website design' is generally not going to appear in the description repetitively and certainly not the words 'website this or website that'.

Unfortunatley I guess that's not always what a web site owner wants to see ?

Oh and I've still to see conclusive evidence why DMOZ should be treated differentley to any other directory a la the 'de-listing' thing ?

 

bradley, brizzie, and shygirl: I suggest you take it to RZ where somebody might be actually interested.

If you don't get it by now, you're not going to, largely because you clearly have no interest in actually trying to understand it or in doing anything other than trotting out yet another restatement of the standard DMOZ party line. I can assure you that all of us here have heard it over and over - we really don't need to hear it again.

 

I would image that DMOZ gets request like this all the time from folks that are not the true web site owner. I don't understand why it's their problem if Google uses their description listings. If you have a problem with Google listings, contact them. What am I missing here?

 

Read the thread, markhutch...

 

With a very small change this can be said about you to.

If you don't get it by now, you're not going to, largely because you clearly have no interest in actually trying to understand it or in doing anything other than trotting out yet another restatement of the standard anti-DMOZ party line. I can assure you that all of us here have heard it over and over - we really don't need to hear it again.

 

and there was I just looking for some answers to my valid answers. I'm not sure if you totally appreciate the irony of calling others thick skulled or accusing them of dodging questions? I have no desire to go to RZ, I've made perfectly valid questions here about your standpoint which I want you to answer, and it's a crying shame you won't.

 

The private feedback I've had from users of this site has been on balance very positive and encouraging.