Remove Listing from DMOZ

The site gets a lot of traffic; in excess of 20,000 uniques a day and a good percentage of those are because of the (erroneous) DMOZ listing we had (now deleted thank goodness). Basically our webmaster was paying through the nose for visits we didn't want from people who had been misdirected to the site by the innaccurate DMOZ listing. As I explained earlier, we've tried for over a year to get the listing changed to accurately reflect the sites content and aims but DMOZ didn't do anything. So de-listing the site seemed the only option. Yeah, we could have written to Google and the other SE's that use DMOZ but that would have been an even bigger waste of time. ;-)

Google are still listing us in their directory, but we've gone outta the DMOZ directory and from the listings of quite a few other sites that use it too.

Does anyone know how often Google updates its DMOZ listing?

 

It is irregular. Sometimes a month apart, sometimes it can go 6 months.

 

Not defineable, but I usually guess around six weeks after the DMOZ change. Depends on the exact timing, there is around a one to seven day delay geting into the RDF dump, then Google has to pick that up and do their weird stuff with it.

If the ODP change is made a day before the RDF change, then it gets in there fast, if Google happens to choose that day to get a dump, then it gets into Googles processing within two days. In that case it could be less than two weeks.

 

Well, gotta say that wasn't true in our case. The description was totally wrong and a year and a half of trying to get it changed had no effect whasoever. I dunno; maybe we were just unlucky.

Not ours, hon. ;-)

Hey, we'd have settled for 'widgits.com: sells chalk direct.' Instead we got: 'widgits.com: sells cheese direct.' In other words...the description was totally unrelated to the services and info we provide.

ON EDIT:
Macdesign and Brizzie. Thanks for the info. At least it won't be years then.

 

I dont think there is any urgency to get removed from DMOZ listing. I hardly see any disadvantage.

 

Not sure what you meant by that. The 'urgency' in our case was that we'd been trying for over 18 months to get our listing corrected. I'd say we were pretty damn patient to wait that long before trying to get de-listed, wouldn't you?
As for 'disadvantage' how would you like to pay out $500 a month in excess bandwidth fees for traffic you didn't want and hadn't asked for just because fuckwads were clicking on a misleading DMOZ description? Don't DMOZ have some responsibility to the site owner to at least make an attempt at an accurate description? Hell, our webmaster wanted to sue them, but I talked them out of it.

 

Without knowing the site, category, and description used it is difficult to make a comment whether it is accurate or not, according to DMOZ guidelines. Or whether it accurately reflected the site when it was reviewed. Descriptions often omit what the site does if it is contained in a specific category for that type of business - Google dropped the category name from its descriptions which put a spanner in the works. They don't consult with DMOZ over what they are going to do and what the repercussions might be. Though it would be beneficial to all if they did restore the category names.

Sometimes sites are badly described and an Update request should alert an editor to that - I must have processed hundreds. There is a tendency in Update requests to attempt to replace the description with a keyword stuffed hyped up description and such updates tend to get deleted on sight - any legitimacy in the request is lost. Not saying that is what happened here because without the URL I can't see the history, but it is something others should bear in mind.

The other thing is the reason for the update. If an update is requested because of marketing reasons then editors will not consider that a valid reason. If it is because the description is wrong then that is the reason that should be given - I for one would always take such a request very seriously.

 

Critics never die.. You are undermining endless efforts of professional webmasters.

 

I don't understand, what do you mean by this?

 

Likewise I'm sure !

You of all people should know that ANY hypothesis is based on numberable, repeatable results within a controlled environment.

The case here is a somewhat 'irregular' case. As in, 99.99% of webmasters are complaining about not getting IN. Right ?

You're all getting in a bit of a tizz about someone in the 000.1% of webmasters who want out.

Hardly the 'norm'.

And definitely not a complete vindication 'how you (personally) view' normal processes within dmoz.

You've still to convince me of anything which is research based. Get together with a few webmasters who have 20 or so sites to submit in completely different areas within the directory. Look at what happens to them, time taken, description apportioned, listed or not. Then draw a valid conclusion from the experience.

Until then any, and as a psychologist, you should know this, any supposed 'hunches', 'theories' or 'conspirarcy and corruption' issues you may have.

Remain precisely that, hunches, theories, and wishful thinking.

Now I've asked twice on this thread now for someone to show where there is a 'right to de-list' on any other directory out there, regardless of 'well if it was me I would' self righteousness in order to justify the next 3 posts on the matter.

Now if anyone would like to stop, like I was accused of, "side stepping" the issue (and the original topic discussed)...

Point me to another directory where there is a 'delist me here' option, and then explain to me exactly why Dmoz should implement this policy when no others appear to do so. Then I'd be interested.

Until then I'd be grateful if professional webmasters would stop putting out the same 'canned responses' and predictible attitudes, that I myself am being accused of. It brings nothing new to the debate.

Oh, and Minstrel (do correct me if I'm wrong) but I read in one of your posts you telling someone that no-one has the right to tell you to 'go and take your attitude elsewhere' and that you don't need permission to post...I reserve the same right, thank you.

And as for the person who called me 'hon'...? Try not to bring sexist and extremely patronising attitudes along within polite conversation and debate. It seems somewhat distasteful and is a bit of a slap in the face for all females who post here.

 

Huh? That was me. Wow, who got out on the wrong side of bed today? I was trying to be *friendly*. As it happens I'm female, or I at least I was the last time I checked. So the 'sexism' jibe is a bit misdirected sweetie. As someone just passing through here I hope I may be forgiven for observing that a lot of you DMOZ editors appear to have very thin skins and short fuses; not the best qualification IMV for doing any kind of 'editing' job. But then I wonder how many of you actually have any experience in real 'editing' - i.e., in the publishing industry?

Your snide disparagement of webmasters is also a little off-putting. They may all be one breed to you, and you may very well encounter lots of them who were well down the bus when brains were being handed out, but please don't lump us all together. I majored in Political Science and Eng Lit and have held several senior positions for national news media. I'm not even a webmaster, or 'mistress', just the poor schmuck my boss picked on to get the site I work for de-listed, which I've done (hopefully). Brizzie has been particularly helpful and sympathetic; why can't you be? Or are you so blinkered by the status of being a DMOZ editor that any criticism of the organisation you work for sends you into a tizz? Get a life, *HON*, DMOZ is a very small fish in the real world.

Best wishes,
Natalie

 

Actually thinking about it I can understand the "canned responses" comments to a degree.

First question: "Can anyone tell me how to get a site removed from DMOZ?"

There is only one answer that can be given to a request for information on DMOZ policies and practices - that is the official policy and practice. In this case, we don't delist listable sites on demand. Any other statement by an editor would be foolish, misleading, and of no use to the questioner. So wherever and by whomever the question is asked the answer is always the same.

Second question: Why is that the policy?

Again all an editor can do is to say why the policy exists, using guidelines, policy, knowledge of internal debates, and extrapolation of all those sources. Plus a bit of qualified opinion. The reasons, logically, must support the policy or they are not reasons it exists. So again the answers will all come out roughly the same wherever the question is asked. Anything else will provide misleading information and promote misunderstanding. The editor may or may not think the reasons are justified, all they are doing is providing information not defending it.

Third question: Should that be the policy?

That wasn't the question asked here and whilst it can be debated and discussed it doesn't provide information of practical use to the questioner in order to achieve their objective. It could mislead and seriously harm their case if they acted upon an opinion that differed from the policy. Nothing debated here will change the policy or the reasons for it directly. Some editors will support the policy others will not. In the previous case, a couple of years ago, that was debated, a personal site not submitted but picked up by an editor and listed, my personal view was very much that it did not harm us and showed compassion to comply with the request and we should accede. I lost the argument and, as is the way in DMOZ, having argued your point and lost you implement the joint decision or resign or stay away from situations where you might have to implement the majority decision. Had I then delisted the site myself it would have been restored and my editor rights revoked for absolutely no gain at all.

With the current situation of business sites asking to be delisted I personally foresee major problems with it escalating and I am, on balance, against delisting on demand in such circumstances. That is a purely personal decision, not a canned or official position, and I am sure other editors will take a stronger line and others would take a more compliant line. But as I say, it is a debate editors can have, and something reasoned external commentary can influence in some way - by influencing the editors who may debate it. So I am interested, as are other editors, by any practical solutions and ideas that might work: a very good point may well be carried back into an internal debate at some point.

The practical advice, the best advice that can be given to a webmaster or their agent is to point them at the legitimate reasons why a site can be delisted within the guidelines and practice. And leave it to them to work out a way from that. There is nothing else on a practical level any individual editor can do - editors cannot act against policy and guidelines based on a personal belief. So once again there will always be a commonality in the replies.

 

As much as we all hate canned responses, I have to agree with brizzie on this. The right answer is the right answer. Anything else is wrong.

There are different ways of wording it though. In post #43 I basically said the exact same thing brizzie and others have been saying all along, and got positive feedback for it. And they get negative feedback for saying the same thing!

Maybe ODP editors tend to say too much when a simple reply is all that's necessary? I don't know.

 

It's not a question of right or wrong in the sense of "correct vs. incorrect" but in the sense of "fair vs. unfair" or something similar.

And the question is indeed "Should that be the policy?". I don't think it should be.

 

Then I humbly apologise "sweetcheeks" a big mwaaah ! from me

Me too, I've observed the same from lots of webmasters too unfortunatley hun ! Thin skins and short fuses seem to be part of the problem for all, not just editors. Check out the posts here ? It's everywhere !

Careful of stereotyping ? There is a lot of it goes on...Best not to label folks with assumptions. I do have some 'real' editing experience within a well known, shall we say 'large' support group for disabled folks.

Likewise honey, snide disparagments are always off-putting. (I refer once again to 'thick skulls' and 'arrogance' comments). You wouldn't call those 'snide put-downs then ? Don't be coy now.

I have a degree myself and a few other stings to my bow. I felt no need to shout them from the rooftops though...but it it makes you feel better ? I am not a webmistress either. Just a poor schmuck who signed up in order to publish a few quality sites in a category I have a personal (oh and dare I say 'non commercial' ?) interest in, in a big directory. I, in case you hadn't noticed, also get crap for that.

I'm also sympathetic, however, sometimes folks just have to tell it like it is. How things work and what can and cannot be done. I've only been honest. However much people want to skirt round the issue, editors have rules to stick by. I can be a nice as you want about it, but it won't change the facts.
There IS no 'right' to de-list. Of course there are cases where things should be looked into. But at the end of the day there IS no 'right' to de-list on any other directory either. What else is there to say ? I should also point out I don't 'work' for anyone. I donate my time.

Am I blinkered as a Dmoz editor ? Well I guess as much as you are as a 'poor shmuck' who is desperate to get a website de-listed ? You're kind of blinkered a tad in that respect too.

And if DMOZ is such a small fish, why don't you just get on with your life too ? I apparently don't have one anyway.

Cheers for now *Sweetie*

 

Look what page is listed in DMOZ, add small script that looks for where the user is coming from. If it is from DMOZ directory, send the user to a page with information regarding DMOZ editors corruption.
Have a form ready that users can click on and send a complain to AOL about how bad the editor's abuse in DMOZ is.
email DMOZ and also ask for update to your site, I think they will remove your site very quickly.

 

Use "update listing" link from the category releted to your site.
Make a note and ask them to remove your site.

The editor will see this as an actualization of a listed page and they will edit it. The note (made by you) will specify them what to do.

 

Since I got 2 angry red rep form DMOZ editors for this post, I believe this must be very effective way to be removed from DMOZ.

I remember awhile back some one else had this problem when resource-less zone still existed also and he used to login to RZ and call the editors every name in the book, they will ban him, he would register with new id and repeat the same thing. After 2-3 days finally editors decided they can't win and removed his listing. The whole process was quite funny and you can find it in old threads here.

It is quite sad that the only language this so called "Volunteer" organization understand is the force.

 

that's disgustiong behaviour. the guy is nothing morre than a spamming bully!

Where in DMOZ does it say we comply with site removal requests? He has no more right to expect a site to be delisted from dmoz, as he would expect me to remove a link to his site put on some html page somewhere on the net! He can ask, but there's no obligation at all. To force it to happen with spamming, rudeness and bullying is sickening. It's no better than blackmail. It's the same mentality as terrorism!

 

Isn't rudeness and bullying the standard code of behavior for DMOZ editors?

I think is quite funny that DMOZ editors don't feel obliged to follow any code of standard or responsibility (including legal responsibility since they list illegal sites) because they have the power but if someone else use the same logic and show them that others can be as powerful, they will start to cry and whine about it.