| 12:19 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think dmoz is on the way down
| 12:33 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I`m seeing the same thing here also. Anyone knows what is going on?
| 2:03 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Did DMOZ clean house or what? |
We're always cleaning house.
| 2:07 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've seen that happening before, especially in commercial cats. Last time I seen that, lots of listings got dropped which effectively were doorway sites.
Can't say I blame the editors for getting rid of those.
| 2:10 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Lazyz, I know everyone thinks their site is great... but did your dropped site have solid, unique content? Or do you think a flinty-eyed editor might have concluded that it was mostly affiliate stuff, doorways, etc.?
| 2:20 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm not that much of an egotist to state "My site was just perfect and spam free" I'm sure there was some spam. However, it was listed for 2+ years... but seeing that 300+ sites were dropped from one category makes me a bit curious as well as seeing the editor's names disappear from the bottom of the pages... Looks like someone got fired...
| 2:24 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
At any given time, categories and listings are being reevaluated by editors. Discussion may conclude that sites or categories belong in a different part of the directory, or that some sites or categories are no longer inappropriate for listing/multiple listing/deeplinking. Additionally, senior editors may be investigating an abuse concern regarding an editor or a category, and the meta-editors or staff may have taken action to remove listings that were added inappropriately or in outright violation of ODP rules, and to discipline the editors responsible.
[edited by: choster at 2:33 pm (utc) on May 15, 2003]
| 2:27 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That may well be the case... I won't go so far as to say I am an innocent victom but 300+ sites... wow! I'm going to clean up the site a bit and see if I can't get back in... I enjoyed the traffic. (I'd love to be the editor... not to get my own site in but, yes the category did have some sites in it that I wondered how they got past an editors review.. I could do a better job)
| 2:39 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
First may I say what a pleasure it was to use DMOZ today, I got in from the public side without delays!
FWIW I have noticed hundreds of sites disappearing in the Caribbean. Under lodging for individual countries, there used to be lodging directories. Now in many of them the category has been completely emptied.
In other words it is not a case of one or two spam sites going but everything in that category has been removed.
My guess would be that across several contries, well over 100 sites have been removed as categories have been emptied.
I would assume this is a policy decision by DMOZ to remove lodging directories wholesale.
| 2:54 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I have noticed hundreds of sites disappearing in the Caribbean |
Ahhh, the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon... ;)
| 3:38 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon
Funny you should mention Bermuda, that is one of the countries for which sites have disappeared ;)
| 3:44 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From what I have seen on TV, virtually all sites that disappear in the Bermuda Triangle are never heard from again... though occasionally they may be found drifting with all their content removed... ;)
| 4:50 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|In other words it is not a case of one or two spam sites going but everything in that category has been removed. |
The amount of lodging directories that have a significant amount of unique content can be counted on one hand. Everything else is basically an affiliate booking engine with a wrapper of syndicated (and in some cases stolen) content to make the site look different. From the ODP perspective all of the sites are spam.
There is no policy to delete lodging directories wholesale. OTOH, there is a policy of requiring unique content, which is why all of those sites got axed.
| 4:55 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Large swaths of categories may indeed be removed from the directory, though this is a relative rarity. Notably, sites of individual representatives for MLM companies were deleted wholesale a little over a year ago-- well over 12,000 listings-- after substantial internal discussion. In another case, the entire Korean language branch was temporarily removed from public view for various quality control problems.
More frequently, categories in spammy areas (e.g. travel, real estate, debt consolidation, personals, weight loss, term papers, ringtones, herbal remedies, and all the other usual suspects) are often purged because the ratio of useful content to ads and spam seems to decline progressively.
In general, I'd say the directory's guidelines and culture are rather (sometimes too-?) disinclined to deleting listings or rejecting submissions.
| 4:59 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>quality control problems
A born diplomat choster, a born diplomat ;-)
Thanks for your info there, interesting history and that which I can understand without having 'been there' makes a good deal of sense..
| 5:03 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>In general, I'd say the directory's guidelines and culture are rather (sometimes too-?) disinclined to deleting listings or rejecting submissions.
On the contrary, I would suggest that when a guideline (diktat) comes from on high about dubious sites in "the usual suspects" then senior editors need to check that middle/lower rank editors are not throwing out the babies with the bathwater ;)
There is a danger of a "if in doubt, throw it out" philosophy occuring - which, I would accept, may be what senior editors intend in the first place!
| 5:48 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Everything else is basically an affiliate booking engine with a wrapper"
I almost have to agree (even my site)...
When I recently attempted to apply as an editor, I found that trying to find three sites that I would approve for inclussion was rather difficult. The few sites that I did find had to ruin the chances with nasty pop-up consoles or voice/wav adds... Finding good sites are difficult. Like me, everyone is after that evil dollar/frank/pound/or what ever that cash is called.
| 3:04 am on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you're knowledgable about a catagory than finding 3 sites that qualify is extremely easy. If *your* site qualifies than all you have to do is find 3 of your competitors. If they're already listed than find 3 of your lower ranked competitors.
I'm tempted to make a go at applying to Dmoz.
| 3:16 am on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I take it you have no problems getting your sites listed in DMOZ? Also - you are familiar with DMOZ's rules and terms?
| 3:18 am on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The more I look at DMOZ and all its inefficiencies, the more I think they should quit all together. Google should use a better directory, or, better still- create its own.
My 2 cents
| 7:26 am on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Google should use a better directory, or, better still- create its own.
1. A directory needs editors
2. Editors either cost money if full time - nobody has made this route work to date
3. Or you use volunteer editors, and live with the problems that this raises as on DMOZ
In short there is not a better directory, and Google are unlikely to bear the cost of creating one from scratch
| 2:40 am on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>My 2 cents <<
Not worth even that. 2 anti-ODP trolling statements and I bet you aren't done yet...
| 7:12 am on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>2 anti-ODP trolling statements and I bet you aren't done yet...
1 pro-ODP trolling statement and I bet you aren't done yet... ;)
| 6:14 pm on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Isn't this a little off-topic from the orginal thrust of this thread?
| 6:37 pm on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>There is a danger of a "if in doubt, throw it out" philosophy occuring ...
This is probably one (of the many) um, _challenges_ that _always_ face a volunteer-edited directory: and not just in categories attracting viscious abuse!
>which, I would accept, may be what senior editors intend in the first place!
"If in doubt, throw it out" is IMO a pretty fair statement of what we intend for sites offering online hotel reservations.
| 8:48 pm on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"If in doubt, throw it out"
It would be perhaps benefical if you could clarify this
1.Is this statement therefore true of all submissions to DMOZ, and "and not just in categories attracting viscious abuse. In other words if editors take less time to check suspect submissions, then you can clear the unreviewed queue quicker.
Can we therefore expect smaller unreviewed queues and more rejections
2. "a pretty fair statement of what we intend for sites offering online hotel reservations."
There are 2 or 3 large sites offering genuine online booking facilities (I am sure both you and I know who they are) as opposed to affiliate sites. Do I take it that ODP policy is to remove these sites too?
3. I assume you do not intend removing single hotels offering their own online booking for that one hotel.
4. I assume you do not intend removing hotel group hotels offering online booking for that group (Marriot, Hilton, etc)
5. Would it not be an idea to "lock" categories where you will not accept submissions. Stop everyone wasting time.
>>Isn't this a little off-topic from the orginal thrust of this thread? Yes, but post 23 did deserve post 24 as a response
| 9:31 pm on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Is this statement therefore true of all submissions to DMOZ . . . |
Nobody said it was.
In the case of hotel booking directories due to the overwhelming ratio of sites with no unique content to sites with content, it makes sense to assume that the site has no unique content to begin with. Furthermore if an experienced editor can't find unique content on such a site, then regular users most certainly won't either. We will continue to list sites like Expedia, Travelocity, etc because it's pretty obvious their content is unique.
| 9:35 pm on May 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|3. I assume you do not intend removing single hotels offering their own online booking for that one hotel. |
It depends. If the site is run by the hotel itself then no. However, it's become common for webmasters to create affiliate websites for particular hotels. Those will be tossed along with the rest of the trash.
|4. I assume you do not intend removing hotel group hotels offering online booking for that group (Marriot, Hilton, etc) |
No, those won't be removed.
|5. Would it not be an idea to "lock" categories where you will not accept submissions. Stop everyone wasting time. |
Who's time is being wasted? Nobody's forcing a submitter to submit their site. It's also made patently obvious as to what is acceptable content, and what isn't. The recent trend of webmasters trying to cloak their affiliate links, etc, makes it pretty clear people know what these expectations are.
| 7:27 pm on May 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The limitations on the statement were operative: I indeed meant _only_ where _doubt_ exists (i.e. not the two or three real hotelrez systems, or with individual hotel sites or even hotel chain corporate sites), and _only_ with relation to hotel reservations.
Other spam-prone categories don't have _precisely_ the same situation. Basically, Joe Shmoe's garage [website-building] business cannot possibly provide either its own hotel or its own multi-hotel reservation system -- so such a site, if it isn't a real hotel or one of the two-or-three-big-name-reservation-programs, it MUST be an affiliate site, no matter how hard it tries to hide it! We don't have to have ever heard of it, we don't have to know which major system it's affiliating with, to know it ain't nowise unique content.
That's not true of, say, gift-and-klitchware (Joe Shmoe COULD theoretically be selling his wife's line of handcrafted gnome figurines) or real-estate (Joe could be running his own office in Podunksville, New Jersey, without me ever having heard of him).
The ODP doesn't necessarily react to spam quickly, but, using protoplasmic-based tools, it can react flexibly to those particular kinds of spam that (diving in the septic tank of the SEO industry) seem especially persistent and pestilential--which certainly includes hotel reservation affiliates.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 (  2 ) > > |