| 1:35 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'd sit tight if I were you - less than a month is not long to wait in a free-for-inclusion directory with often significant backlogs. Instances of editor abuse are pretty rare relative to the overall number of editors and that's not a realistic assumption to jump straight to. If you had real reasons to suspect such practices then dmoz does have a publicly available abuse report system to address this issue.
Update requests are unlikely to be accepted if you're asking to keyword stuff or hype up your title or description. If the editor reviews your site and finds that the content hs now changed so that it doesn't meet the criteria for listing, e.g. it's all affiliate content now, then your site might be deleted. However, this won't happen if your site contains good content and meets the directory guidelines.
| 1:42 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A month is, unfortunately, not that long to wait in a commercial category. You can review the forum charter [webmasterworld.com] for the best way to escalate a question about the site's status.
|this person may have a commercial interest, and sees our company as a direct threat, and get removed from the directory totally. |
There are multiple avenues for reporting abuse. See the instructions at the other forum noted for reporting abuse. You can also contact a meta-editor [dmoz.org] directly by using the "send feedback" link on their public profile. Or, (the slowest method), you can try e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org .
But it is always possible the site might be moved or unreviewed for perfectly legitimate reasons, and this occurs rather frequently. If the content has changed substantially, if a niche retailer has become a general one or vice versa, if an informational site has become a commercial site or vice versa, if a drop-ship e-tailer has become an affiliate site, and so on, it is incumbent upon the editor to remove the listing and suggest it for re-listing in a more appropriate category (or in the last listed case, deleted). Abuse does occur of course, and a number of editors are expelled in any given week-- but very often we find that what is reported as abuse is actually quite the opposite, an editor doing his or her job, or a disappointed submitter trying to accelerate his or her specific case.
| 2:00 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I guess I will sit tight for a couple of months. 6 years ago, it only took a few days, but I guess the backlog has grown over the years.
What may be interesting is our company name. We changed our company name and URL to what DMOZ may be consider to be promotional language, (ie suggesting that we offer the lowest prices on widgets). But hey we do offer the lowest price on widgets and we can prove it. We did not however ask for any change in the description.
Hopefully this will not get us dropped.
| 4:28 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Make sure editors can consider your update request legitimate, otherwise it would be too easy to hijack listings. Something like a redirect old URL --> new URL, or a clear and visible note on the old site like i.e. "Our company name is now X and we have a new site at Y. Please update your bookmarks." should be OK.
| 5:44 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The question you ask is, logically speaking, exactly equivalent to "Can I, by merely submitting a change request, guarantee that my site will stay in DMOZ forever?"
The answer to that question is "no." Whatever you do, your site may be re-reviewed at any time, and may be removed at any time. There is no conceivable thing you can do to guarantee a permanent listing, although constantly adding what editors regard as "good relevant content" is your best bet.
We try to discourage arbitrary removal of sites: editors who remove sites arbitrarily are liable to removal themselves. And that means a site that has already been added is more likely to be kept than a site with the same quantity of content being reviewed for the first time. (Not realizing the necessity for this sometimes causes frustration for new site creators.)
But there are certain events that may well trigger a re-review of a site (and removal might be one of the results). One such event is an "Update URL" request, another is "site down". (Note that anyone may send an "update URL", and people are encouraged to use that mechanism or "abuse reports" to report sites that shouldn't be listed any more.)
| 6:05 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A slightly different answer to a different question:
1) Editor not acting immediately on any kind of request, is NEVER abuse. All editors are volunteers, no editor is required to do anything specific other than repair damage they caused themselves.)
2) Removal of a site after a change request is not abuse. INAPPROPRIATE removal of a site ANYTIME is something we want to hear about. It may not be abuse -- I know an editor who sent a Symphony Orchestra in Kentucky to an editorless World/Afrikaans category once :o , and he didn't even get a reprimand! But please use the "abuse report" mechanism to report inappropriate site removals.
3) Editors showing favoritism to their own sites and/or deleting competition IS abuse. Please report it.
Abuse reports are taken seriously--right up there with Robozilla-tagged sites. I'd say 90% are investigated within a week, to the point of agreeing on what action needs to be taken (Obviously, actually doing the remedial action may take longer.)
| 6:44 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Came to this late but here is a cautionary tale:
Around a year ago I found myself in exactly the same position - 3 year old listing, tried to change it, no joy - when I contacted the editor I was informed that all 5 of our sites were up for "internal review" following the change request and most of them would be taken out of the directory. Repeated requests for clarification were met with no response.
These sites were completely different (and in one case a different country) but all run by my company. Now only one is in the directory...
Sit tight and don't contact the editor directly. Leave well enough alone.
| 6:51 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Leave well enough alone
Would be my advice too, unless the current listing is inaccurate as to mislead the dmoz users.
>But hey we do offer the lowest price on widgets and we can prove it.
I'm sure you do, having said that if Google submitted a change request, say the-worlds-best-search-engine.com, a close look at their listings may follow.
Remember, the big change with Dmoz is that "intent" has become part of the culture. If they think you are gaming them....
| 7:53 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>My next step is to contact the category editor directly, but im woried that this person may have a commercial interest, and sees our company as a direct threat, and get removed from the directory totally. <<
If you've really become a behemoth in the industry, it shouldn't have taken an update URL request to get a competitor to notice you.
| 7:58 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>My next step is to contact the category editor directly, but im woried that this person may have a commercial interest, and sees our company as a direct threat, and get removed from the directory totally.
It is highly unlikely, but conceivable: but the meta-editor (or staff member!) who reviews your abuse report will NOT have a competitive interest.
| 9:14 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Editors should list any conflicts of interest items in thier profile. This would make life alot
easier, and make them more accountable.
| 9:26 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would be very wary ...
I had an issue / irritant where an editor appeared to be ignoring my clients site in favour of others .. there was quite a bit of info available about the editor who turned out to be the site designer of my clients competitor whose site was listed a number of times.
I thought to take it up with them but decided against it. I got a listing by contacting them directly, not perfect but after discussion with my client decided to leave it at that.
Its results I am after not vengance :-)
For my money Google is misplacing its trust in dmoz. I would rather trust businesses prepared to put their money where their mouth is paying for listings in the likes of yahoo or business.com etc or getting into zeal if not for profit.
Dmoz is not where I look for credible sites and I am surprised that google appears to where PR is concerned.
| 3:50 pm on Aug 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you decide to ask for an update, be very polite. Additionally, I wouldn't mention anything related to your current concerns.
| 5:24 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Editors should list any conflicts of interest items in thier profile. This would make life alot easier, and make them more accountable. |
Ever apply to DMOZ and notice that section which states to disclose all sites you're affiliated with? An editor has to do that for each section he applies for.
Your site is already listen in DMOZ, be satisfied. Maybe an editor has already reviewed your suggested changes and decided they were inapropriate?
| 5:58 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't believe that makes it into his profile as suggested, regardless of the merits of the suggestion.
|Ever apply to DMOZ and notice that section which states to disclose all sites you're affiliated with? An editor has to do that for each section he applies for. |
Seems like that would have been an excellent time to send a quick email.
|Your site is already listen in DMOZ, be satisfied. Maybe an editor has already reviewed your suggested changes and decided they were inapropriate? |
| 9:30 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Editors only have to be accountable to meta editors and staff, not the public so it isn't necessary (and sometimes isn't desireable) for them to list their affiliations on their profile. All that matters is that the people who need to know *do* know.
| 12:28 pm on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
However, when editors do choose to make their affiliations public, there are two options available - one is to list them on the editor profile page, the other is to list them in an 'affiliations' category in the editor bookmarks. My guess is that the second one is more frequently used.