| 3:40 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Naw Atticus...it's really about favoritism of certain seo firms at the odp. multiple listings, mirror sites and the fact they ignore abuse reports and don't do anything about them....the rest is just garbage various editors are throwing around to distract from the real subject. Same old song and dance.
| 3:42 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Worthless to me, that is. And if worthless to me, than nobody else should be able to use it."
Hutch, thanks for that quote from the DMOZ playbook.
Is that the official response for a submission that conflicts with the financial interests of the category editor?
| 4:10 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Re-reading that last post, it seems maybe a little...harsh?
Apologies to those DMOZ editors who are standing tall and working hard. I know there must be at least three or four of them.
What is it about DMOZ threads that make usually sane people spout smoke and breathe fire?
Seriously. What are these threads really about? Is it lack of parental love or toliet training issues or what?
| 5:12 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
LOL...now I know what the deal is...lol...those editors that claim thousands of sites they have edited...lol...this is too much...one site..a news site!...lol..one I have never heard of before has 10,000 listings in the odp! One site! Every news feed has a listing!...lol..hey! got them a page rank of 7!...Now I gotta ask ya...what is the purpose?..well... it did get them an alexa rating of 2,390...lol..still couldn't beat another major one tho...the #4 network...their's only has 5 listings in the odp and they still beat out the other in alexa...lol...lol..guffaw...10,000!...thanks to the member that stickied me this one...odp...valuable resources!lol....lollllllllll...sorry...can't stop...yea! I want to be an editor...Google! Are ya looking at this? You really want to be a part of it? oh yeah..aol bought 2 million of them expensive shares...didn't they? Look out! here comes MSN!...lol...
| 5:15 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just checked the biggest name on the net....they only have 4000+ listings including all the private groups they host!...lol..lol...oh..I can't stop...lol...this is how all the good money netscape is laying out is being spent...lol...geez...
| 5:31 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>If someone knows that they have been rejected for sure, then they can make a plan B.
It doesn't matter whether a site has been rejected for sure, or it hasn't yet been reviewed and nobody knows when it will be. If it isn't listed NOW, then Plan A isn't working NOW. Well, if it doesn't matter whether your plans work now or in three years, that's fine with me -- I'm not involved one way or the other.
But if you care about what happens now and in the next three years, Plan B is strongly indicated. You don't need to wait for permission from an ODP editor to start working on it. (Is THAT what you call "ODP editors having power over you"? Someone gave you the impression you couldn't promote your site without my permission?)
You'd feel really stupid (well, you ought to, at least) if you waited two or three years in a strongly competitive area (and where are you more likely to wait?) to find out for sure you needed to be working on plan B. Don't wait for permission from me, or any other person totally uninvolved with your business, and knowing no reason whatsoever to care whether it succeeds or fails.
Just start Plan B NOW. Stop begging ODP editors to give you permission or motivation. You don't need permission; and for your motivational needs, find a personal coach. The ODP doesn't cure cancer or motivate salesmen: it will just send you to someone who does.
And suppose the ODP listed your site tomorrow? You'd still be sitting in the cellar under all the other webmasters who also had an ODP listing and STILL pursued Plan B.
Cut this out, and tape it to the top of your monitor:
[Plan B no longer requires ODP editor permission.]
[edited by: hutcheson at 5:32 am (utc) on July 3, 2005]
| 5:31 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
oh...I just checked again...the 4th largest network in the us and most of the rest of the world has 45 listings...I stand corrected...lol...10,000? isn't that a riot? Where are all the editors now...oh yeah...I am sorry...they don't have to answer to anybody...
| 5:35 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
oh dry up Hutch...that is the same old drivel you always babble..you don't understand anything. You OBVIOUSLY have never webbed a real commercial site for anyone....Hey 10,000? One for every news article they have ever posted?..lol...You need to hurry back and get yourself a piece of that pie!...start editing before someone else gets your share of it...
| 5:38 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
come on hutch...gimme 10,000 backlinks from the odp...come on...do it for me buddies forever!
| 5:41 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Atticus, I wouldn't know about competition. I don't compete with any website: I cooperate with a number of them, where their goals and mine overlap.
In any case, that quote didn't come from me or from any other ODP editor. That was a SERP perp's (texasville) approach to the ODP -- "if [the ODP] doesn't serve MY purpose, [Google] shouldn't be allowed to use it for THEIR purposes." To me, that seems beyond arrogant and into megalomaniacal greed. But you can find lots of SERP perps saying the same thing this season -- it's the hive mind of the SEO community, I guess.
| 5:46 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"hive mind"...hmmm sounds like the referral I usually hear reserved for the odp editors that buzz around trying to sting anyone criticizing the odp for it's fallability...comeon Hutch? Gimme just 5000 backlinks from the odp...comeon! never gonna hurt ya...heck ya gave 10,000 to that obscure little newsite! come on Hutch,,,okay 2000...just 2000 for old times sake...lol...I'll be your friend! I know you need one of those...lol
| 5:51 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"That was a SERP perp's (texasville) approach to the ODP -- "if [the ODP] doesn't serve MY purpose, [Google] shouldn't be allowed to use it for THEIR purposes." orhoods"
Oh no..you can't hang that on me...I just asked google if they were listening...ok..ok..I did say you shouldn't be licensing the odp all over the net...and you shouldn't...Hey Hutch 1000...just 1000 backlinks from the odp...aw come on...what would it hurt...sounds like ya'll hand them out like candy on halloween...
no seriously..getting worried..an odp listing might end up as a penalty from google...hanging out in "bad neighborhoods"..lol..now wouldn't that be funny.
| 5:54 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The ODP certainly ought to be linking some large sites more deeply (yes, into the 5-10000 link range for sure) and it probably ought to link some large sites less.
Internally, the editors are always discussing the best way to apply the ODP principles in future editing work, and what past work most badly needs to be brought up to current standards. But in those discussions, the total number of links is never an issue, because that's not a useful measure of anything we're interested in. For a doorway spammer, one link is too many. For a major internet archive, a thousand is too few. So it's idiotic and inane to throw link count numbers around as if they mattered -- those sites aren't you or your competition anyway, nor or they in any way comparable.
| 6:00 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yeah...but linking to every article they ever published? You don't do that for the biggest. That place is obscure! 10,000?...lollololol...aw comeon Hutch...better run back...new edition coming out...there is an article about odd obituaries from around the world...need to get that one linked...lol..come on Hutch 500 links...just 500...be a swell...be a pal! gimme 500!
| 6:02 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh, by the way...I told you I already started plan b for that site since you obviously are stomping it because I crticized the odp. it's just I am donating my time. Gotta find some way to make up to them for the odp's pettiness....come on Hutch? 250?...Just 250 Links from the odp...I'll be your lifelong pal...
| 6:13 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hey Hutch...I'm looking at their site..lol...they aren't even original articles..NO ORIGINAL CONTENT!...just reprints from various other services..hmmm...no original content...now that fits the odp criteria!
Hey Hutch! Is the other name for the odp..friends of carlotta?...look it up...there is bound to be a link in the odp for it....you know where they conspired to blow up the world with cheese?
| 6:17 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I did say you shouldn't be licensing the odp all over the net...and you shouldn't.
That is not a choice I have. The ODP was, from the beginning, licensed all over the internet. The only choice I have is, whether to contribute MY effort to it in those circumstances.
But in fact, for me that was an attraction and a challenge -- to give away useful information freely; for anyone to use as they see fit; without trying to control how they use it. That's an extremely important part of the whole concept: to inform, not to command; to contribute, not to control.
Changing that would disband the ODP community -- well, sabotage might be your intent, so that might not dissuade you. But the point is, editors know it. So even if that is your intent, you need to come up with some more subtle approach.
| 6:24 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" well, sabotage might be your intent"
Hutch...I didn't do that. Your project has done that to itself. I really used to have respect for the odp...but not anymore..and you have done that..and the rest of the odp editors with their nasty little tactics..up until 2 weeks ago. And tonite..I no longer have any respect for any of you. I have seen too much.
But Hey! come on...125 backlinks...comeon...Hey is true?...that news service actually has a desk in the odp offices...10,000 backlinks! from the odp? wow! Ya'll certainly don't want the serious surfer to miss anything...just 125 links from the odp...I'll let ya drive my car...lol..
| 6:40 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I keep wanting to step in here and say something, but can't be bothered as any moment a mod will be stepping in as this thread will be gone as its gone beyond being useful....so it really is a waste of time responding
Texasville, you really need to get over your obsession about wanting DMOZ to be what you want it to be....
| 6:56 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry CB...I guess I can't be what you want me to be...can you answer? An obscure newsite..NO original content...just news feeds from other sites..10,000 links from the odp. Sounds like what you describe as an "affiliate" or a "dropshipper" of the news.
I would like to thank the moderator for letting this thread continue. I believe it has very much so served a useful purpose. Just not yours.
What are you afraid of CB? The truth?
Come on CB..if anyone is obssesed with the odp being what they want it to be..it's the editors trying to whitewash alll this.
How about you CB? 75 links from the odp...come on...be your friend?
Really, this thread I believe is opening up a whole new can of worms everyday. Explain this 10,000 links.
Not even Big Bill's site gets near that many. All of them combined.
| 7:05 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Whether you "respect" or "like" the ODP isn't really my business. I am satisfied if you have the information needed to understand it.
Counting backlinks will not lead to comprehension, because it is not something that anyone ever asks.
In your vision of the ODP, there is a cabal of editors hunched over a dimly-lit table. "This website -- cool, but garish. fifty links?" "No, it's not that bad, give it two hundred." "Compromise, one hundred and thirty two?"
It's not that way at all.
It's more like, "how good does a deeplink have to be, TODAY, to be listed in a Arts/Widget category? (The rules are, of course, different for recipe sites and for SERP perps, for obvious reasons.) And on the other side "how bad does a site have to be, to have all its deeplinks systematically rechecked? how bad just to have its links rechecked as people are in the neighborhood?"
Just throwing around random numbers -- means nothing.
Site organization matters. (A better-organized site is more likely to get more deeplinks. A lot of stupid SERP perps deliberately break site navigation to try to get more deeplinks -- another example of the ODP myths that abound in rotten ground.)
Site depth matters. A site with ten detailed articles on widely various subjects is more likely to be deeplinked than a site with a thousand one-paragraphers. The Catholic Encyclopedia occupies a unique "sweet spot" among reference works -- it has more ODP links than any other now: and based on my general library knowledge, I know of no other comparably-sized reference book that ought to get that many listings (assuming it had been published online. (I'm not a Catholic, and do not admire the tone or perspective of that work.)
Date matters. Some sites were deeplinked four to six years ago that wouldn't be today -- those links will eventually go away, probably. But would pruning those sites be a better use of volunteer time than reviewing new sites? (Don't answer that. You don't get a vote. I don't get a vote, either, except on which _I_ do first. But every editor faces prioritization decisions like that, and the strength of the ODP approach is that -- we do NOT all decide the same way.)
| 7:20 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lol...I just can't get over your reasoning Hutch...It isbscure" numbers..It is printed on the odp pages! banal...you just ignore facts and then tell me what my perception is. This is just laughable.
I love your rationalization...now you are dragging the Catholic encyclopedia into it...
THAT IS NOT what it is about at all!
It is about a tiny, obscure website...#*$!ing news from other sources..with NO original content ...getting 10,000 llinks from the odp. I am not throwing around "obscure numbers"..I am citing the actual numbers from the odp pages...a nice fat number!..lol..10,000!
What separates this particular source from a "affiliate"...a "dropshipper"?
Okay, okay just 50 links for my site Hutch...Just 50?...that hardly cuts into anybody's juice up there at all..
I have yet to have an editor answer a direct question here even once. They only attack me. Boo hoo about I want to change the odp...give me a break.
I guess you will get the last word tonite. I got to go to bed. I sincerely hope that the moderator will let this thread continue until we get some honest answers instead of this diatribe. This isn't that other "forum".
| 8:33 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> ya'll have flagged my site...or should I say my client's site. It will never get in because you are all a bunch of petty people <<
You believe that? Really? The truth is that most editors haven't even heard of WebmasterWorld, so your discussion here has no effect on your site review at all. How could it?
>> I'm not at all trying to get you to be accountable to the webmaster. <<
So why do you want us to drop what we volunteered to do -- review sites -- and start spending time writing to webmasters to tell them why we will not list their unlistable sites? That sounds like you want every editor to "account" to the webmaster for every move that they make.
Like I said above, we already tried communicating with submitters, and it was pointless. After two years, and 25 000 threads, the experiment was cancelled. Mostly, the-forum-that-cannot-be-named simply attracted the most vocal of the SERP PERPs who just wanted to argue about their sites, or find out which bits of their spam had been detected and how. You know what? We didn't want to tell them.
I checked the editor notes for hundreds of requested sites, and looked at many of those sites too. Many were in areas that I have no editing permissions, so I, personally, could never add nor deny the site anyway. What did I find? Many were still "awaiting review", but of those that had already been denied, in all but one case I found the site was unlistable according to ODP guidelines (that is where I get my "99%" figure from), and the one or two editor errors that I found in all that were easily corrected (new editor had misunderstood the guidelines).
>> But I think public review would be a good thing. <<
The (now discontinued) site submission status forum over at some place was about the most public that the review process ever got. Browse the 25 000 threads. They are all archived. We will not be doing that again.
>> the fact they ignore abuse reports and don't do anything about them. <<
There is a whole "Report Problems" topic area on the-forum-that-cannot-be-named and hundreds of threads where people have flagged problem listings and editors have sorted the problem. All in public. So, you are wrong.
>> but linking to every article they ever published? <<
Yeah, that happened in the early days in order to get a category structure up. I remember the Internet of 1997. For some topics there were only a few websites available. I remember looking for a topic that today returns 100 million results, and back then Yahoo, Altavista, Northern Light, Hotbot, et al returned less than 30 results each. So, what did the early ODP get populated with to get it going - yes - deeplinks from those sites. When the category flourished, many of those early listings were then deleted, for some deeplinked sites. For other sites and ODP topic areas the deletion hasn't yet happened. For some areas, the sites are still very useful, and the most comprehensive resource, and will remain listed until someone deems that they are not. Then they will be removed. Sites like imdb would not be deeplinked if they were submitted as new sites today; but for now the listings remain. No-one said the ODP was finished. It constantly evolves.
>> you obviously are stomping it because I crticized the odp <<
You would be wrong if you thought that one editor can stop any site being listed. You would be wrong to think that all 10 000 editors could work out who you are and what your site is from your posts here. Umm, less than 50 editors have probably even seen your post here.
>> now you are dragging the Catholic encyclopedia into it... THAT IS NOT what it is about at all! <<
You brought up the subject of deeplinks. That site has the highest number of deeplinks in the ODP.
| 11:06 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The numbers you are throwing around -- it doesn't matter where they come from, and it doesn't matter where they go. They are completely irrelevant.
Some sites should have more listings. Some should have less. The numbers you are throwing around provide no guidance whatsoever as to which is which. So there cannot possibly be anything in the numbers that calls for any kind of response.
| 11:11 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Explain this 10,000 links. |
How many of them do not match the current ODP guidelines?
| 4:05 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You see...this is what the editors do. Wait until the person that has brought up valid points has left and then skirt all the issues and write a diatribe because they know most surfers will go to the last page of a thread to see what it is all about. Voila! There is the long rebuttal statement of garbage spewed out on the page. The editors hope the surfer reads it and thinks..wow..that editor sure proved his point!...and then the surfer moves on..seet his tactic on every thread that criticizes the odp.
>>Yeah, that happened in the early days in order to get a category structure up. I remember the Internet of 1997.
For some topics there were only a few websites available. I remember looking for a topic that today returns
100 million results, and back then Yahoo, Altavista, Northern Light,...<< blah, blah , blah...
This isn't from the early days Hutch! I just went and checked. First subject I pulled up was from June 2005.
>>You would be wrong if you thought that one editor can stop any site being listed.<<
Happens every day Hutch! ONE editor goes in and starts working and deletes submissions and calls them spam..poof they are gone. Just like that.
>>You brought up the subject of deeplinks. That site has the highest number of deeplinks in the ODP. <<
I didn't bring up deeplinks. You want to label all this odp spam as "deeplinks" , I called it unoriginal content..news feeds from other sources.
>>The numbers you are throwing around -- it doesn't matter where they come from, and it doesn't matter where they go.
They are completely irrelevant. <<
10,000 backlinks from the odp is irrelevant? I am throwing these numbers around?..lol..Hutch..I am quotong the odp numbers. It's printed on the page.
>>So there cannot possibly be anything in the numbers that calls for any kind of response. <<
This one is my favorite Hutch..You spend 10 minutes responding and whitewashing over this and then declare it doesn't require a response..this is really laughable..
Victor- by the odp guidelines it is supposed to be original content. None of it is. It is just 10,000 links to newsfeeds. All of it should be linked to the original site not to this little newsite...What possible benefit is there for the surfer. Should be one link. Under news centers or wherever. However, since it's not original content...shouldn't be listed at all. I traced one recent article that has been linked. It went to this newsfeeds center...but if you follow that article ..it actually feeds back to a small town newspaper with it's ORIGINAL article on their website. That...is where the link in the odp belongs...if at all.
10,000 Links!..aw comeon Hutch...gimme 50 links...just 50...be a sport...what is it going to hurt...
Mirror links to connected seo's, serving special interests, multiple listings for nothing...No wonder the odp doesn't have time to correspond with the public..too busy fulfilling obligations to certain people. And defending itself in public forums.
10,000 links! To one little newsite...and recent too! Not 1997..
| 4:40 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> here is the long rebuttal statement of garbage spewed out on the page. The editors hope the surfer reads it and thinks..wow..that editor sure proved his point!...and then the surfer moves on..seet his tactic on every thread that criticizes the odp. <<
- OK then have it your way:
- Every site listed in the ODP is total garbage, that is what is said time and time again on all the forums. It must be true.
- All of the editors are charging for listings and making a fortune. Their advertisements of how much they charge are easy to find. They are everywhere.
- All of the lower editors have all their editing work deleted by higher-up meta editors who have managed to get more money from the sites they take bribes from. Yet, somehow they still stay in as editors, even though nothing they do ever sees the light of day.
- Any well known site has been deleted from the ODP unless they paid someone a lot of money.
That must be the truth. Someone who knows nothing said so. We are all corrupt. We only list rubbish.
Why, exactly, do you want your site added then?
| 4:55 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>- Every site listed in the ODP is total garbage, that is what is said time and time again on all the forums. It must be true.<<
This is another tactic used by editors...I never said this..you are having a tantrum..
>>- All of the editors are charging for listings and making a fortune.Their advertisements of how much they charge are easy to find. They are everywhere.<<
What is the public supposed to think? Spam listed and reported..brought out in forums...and all that the editors do is skirt the issue...You need to change it from abuse reporting to dead link reporting...you obviously don't want to clean up your own mess.
>>That must be the truth. Someone who knows nothing said so. We are all corrupt. We only list rubbish.<<
Well, you certainly don't want to discuss the real issues do you. This is extreme response...twisting statements so they seem invalid...
Come on..maybe you can tell me 10,000 links to one mirror, affiliate, dropshipper of the news?...
Hey maybe you can do it....40 links to my site...one for every page...come on...what would it hurt..be a pal!
Let me get mirror listings for me and my client...and if someone reports it...ignore them...it's done every day...Just 40 links...I'll be your friend
| 4:58 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see this thread is still going strong!
Why don't the editors here just answer the questions texasville asks? It can't be that difficult?
And I never did get an answer to this one either,
One more thing, I stumbled on a DMOZ post today which said there were editors profiting from status checks, I found this hard to fathom and assume it was some kind of joke? I hope you can re-assure me on this.
The site starts of by saying
"For many site owners and businesses getting listed in the ODP is considered a very important part of marketing and visibility. There is a strong opinion that having a site listed in ODP increases the ranking in Google and other search engines. We do not express an opinion on that,
Yes but happy to make money from those that do.
Isn't it a bit er, unethical for editors to be making money off the back of the ODP?
I know that they do state that this site is not affiliated with the ODP but if the person who runs it IS an ODP editor that kind of does makes him/her affiliated with the ODP right?
And if they are happy to take money for providing these checks, doesn't that call into question what else they'd be willing to take money for?
From the site : This latter point can be critical, a site gets listed in ODP, but then the listing gets removed or changed, and this can adversely affect the traffic coming to the site
For SEO's maintaining multiple sites for multiple clients, we can produce custom reports for you to show your clients.
I know that this is something 'anyone can do' with the RDF dumps but...at the end of the day isn't this/these editor(s) catering for the needs of 'Serp Perps'?
Which is against everything so far read in this thread? Editors providing a service for SEO purposes?
Anyway I'm off again, just popped popped in for some help in another area.
| 6:55 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks like this thread has run its course. :)
| This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  ) |