homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.211.186
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 > >     
Problem in Dmoz
Editor Choice !
experienced




msg:487737
 5:33 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.

I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.

Any idea on this.

Experienced

 

texasville




msg:487977
 1:31 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I do agree with you that the ODP editors seem to react quickly and fiercely but many people are also quick to criticize what they dont understand... "
Maybe you are right. And the reason people don't understand is because the odp remains "closed" to any information about the true workings. They give you no reaqson for anything that they do. Everything is at the whim of an editor. And "apparent" corruption and favoritism do not get changed. And nothing ever will change because...it wants to be the 500 pound gorilla. Change it. Then people will truly just submit and forget. Then it will be just one more backlink.

Newallie




msg:487978
 1:50 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm very pleased to have found this discussion on DMOZ. I've been trying to find out more information on how it works and if I've been doing something wrong that has kept me from being accepted. I don't think I have and now I understand more what an enormous job it must be to sort through all the web-sites submitted. Please just tell me one thing - how often can I submit to DMOZ without annoying anyone? I've been told anywhere from every 3 weeks to every month to only once, ever.

Stefan




msg:487979
 2:21 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Everything is at the whim of an editor.

No, it isn't. The guidelines are extensive and specific. It would take you a full day just to read and digest all of them. There might be a lack of supervision by the meta-editors at times, but the focus and aim of the ODP is true. You can't expect something so large, and volunteer-based, to work perfectly. Sleaze-bags sneak in, sure, and mess up some categories, but it still beats hell out of the Search Engines for finding quality sites easily.

Anyway, I hear your frustration, man. The ODP could be a lot better. But it could be worse too.

gimmster




msg:487980
 2:34 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

One more thing. I have a friend that has 23 clients with listings in the odp. He was wondering if he could use the update url tool to change them all to hiscompany.com/client?

If they are mirror sites, no.
If the vanity url (client.tld) redirects to, frames, or has a notice proclaiming the change of address to, the hiscompany.com/client address, yes.

NB listings are NOT updated without checking the listed site for such a redirect or a notification that the 'new' domain name is the preffered one. I suspect that the clients might not appreciate such an action though.

I'll add that if I saw a pattern of this occurring, I'd email the actual businesses asking for confirmation, but that's a personal decision, not a policy.

gimmster




msg:487981
 2:56 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

how often can I submit to DMOZ without annoying anyone? I've been told anywhere from every 3 weeks to every month to only once, ever.

Once ever is the correct answer. However to deal with possible technical errors (including when no success screen is displayed), a second suggestion to the same category is permitted. This second and any subsequent suggestions will overwrite any existing suggestion and reset the date, so repeated suggestions will move your site to the bottom of the list if the editor processes sites by suggestion date (there are several options).

There are other specific exceptions, the most common being that a site may be suggested in each (non-machine-translated) language the content is provided in.

One other is that a site with specific information about it's location and community interaction may be suggested in the smallest Regional level its physical presences (as defined on the site) encompass. This means more than just an address.

For example it is valid for a site for a widget manufacturer to suggest a site to Business/../Widgets or Shopping/../Widgets (but not both) and Regional/../State/Locality/TownName if the site has information about its manufacturing plant, or distribution warehouse, or interaction as an employer/sportsteam sponsor/plant history/etc. associated with the town. However when the only information on the site that is not about the product is a contact address PO box 666, TownName, State, Zip it will not be listable in Regional.

Disclaimer: looking at existing listings that may have been there for 6 years and saying 'this site does not match what you just said' is not a valid argument. What I described is the current guidelines in VERY abbreviated form. The actual guidelines can be found using a search on 'Regional Guidelines'.

texasville




msg:487982
 3:13 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

You guys are dreaming. It does exist, it is exactly what I said, it does not fit your guidelines, I reported it and nothing was done.
Okay, he can't re register using mycompany.com/client? then why can they do it? the only real answer I get is more explaining about how great the odp is, even with it's flaws. The first team of editors couldn't explain it and now it looks like they have sent in the second team...

texasville




msg:487983
 3:14 am on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

sorry, I don't mean to denigrate or be sarcastic. I don't want it to be that way. I am sorry if it does.

g1smd




msg:487984
 5:26 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> the reason people don't understand is because the odp remains "closed" to any information about the true workings. <<

Between WebmasterWorld and the-forum-that-can't-be-named there must now be several hundred threads witten in the last three years that explain every part of the ODP process, except for exactly what anti-spam measures we take. I don't see any more that can be written that could explain what we do and how we do it.

>> They give you no reason for anything that they do. Everything is at the whim of an editor. <<

No reason? Every question in this thread has had a reason given. I, alone, have typed many thousands of words. They were all meaningless?

texasville




msg:487985
 6:51 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

That's just hogwash. The odp never, ever discloses about any amount of misbehaviour on editors' part. They don't reveal how many have been caught in corruption..
They almost never, ever explain what websites are turned down for. You don't even know IF you have been denied. An applicant for inclusion gets no information so they can dispute it if they feel the editor was wrong. All that is ever said is it "would serve no useful purpose". I differ on that.
Ya'll tend to say it's not anyone's business. I differ on that too since a business' economy can depend on it.
All these threads...there is never any real answer!
"I, alone,
have typed many thousands of words. They were all meaningless? "
Now on that, we agree.

g1smd




msg:487986
 7:23 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> The odp never, ever discloses about any amount of misbehaviour on editors' part. <<

Try writing to Microsoft, IBM, The New York Times, Wal-Mart, the owner of this forum, maybe The Red Cross, Barnardos, the Salvation Army, and anyone else you can think of. Ask them for a list of employees they sacked and the details of what they did. You think the ODP response is any different to the one you would get from them?

Dream on.

g1smd




msg:487987
 7:35 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> They don't reveal how many have been caught in corruption. <<

And what purpose woud it serve if they did? How would it help any site get reviewed if they did? In what way is it even related if your site is suggested to category X and the editor of category Y times out, leaves, resigns, or is fired.

>> They almost never, ever explain what websites are turned down for. <<

Well, 99.9% of the time it is "site unlistable according to what is written in the editor guidelines". If you read the guidelines, and then look at your site, you should know what it is about your site that makes it a site that we do not want to list, and will not list.

>> You don't even know IF you have been denied. <<

The only list that we do publish is of the sites that we have already listed. That list can be found, and is broken down into 650 000 categories, at [dmoz.org ]. Anything else is unproductive use of editors time.

>> An applicant for inclusion gets no information so they can dispute it if they feel the editor was wrong. <<

We tried that for over two years at the-forum-that-cannot-be-named and it became obvious that 99% of all the complainers did actually know why their site had not been listed, but just wanted to argue about it.

Classic lines were: "I submitted once", when all editors could see from the notes they had submitted hundreds of times. "I only submitted to one category", when we could see that it had been submitted to dozens of categories. "This site sells unique products, only available from us", when a quick search found a thousand other sites all selling the same stuff from the same drop-shipper. The sites were unlistable, and there was nothing the webmaster could actually do to the site to actually make it listable.

>> All that is ever said is it "would serve no useful purpose". I differ on that. <<

You can differ all you like, but we don't advise spammers how we detected their spam, and we don't give hints how they might better disguise their spam so that next time we might miss it being spam and accidentally list it.

Atticus




msg:487988
 10:45 pm on Jul 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Remember, the submitter is ALWAYS wrong.

No organization cares to admit mistakes, but few are as proactive as DMOZ at labeling each and every person who complains as an illiterate, spamming, scamming ignoramus.

joeduck




msg:487989
 12:28 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

illiterate, spamming, scamming ignoramus.

Atticus - isn't that from the Shakespeare play Dee Moz?

joeduck




msg:487990
 12:37 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

g1 - I think many are simply frustrated by what *appears* from the outside to be a process that requires a lot of guesswork and time by submitters and editors playing a sort of cat and mouse and backlog game.

Has the dmoz community considered ways to take advantage of all the potential free labor from millions of online people?

I still don't see why you can't put on all applicants and naysayers as "probationary editors". They would help sort through the piles of submissions and then send them on to a trusted editor for final approval. Probationary editors who abused this process would be blacklisted.

I may be wrong but I'm guessing that DMOZ turns down 9 out of 10 editor applications. This seems a waste of potential resources for DMOZ and for the internet at large.

texasville




msg:487991
 1:11 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

g1...you just demonstrated what I was talking about. The secrecy of the closed directory project.
>>> They don't reveal how many have been caught in corruption. <<<
>>And what purpose woud it serve if they did?<<
It would help demonstrate how strenous the odp is attempting to keep a fair process. It would assure the surfers at large that the odp was on the ball in protecting the directory that the editors try to hold up as such a great process. It would serve as discouragement to those that felt like they could work the system to their own benefit. Have ya'll caught anybody taking money? Why won't you disclose these things. After all, you are supported by funds from public companies.
>> Well, 99.9% of the time it is "site unlistable according to what is written
in the editor guidelines". If you read the guidelines, and then look at your
site, you should know what it is about your site that makes it a site that we do
not want to list, and will not list. <<
How can you possibly know this? How do you establish these figures? Do you personally review all the editors decisions? I ALWAYS see editors ridiculing people for throwing out percentages and figures and then verbally sneering at them. I want to know...WHERE do you get these figures? Let us see the reports? Tell us what safeguards you have for perfectly legit, according to guidelines- sites are not discarded for personal reasons by an editor. "Spam! Out with it!" Don't tell me peer review because I hear too much of editors making the call on their own. The answer is NONE!
Give us some real figures. Publish the list of those declined weekly. Be honest or quit being the 500 pound gorilla. We already know from this thread you do NOT abide by your own guidelines.
>>The only list that we do publish is of the sites that we have already listed. That
list can be found, and is broken down into 650 000 categories, at [dmoz.org...]
Anything else is unproductive use of editors time."
More hogwash. If the editors job is to produce quality results then explanation of what the wheat and what is the chaff is the only proof. At this point since the "other forum" has decided to quit submittal status, it is impossible to know if you are the victim of an unscrupulous editor.
>>You can differ all you like, but we don't advise spammers how we detected their spam,
and we don't give hints how they might better disguise their spam so that next time we might
miss it being spam and accidentally list it. <<
Thank you for making the statement that I said you make.
In my opinion the odp is out of control, accountable to nobody and I personally believe that it has too many unqualified people in charge.
Thank goodness, this isn't the "other forum" or Glinda the Good Witch" would have already let an editor get the last word of whitewash and locked the thread and said "this thread will serve no good purpose continuing."
I am calling for the odp to really become open and accountable to the public it claims to serve.

hutcheson




msg:487992
 1:38 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>In my opinion the odp is out of control, accountable to nobody

Yes, in exactly the same way that YOUR website is out of MY control. You do not account to ME for anything you do with it. You do not apologize to ME for ANY visitor who uses your information in any way whatsoever.

Now, how is the ODP different?

Um, only in this: that the ODP provides original information that some other webmasters (like Google) have found useful enough to republish.

And somehow, the fact that without accounting to you, the ODP is already creating something useful .... somehow means that the ODP must now either account to you, or forbid people to use it.

That is control freakery, pure and simple.

texasville




msg:487993
 1:54 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Yes, in exactly the same way that YOUR website is out of MY control.
You do not account to ME for anything you do with it. You do not apologize
to ME for ANY visitor who uses your information in any way whatsoever."
And there in lies a great part of the problem Hutch. My website is MY website. The odp is not YOUR website. My website affects no one in any way. It denies no one a thing. The odp does.
" Now, how is the ODP different?

Um, only in this: that the ODP provides original information that some
other webmasters (like Google) have found useful enough to republish. "
Yes and that is your worst nightmare. That the google guys will discover how poorly the odp is performing and cancel out. Someday, google will realize the fault of relying on a directory that refuses to clean up it's act and it's image.
"And somehow, the fact that without accounting to you, the ODP is already
creating something useful .... somehow means that the ODP must now either
account to you, or forbid people to use it."
Why do you always use this little squib. I have seen you use it a dozen times at least. You point to one person and accuse them of being self centered and wanting the odp to become accountable to just that one person. Is it as effective as your "smack yourself in the forehead and say I am healed"? Don't denigrate me Hutch. It is beneath you and is a poor argument.

"That is control freakery, pure and simple"
See, this is the garbage you spew every time you want to NOT answer anything someone puts forth. I am not willing to let you have the last word on this and especially not when you are insulting me. Why do you editors always tag-team people in these forums. Changing the subject and ignoring any real content. I don't believe that you should be accountable to just me. But when you weild power over me and everyone else on the web, then you should be accountable to each and every one of us. I only feel arrogance in your attitude.

hutcheson




msg:487994
 2:09 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>All that is ever said is it "would serve no useful purpose". I differ on that.

You are welcome to differ. You are welcome to guide your life, and select your public service, in a way that reflects your best judgments on the utility of your work.

In fact, that is what you ought to do.

Is it possible that you will ever relax your control freakery enough to accord me the same privilege?

texasville




msg:487995
 2:25 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hutch-you are the biggest control freak I have ever conversed with. I suspect that is the real reason you are an editor at the odp. Do you have any other purpose in life? Running from forum to forum to defend the honor of the odp. You can't STAND any criticism of it. As a matter of fact I spent the whole afternoon in public service and do so frequently. And how do you equate the odp with public service. Are you really serious? You need a great big reality check.
At any rate, this has dissolved into an insult match. If you really want to discuss anything then go back to my original subject and explain it. Can't? Thought not. Just quit changing the subject. Noticed YOU never went back to the odp logs and investigated. See...no peer review. No safeguards. Just as I said. And that's why the odp is starting to smell.
Get back on the subject or drop out Hutch. Quit trying to smokescreen everything just like the rest of the editors here.

hutcheson




msg:487996
 2:26 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I have seen you use it a dozen times at least. You point to one person and accuse them of being self centered and wanting the odp to become accountable to just that one person.

There is nobody here but us persons. There is nobody else to be accountable to.

There is nobody here but volunteer editors, who are doing what they think is worth doing (for reasons that may well vary), .... for some reason THEY aren't persons, THEY don't have the same rights YOU have, THEY have no judgment, THEY are ... NON-PERSONS.

And ... you. THE MAN. The person. The one who has the right to tell me (the non-person, apparently) what I can or can't do, what motives I can or can't have, what I may or may not dream. I cannot choose to do anything for any reaons whatever, unless it profits YOU!

It's just persons. There isn't anything else. When you make your unsupported slanders of "mass corruption", it is persons you are accusing. When you demand extra work be done, even though it could be of no conceivable help and great potential harm to my own goals, it is me you are trying to enslave -- me and a few thousand other persons.

Don't say it's not personal. It is nothing but personal.

hutcheson




msg:487997
 2:44 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

tex, all you have to do to stop looking like a control freak, is stop trying to tell me what to do.

But ... you know, your site is absolutely worthless. It would be a whole lot more useful if you put some unique content on it. But not just any unique content -- you must devote your time wholeheartedly to doing what I want. And not just what I want, but what a few thousand other people (whom, of course, I will choose) want also.

That would be control freakery, pure and simple. If I actually did it.

texasville




msg:487998
 2:47 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

You are making it personal. And there goes another of your little squibs. "enslave"...you always use that one too. Grow up. I suggested more work? I am just trying to offer you the chance to honor your precious directory...lol...you are unbelievable. You are the original emperor with no clothes. You need to get away from all this. Get some rest. You are definitely overwrought. IT SMELLS HUTCH! What's the matter. Don't want to look at it? You remind me of an old aquaintance-Chuck. He had a cancer on the back of his neck. Never wanted to admit it. A simple surgery would have taken care of it. Nope. not him. He died at 47. You are the same way with the odp. What is the real matter? So afraid of change? Heck...I've already made up my mind that no matter what...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. I see it in every thing you write. So, I will spend 250 hours of free time developing backlinks. But, at least I get to speak my mind. I am not afraid of ya'll. And I won't back down. You are like a bunch of little kids that won't clean up their room. Okay Hutch. Your turn. Let me hear some more of those ridiculous little tantrums you throw around. I've heard them all. Just more repitition. But at least you won't have to back and check the logs.
For all those that just tuned in...go back and read the thread and see what they don't want to answer. Why are they showing special favoritism to certain seo"s. Why do they give them so many fake listings. Why are they listing their mirror sites? Why won't they answer? Why when it is reported do they ignore the reports? Why? Why would they rather change the subject and personally attack and insult others instead of addressing the issue? Is there a hands off policy for these companies? Hmmmmm? Are the real powers that be behind it? Understand, this is all conjecture...I am not accusing anyone of anything....lol....

hutcheson




msg:487999
 2:50 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>And how do you equate the odp with public service. Are you really serious?

Yes, and to my knowledge, at least one local magistrate has officially accepted it as such.

texasville




msg:488000
 2:53 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Whoooaaaa...Hutch! Are you saying that you looked at my site and publicly calling it absolutely worthless? Hmmm...publicly? Tell me...what is worthless about it? My client would be very interested in your criticism...and let's compare it to the sites in my category. That is so like you Hutch...Telling every one here that in the eyes of an odp editor that my site is worthless and has no useful content? Hmmm..I guess you just proved to every one here what a petty child you are. You know I can't list my site for peer review here. I just want to hear your step by step criticism. And...I see it is not beneath you to go into the odp files and pull up my site and stomp it. Proves what I said all along. I think you are highly unethical and think you should be dismissed as an editor. I would like to file a formal complaint. And I will.

texasville




msg:488001
 2:57 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

">And how do you equate the odp with public service. Are you really serious?
Yes, and to my knowledge, at least one local magistrate has officially accepted it as such."
A magistrate did?..lol...a community service program?..lol...for working off fines?...

texasville




msg:488002
 3:05 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Notice to everyone: watch and see...another odp editor will jump in now and tag team Hutch and start in on me...they would rather do this than go look at the cancer they have. They don't wan to admit they have a cancer...go back and read...see what they are trying to distract from.

hutcheson




msg:488003
 3:13 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Texasville, you said: "They almost never, ever explain what websites are turned down for. You don't even know IF you have been denied. An applicant for inclusion gets no information so they can dispute it if they feel the editor was wrong."

I took that for criticism. (My apologies if it was meant to be enthusiastic praise.) I thought you were proposing that I shouldn't be allowed to look at a website and not list it in the ODP unless I first contacted the webmaster and entered into a dispute with him, and continued that dispute until he was fully convinced that listing his site would not be in accordance with his own self interest (I'm not sure what else you could have meant by "accountability")

But if you do not expect me or other volunteers to do that, if you'll allow us to continue to review any sites without any obligation (or "accountability") to the webmaster, and to continue to list sites that we think fulfil the ODP criteria of unique content, without any obligation (or "accountability") to the webmaster, then I'd be delighted to scratch you off my list of "control freaks to avoid."

hutcheson




msg:488004
 3:18 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Are you saying that you looked at my site and publicly calling it absolutely worthless?

Of course. You must change it immediately. And if you don't, then that cancer will get you any minute.

Worthless to me, that is. And if worthless to me, than nobody else should be able to use it.

Isn't that the way your mind works?

[edited by: hutcheson at 3:33 am (utc) on July 3, 2005]

texasville




msg:488005
 3:26 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm not at all trying to get you to be accountable to the webmaster. That is absurd. But I think public review would be a good thing. Plus, If someone knows that they have been rejected for sure, then they can make a plan B. Now that might not be a big deal to a large corporation but to a mom and pop operation it is essential.
And that is not the crux of my complaints. I still go back to the seo"s that have been shown favoritism and mirror sites and multiple listings for no reason. And my report that was brushed off. I am no idiot. I know it does not fit the odp guidelines. Go back and read everyone. This will not go away Hutch. No matter how many times editors try to change the subject.

Atticus




msg:488006
 3:31 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

So the cheesey argument of the day is "DMOZ is a public service."

However, any public criticism is strictly verboten!

Very interesting...

texasville




msg:488007
 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.

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved