| 6:34 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The TOS here doesn't allow discussion of individual sites.
Assuming that you were doing the search correctly and the site really isn't anywhere as you say...
The site might not have been working when an editor visited, it could have been moved to another category to await review, it could have been found lacking in content or perhaps found to not be "addable" under current standards, it could have been one of the worst sites in a category and been pruned as a result, it could be listed under another URL (if yours was one that redirects to or frames another site), or, just to cover all the bases, someone malicious deleted your site's listing out of spite. (There may be other reasons that aren't popping in my head at this moment.)
No site is guaranteed a permanent listing in ODP. Keep that in mind.
| 9:50 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Probably a competitor became an editor and decided to remove you. Happens all the time.
| 10:11 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I noticed the same for my site...
Actually more than 20 sites got dropped from my category there.
When I check the Google copy of dmoz there are 38 sites listed. When I check dmoz, only 15 are there now.
I think it is strange to remove so many sites at once :)
| 10:16 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for double posting..
Actually the dmoz search still shows my site under the category, however the site is not listed at the category page. I wonder what does it mean?
Is the search index not updated yet? Or some global update is undergoing there.
Has anyone experienced something like that?
| 10:37 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ's search often lags some days behind the public view of the data. Nothing much you can do about that except wait a few days.
Google's copy of DMOZ often lags many months behind DMOZ. Not much you can do about, except maybe suggest that probably a competitor has become the new owner of Google and has decided to remove you. Happens all the time.
Not unusal for an editor to tackle an entire category and reorganize it. May involve adding sites, removing sites, and moving sites to more appropriate categories. That's what being an editor means -- editing. If they just added sites they'd be called adders.
Might be worth downloading the latest RDF from [rdf.dmoz.org...] and searching that for all variants of your site's URL.
| 11:16 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Indeed....Another attempt to push the WMW TOS beyound their boundaries.
The place to say these things, and to get something done is the DMOZ abuse reporting system.....Document the alleged abuse and someone will investigate.
| 11:27 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, did not mean to push any boundaries here, I was just expressing my frustration...
| 5:30 am on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I did not provide any URL for the site in question and I guess that mine is not the only site being dropped from DMOZ. So these facts should be enough to make my question more general and not discussion of a particular site.
I asked the question here because the answers in the DMOZ FAQ did not provide any clues.
E.g. uptime is 99.9%, so a dead URL should not be an issue; site has not undergone major changes in content, site is by no means non-compliant as far as DMOZ guidelines go, etc.
Sites which are very much similar in structure and content (read competing sites) are still there in the same category where they were.
I am well aware that noone is obliged to guarantee me anything, but I can at least ask some questions and try to find answers for them. Or am I not right?!? Are there questions I am not allowed to ask?
BTW how could one understand who is the editor of a given DMOZ category? I could not find information about this on DMOZ site. Could someone point me in the right direction?
| 7:47 am on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No category is editable by just one editor. Any category can be edited by:
- resident editors listed at the bottom of the category
- editors named at parent categories, up to the top
- a large number of editors with permission to edit in the whole directory.
| 9:23 am on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One possibility not mentioned so far is that your site might have appeared to be down, though it wasn't in actual fact.
This can happen for various reasons. Some are quite beyond non-technical me, but I think I understand one of them. When I use a link-checker on my site, it consistently shows some links as dead. When I check them in my browser, they are fine. Looks like the sites in question ban certain robots. Be sure not to ban Robozilla - the ODP's linkchecker.
Then again some sites can appear to be down through some kind of browser fault.
| 2:21 pm on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The concept of "compliant with ODP guidelines" is usually a cover for "complete misunderstanding of ODP goals".
Because there are really not any guidelines for sites. There are only guidelines for submitters (which boil down to "don't be a spamming jerk") and guidelines for editors (which boil down to "only list sites with significant unique content.")
For commercial sites, "unique content" means a site is the unique venue (for some person or associated group of persons), and that it offers some goods or services that nobody else can offer.
So if you or your associates have another website that offers any of the goods you make or services you render; or if any other website offers the same goods and services: then the ODP editor might have chosen to list the other site (or one of the other sites) instead.
| 3:00 pm on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Probably a competitor became an editor and decided to remove you. Happens all the time. |
I had that happen once. All the sites, around 20 or so, in this particular category got dropped except for one commercial site in a competitive area that wasn't particularly well written. All the organization, government and college authority sites were dropped along with mine.
I now there is no guarateee of lifetime DMZ listings, but that did seem pretty fishy.
| 4:31 pm on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please try to keep this thread on topic - Why might a site be dropped from DMOZ? Please take issues with specific sites up directly with Dmoz as we have no influence over what Dmoz may or may not do with an individual site.
| 8:02 pm on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jane_Doe, did you report this?
| 4:31 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So if you or your associates have another website that offers any of the goods you make or services you render; or if any other website offers the same goods and services: then the ODP editor might have chosen to list the other site (or one of the other sites) instead. |
No, I do not have any other site with similar goods and what the site is offering is to some extent unique. I.e. the site is selling widgets, like other sites in this category, but the widgets are own production.
So of what you are telling me I understand that an editor could at his/her discretion drop e.g. the site of Boeing and list Airbus or list MSN and delete Google. Both examples are of companies offering the same goods and services.
Well, that may be DMOZ policy but then noone should be surprised if people start suspecting biased editing in categories with mostly commercial sites.
| 6:56 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>So of what you are telling me I understand that an editor could at his/her discretion drop e.g. the site of Boeing and list Airbus or list MSN and delete Google. Both examples are of companies offering the same goods and services.
OK, you've understood what I said well enough, but you seem to be a bit confused about how business works. Boeing and Airbus offer different goods and different services. They sometimes compete, but that's not at all the same -- it's not even similar to "offering the same goods and services".
But an editor could (should!) drop "myaffiliatespam.com" and replace it with "somedropshipper.com" -- because it was the latter that actually PROVIDED the goods, the former merely ADVERTISED them (just like "youraffiliatespam.com" and "hisaffiliatespam.com" and from a dozen to a million other promotional spam sites.)
| 8:23 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I.e. the site is selling widgets, like other sites in this category, but the widgets are own production. |
This is the single most important reason why a site would be listed.
However experience has shown many webmasters/site owners/business principals think merely advertising the product is the aim of a web site, and fail to recognise that placing information on the site about the fact that they are the manufacturers (rather than retailers), can aid with their sales aims as well.
Why buy from a manufacturer? I know who to take the goods back to for warranty, I can check on their business (BBB or Consumer Affairs reports), I can go into their office to discuss a new line of Purple widgets I want custom manufactured, I can even discuss quality control issues directly with them.
From a directory viewpoint it makes sense for us to list the manufacturer/supplier.
ie list acmewidgetmanufacturer.com
not list acmewidgetsellerone.com
where the latter 3 all sell/resell/dropship sell widgets from acmewidgetmanufacturer.com
| 3:29 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>No, I do not have any other site with similar goods...
That is very very carefully not an answer to that part of the condition I expressed.
| 4:39 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Jane_Doe, did you report this? |
Where do you report stuff like that?
| 5:06 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The DMOZ website has clear instructions for reporting suspected editor abuse.
WMW's Charter does not permit me to tell you the URL....."Please do not drop that link in the forum, as it causes more problems than it solves."
| 10:33 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
[quote}That is very very carefully not an answer to that part of the condition I expressed.
OK. Here we go again:
1. We have ONE and ONLY one site offering OWN product which is to a great extent unique.
As a matter of fact, most of the sites in the category I'm talking about do offer own products.
2. We do NOT offer ANY products which are made by another company/person. I.e. NO affiliate sales.
3. We even do NOT offer our products through ANY other sites. Whoever would be interested in our products can buy them legally (pirate sales on eBay do not count) ONLY from our site.
I think this answers any of your conditions concerning "unique content". This is what I meant when mentioning that site is NOT non-compliant with DMOZ guidelines.
Of what I read here I remain with the impression that any of the anonymous editors who could edit a category could dump a site just because he/she was in the mood to do so, or because the editor is in some way affiliated with a competing site, or because the webmaster of the dumped site had turned down several requests for links exchange with link farm sites the editor had some affiliation with. And such an editor would get away with this since it is highly unlikely that someone would notice this. Abuse reporting seems also rather difficult because if an editor is unknown to the affected webmasters, then they would never have the chance to know if he/she is not runing a compteting site.
| 11:51 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Since I was the first person to provide the list, let me respond to this broad-brush painting you're doing.
|Of what I read here I remain with the impression that any of the anonymous editors who could edit a category could dump a site just because .... |
Is this all you can grasp? All of my other, much more likely reasons, are the ones you choose to ignore?
|Abuse reporting seems also rather difficult because if an editor is unknown to the affected webmasters, then they would never have the chance to know if he/she is not runing a compteting site. |
Yet you and some other people here are surprisingly quick to say that this is the EXACT reason your site is being kept out. Heck, if you're so sharp-eyed and sharper-thinking, why wouldn't everybody else be? Or, are you compassionately concerned that most webmasters get screwed but you aren't going to let that happen to you?
"Put up or shut up" is the expression here. If you guys are so sure it is happening each and every time a site doesn't get listed, report the abuse, tell your friends to report the abuse, tell your enemies to report the abuse -- or, just hush about it and hope for the day you can screw over everybody else with impunity, because that's what you say is happening and is easily provable.
| 12:40 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone reported abuse at DMOZ? If so what was the outcome?
I did not care much about dmoz an year ago. Well, then started a new site, worked hard, etc. One happy day 2-3 months ago my site got listed. So far so good I was flatterned so to say.
Last week, the site has been removed. Nothing has changed in these 2-3 months on my site - except some new content that has been added.
What is this? An editor decided that my site is good enough to be listed, then 2 months later he/she changed their mind? Makes no sense to me, makes no sense to "semb" as well I guess.
"Semb" to report abuse, navigate to the corresponding Dmoz directory, there is a link report abuse/spam at the top of the page.
Come on "kctipton", here are your reasons:
- The site might not have been working when an editor visited
*(not likely to be, I personally check my site at least couple of times a day as well as I'm using some third party uptime checking services)
- it could have been moved to another category to await review
*(the site stayed 3 months in that category? now moved - do not think so)
- it could have been found lacking in content or perhaps found to not be "addable" under current standards
*("addable?" it has already been addded, you may say "listable":), but if it is not listable why it has been listed at the first place?)
- it could have been one of the worst sites in a category and been pruned as a result -
*(good enough to be added 3 months ago, worst Now?)
- it could be listed under another URL (if yours was one that redirects to or frames another site)
- or, just to cover all the bases, someone malicious deleted your site's listing out of spite. (There may be other reasons that aren't popping in my head at this moment.)
*Do not know? What say you about that?
| 3:13 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
vdoyl, what you are assuming -- and it simply is not true -- is that editors don't make mistakes adding sites. We make FAR more mistakes adding sites that should not be added, than the other way around. And that is why, when we hear that a site has been added then shortly removed, we conclude that it was probably the most likely case -- that is, added by mistake, and removed improperly.
Again, just because a site has been added, doesn't mean it should have been. There are zillions of people out there, trying to deceive all and sundry into thinking there is a real business rather than a fright wig for an anonymous drop-shipper (or some such), and ... editors sometimes are deceived. We live and learn and repair our mistakes.
The kind of mistake you are confidently asserting must have happened is pretty rare, so it wouldn't be any rational person's first guess. Also, if we have a site to look at, it's VERY easy to spot (so if abuse, it is a kind that gets fixed pretty quickly when reported.) And therefore, when someone complains about it in public and doesn't report it specifically (via the abuse-reporting mechanism), it is pretty conclusive that it wasn't the problem.
| 5:24 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For anyone who wants to report abuse to the ODP, here is the:
Frequently Asked Questions About the DMOZ Abuse Report System [report-abuse.dmoz.org]
Open Directory Public Abuse Report Form [report-abuse.dmoz.org]
|Please do not use this system to: |
Report Yahoo! abuse; use their system instead.
Inquire about submissions
Report "hacking" attempts.
| 5:27 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Is this all you can grasp? All of my other, much more likely reasons, are the ones you choose to ignore? |
Shall I start from the beginning?!? Your list in general covers the answers provided by the DMOZ FAQ. The FAQ was the first thing which I checked before asking here. And both your list and the one at DMOZ site did NOT provide me with any answer that would make sense for me.
I could easily answer your list point by point but my post would be almost a duplicate of the post of vdoyl since the site has rather high up-time, is not an affiliate, does not redirect, and is by no means "the worst in the category" (or at least that is what customers vote with their credit cards).
|Yet you and some other people here are surprisingly quick to say that this is the EXACT reason your site is being kept out. ... |
..."Put up or shut up" is the expression here. If you guys are so sure it is happening each and every time a site doesn't get listed, report the abuse ...
Would please calm down a little and try to look the issue NOT only from the DMOZ editor's angle?
I was definitely NOT quick to jump to any conclusions. I was just trying to understand why could a site stay for a year in DMOZ and then disappear for no apparent reason. The answers I got here from people who seem to know DMOZ from the inside did not make me any wiser because they were in general repetition of the FAQ info and boiled down to the assumption that it is most likely an affiliate site case, or redirects, or ...
I can understand such assumptions but, since I know for a fact that they are not true, I just have no choice but to look further for other POSSIBLE reasons.
Having exhausted the other possibilities it would be foolish of me to neglect the "abuse version".
I have had the chance to watch in my server's log how a competing site webmaster went through our site and used the product rating system we have to vote "Poor" for all of our bestselling products.
So, if such a person became a DMOZ editor (or had someone close enough in such position) would you bet your money on that he/she would hesitate to delete a site from the directory in order to hurt a competitor? I don't think so.
So, to draw the bottom line. I do NOT know the exact reason for what has happened. I am looking for answers and not finding them. To some extent this is due to the fact that I do not know who edited my site out. Of what I was told here there is not much chance to get this information since a category could be edited by more than one person.
As long as I do not have enough information I cannot be sure of anything, much less report abuse. Or perhaps you could tell me how one reports abuse when one does not know who the editor was?
So, I can definitely not point a finger but, whether you like it or not, I cannot dismiss biased editing as ONE of the POSSIBLE reasons for a site to diappear from DMOZ directory after being there for an year or so.
Sorry, but it looks like the system makes it possible to do this and get away with it (having in mind the sheer volume of the task it looks highly unlikely that the editors' activities are so closely monitored as not to allow misuse of the powers they have).
| 6:49 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
semb, the reason you get an answer from the FAQ is -- that you asked a "frequently asked question" -- and that's the true answer.
As for "accusing specific editors of abuse" -- you could hardly ever under almost any circumstances do that anyway. And nobody is asking you to do that. In fact, I would strongly recommend that you never do that. Because, even if you think you know which editor is involved, you don't.
And ... this is the most important point ... What does it matter who did something, if it was a good thing to do? And what does it matter who did something, if it was a bad thing to do?
If something should not have been done, then report it as a thing that was done and should not have been done. And it can be fixed, like we fix other errors. If abuse seems evident (to the meta-editors who investigate), then editing privileges can be revoked also. If ignorance is the problem, that can often be fixed. But (assuming for a moment an improper thing was done) it doesn't matter to you whether it was abuse or ignorance or accident. We want to know about it so it can be fixed.
And, just a personal aside -- I guarantee that everywhere you go in your life, you will influence people more favorably if you don't immediately assume the worst possible motive for their actions. Try to work as if the problem might be a misunderstanding -- after all, if it's about someone else's activity, the misunderstanding will usually be yours. (They probably know why they did it, no?)
Humans may do it better, but nobody claims they do it perfectly. (I've accidentally deleted sites; I've sent American sites to Africa; I've intentionally deleted sites that actually had content I missed. It happens.) But the more eyes are looking at editing activity, the more mistakes get caught.
| 12:53 pm on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What does it matter who did something, if it was a good thing to do? And what does it matter who did something, if it was a bad thing to do? |
As a matter of fact it does really matter who did something. Because it is one thing if it is someone who has no personal interest in removing sites from the directory and a totally different story if the deleting was done by someone who runs a competing site (or is close to people who do). Don't you think?
I would gladly follow your advice about thinking positively about people's actions but I find it somewhat difficult in a case I see that:
- a number of sites, which sell their own produced widgets has disappered not only from a category, but also do not show up in DMOZ at all anymore. All these sites used to show up in the top 15-20 for this category in Google directory;
- of the abovementioned sites in the top 15-20 of Google directory now only 2 widgetselling sites have remained in the category in question.
Of these 2 sites one is included twice in two separate categories and the other is included twice in the same category with 2 slightly different domains.
- as a further coincidence, the editor for a category 2 levels up (with no editors for the lower levels I suppose this should be the person responsible for editing) seems to be of the same origin and has the same location as the people running one of the abovementioned widgetselling sites which have retained their DMOZ listing so successfully that they have 2 listings each (isn't this against DMOZ guidelines?).
Well I would very much like to be positive, but how could I when I see so many sites with good positions in Google directory gone and the remaining 2 - comfortably listed twice, I somehow find it rather difficult to believe in some innocent explanation.
And here comes another difficult one. How could one follow your advice and avoid accusing an editor when an abuse report under the circumstances, no matter how diplomatically worded, would be equivalent to a finger pointed at the person in question?!?
| 3:01 pm on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ listing? ...don't hold your breath!
I had quite a bit of original copy, and at the time DMOZ deleted my listing, my site hosted 2 Toronto bands(complete subdomains with downloads and streams), it was one of the few websites that had a free movie directory and the most listings, not scraped, requested and granted, it had totally original news that i wrote the copy for every morning.
Still DMOZ says not enough unique content.
When DMOZ pulled me my traffic plummeted and has never really recovered as the comp gets stiffer everyday so any gains i make are offset by new players many total scxapers.
All i can say is after tryng their forum and checking back for a year its been a waste of time and apparantly is just another vehicle that allows a few to contol the results of many. I know not everyone needs DMOZ to succeed but it is wired in as an authority site that is made to be copied leading to stronger pr for the listed so....whats not unique about exclusive music and news stories and commentary and a directory that wasnt scraped?
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |