homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.185.244
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 109 message thread spans 4 pages: 109 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Dmoz Blacklist
Dmoz Blacklist
qwertyuio

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 7:20 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

How does someone get off the Dmoz Blacklist?

 

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 3:22 am on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

They don't really have one.

qwertyuio

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 12:12 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I was removed from Dmoz after a fight with the spammer husbant of an Dmoz editor years ago, and have never been able to get listed again, even though I rank high in Google and Yahoo on many, many on topic terms, and have for many years. I run a verry popular adult directory with zero spam.

I in no way need to be listed in Dmoz, but it just remains a thorn in my side as to the way I was delisted.

larryhatch

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 12:20 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

As far as I know, there is no "DMOZ Blacklist" as such,
but they seem to hate commercial spam.

What I see is a "white list", simply meaning those sites that do get listed.

If memory serves, some guy wrote in here complaining he could not find their
paid inclusion page (or similar). I almost fell off my chair. -Larry

natim

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 12:22 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

You can't always include everyone in any because of what a few have done but here's my personal experience. My oldest and widely recognized site was blacklisted 2yrs ago by someone who thought they were a god. When i began my inquiry I found out the reason he wouldn't let me in. Said it was a lead generation site and when I pointed out that 3/4's of what was already in were exactly that he got pissed. There was a forum that dealt with specifically those types of issues. When several people came to my defense after verifying what I stated, he apparently wrote something in an area where only the dmoz editors can see it. So it will be there permanently and you have absolutely no opportunity to set the record straight. A short time there after I had someone contact me about being an affiliate. Upon some investigation I found out they were an dmoz editor in a similar category. I asked them to look into my situation and that's when I found out about the secret comments area. This person also told me the only reason they became an editor was to get their own sites in and guess what, that's exactly what they did because they were one of the sites I indicated that was in the exact same business as myself. Where's the justice?

Bottom line: YOU ARE SCREWED! from dmoz

gimmster

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 1:12 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

My oldest and widely recognized site was blacklisted 2yrs ago by someone who thought they were a god.
Well I guess it's a leap of faith to believe someon thinks they are a god. I don't know any DMOZ editors who fit that description, but I'm sure there are delusional individuals in all walks of life.
When i began my inquiry I found out the reason he wouldn't let me in. Said it was a lead generation site and when I pointed out that 3/4's of what was already in were exactly that he got pissed.
Well the correct response, assuming your assertation were supported by looking at the sites, would have been to delist the "3/4's of what was already in"
he apparently wrote something in an area where only the dmoz editors can see it. So it will be there permanently and you have absolutely no opportunity to set the record straight.
All editor notes and communications are internal only, however we do know that sites change over time and so notes are never absolutes, but pointers to previous problems or behaviours - even the act of deleting 30 incorrect suggestions leaves an automatic trail of 30 deletion notes.
This person also told me the only reason they became an editor was to get their own sites in and guess what, that's exactly what they did because they were one of the sites I indicated that was in the exact same business as myself. Where's the justice?
Editors are permitted to list their own sites, just not to treat them any differently from thier competitors, if you believe they were acting incorrectly there is no justice if you did not report them.
Bottom line: YOU ARE SCREWED! from dmoz
Well we hope that our anti spam (spam = stuff we do not want suggested) is keeping out those sites that do not meet our requirements, however if you have a 'lead generator' site you screwed yourself by expecting it to be listed.

I squeak for myself, no mouse was pressured into making this response, and I do not represent any ODP hampsters.

gimmster

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 1:31 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh, I need to add I have absolutely no idea who you are, nor which site you were discussing, and I didn't attempt to find out. The reply is not intended to be a response about a known site, but is based entirely on the points made in the preceeding post.

Event_King



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 4:17 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I believe any site that threatens or potentially could threaten dmoz or an editor's own site, is automatically banned for life.

Editors anywhere, are given a lot of authority, and some may feel threatened by competition. Something is certainly going on, and it can't simply be a case of some large backlog of sites from preventing submissions. I'm sure many sites/webpages DO break rules of some kind and then banned for legitimate reasons, but as I keep hearing that many good sites are waiting years to be listed and some don't get in, when they should be. That's got to be vindictiveness and not a time issue.

37,000 editors and they can't handle the job in hand?

I guess some just like 'power games'. Dmoz, Google PR etc - it all comes down to one thing - POWER lol.


g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 7:56 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I believe any site that threatens or potentially could threaten dmoz or an editor's own site, is automatically banned for life. <<

I believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. Any editor can list any site at any time. No one editor can "block" anything.

>> Editors anywhere, are given a lot of authority, <<

Editors can edit. That's it. The word "authority" is used by you in what context here? Please explain.

>> it can't simply be a case of some large backlog of sites from preventing submissions. <<

There is no "prevention of submission". Sites can be suggested at any time to any category. The ODP does receive thousands of spam suggestions per day though.

>> That's got to be vindictiveness and not a time issue. <<

Yeah, those spammers suggesting thousands of junk sites every day make it unproductive to look at the unreviewed pile in many commercial categories. The sheer vindictiveness of the spammers who brazenly suggest and resuggest stuff again and again - stuff that we have openly stated in multiple places that we will never list - is beyond a joke.

Time issue? There is no time issue. Editors work in random categories at random times. There is no list of what has to be done first. There is no timescale promised for any action. Every site suggested is eventually looked at by someone.

>> 37,000 editors and they can't handle the job in hand? <<

37 000 editors? I have no idea where you get that figure from. There have been 65 000 contributors since the project began, of which about 9000 currently have an active login/account.

Event_King



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 10:06 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Any editor can list any site at any time

That they choose. So there is a choosing of the time, day or month that site/s are reviewed. So it could take a long time before a site is reviewed. People talk about 'being included into dmoz' and not editing.

No one editor can "block" anything

I disagree with that 100% - I do think there is vindictiveness.

The word "authority" is used by you in what context here? Please explain

Well, they are given authority to 'edit' websites for possible inclusion to the categories. Authority is "the given right to control" by a company/organisation, in this case it's dmoz. So they MUST have this to proceed to do the job of editing or whatever it is they do.

There is no "prevention of submission". Sites can be suggested at any time to any category. The ODP does receive thousands of spam suggestions per day though

Maybe there's no prevention in the category you edit - but how do you know what the other editors are upto.

I'm sure these spam sites DO take time to sift through, and this is obviously where the time goes, but I can add/remove thousands of sites in minutes, yet dmoz might have a problem removing troublesome spam with thousands of editors. But there are tons of complaints about dmoz, and that has to say something about how they approach things.

Time issue? There is no time issue. Editors work in random categories at random times. There is no list of what has to be done first. There is no timescale promised for any action. Every site suggested is eventually looked at by someone

What - totally random categories being worked on at random times. Yeah, it sounds like a really well time monitored resource. If editors can edit when they please, they could in theory, just do 1 site a day couldn't they. No time issue then hmmmmmm.

37 000 editors? I have no idea where you get that figure from.

I can't post the source of the figure as TOS prevent me from doing so. But I believe the source to be highly accurate and that's that.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 10:45 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>> Any editor can list any site at any time <<<<

>> That they choose. So there is a choosing of the time, day or month that site/s are reviewed. So it could take a long time before a site is reviewed. People talk about 'being included into dmoz' and not editing. <<

How could it be done another way? That a site is edited when the submitter chooses, and 50 000 people choose tomorrow at 8 a.m.? The ODP is not a listing service. The ODP is not a listing service. The ODP is not a listing service.

Editors choose a category to work on, and, umm, work on it. If 9 000 editors don't work on a particular category then obviously none of them felt that category to be their top priority. You wanna call that abuse?

No-one can tell anyone which category to work on. No-one can tell anyone which category to not work on. And since half a million categories weren't edited today, that must mean that every editor has a vested interset in the half a million subjects those categories cover?

>>>> No one editor can "block" anything <<<<

>> I disagree with that 100% - I do think there is vindictiveness. <<

Explain how any one of the other editors can block any other editor from reviewing and listing a site? Do they hijack my dial-up connection to stop me getting online? Do they block me logging into the ODP? Do they set some magic lock that stops me editing a particular entry? Explain how?

There is no way that they can do this. It does not happen.

>>>> The word "authority" is used by you in what context here? Please explain. <<<<

>> Well, they are given authority to 'edit' websites for possible inclusion to the categories. Authority is "the given right to control" by a company/organisation, in this case it's dmoz. So they MUST have this to proceed to do the job of editing or whatever it is they do. <<

So what you are saying is that editors can edit the ODP? And you're saying that people who aren't editors cannot. We'll, duh, we know that.

>>>> There is no "prevention of submission". Sites can be suggested at any time to any category. The ODP does receive thousands of spam suggestions per day though. <<<<

>> Maybe there's no prevention in the category you edit - but how do you know what the other editors are up to. <<

Submissions cannot be blocked. When you hit the "suggest" button your suggestion appears in the unreviewed site list for that category. Every action on that site after that point is then logged with date and time and editor details.

Every site has a log. Every category has a log. Every editor has a log. Every editor can look at the log for every site. Every editor can look at the log for every category. Every editor can look at the log for every other editor.

Any editor can re-introduce any deleted entry back into unreviewed. You explain to me, step by step exactly how an editor can block a site. I want to see how this is done.

>>> I'm sure these spam sites DO take time to sift through, and this is obviously where the time goes, but I can add/remove thousands of sites in minutes, yet dmoz might have a problem removing troublesome spam with thousands of editors. But there are tons of complaints about dmoz, and that has to say something about how they approach things. <<<<

I could delete 1000 sites in under 30 seconds, but ummm, we actually use eyeballs to look at sites to see what is on them first - that's the "human reviewed" part. And, in many categories most of what is available for review is likely to be not listable, so editors (who build categories of interesting sites, not process submissions in some special order) will likely be building some other category, on some other subject, somewhere else in the Directory.

Did anyone notice the Katrina category was being built while the wind was still blowing and the waters had hardly started to rise?

>> Time issue? There is no time issue. Editors work in random categories at random times. There is no list of what has to be done first. There is no timescale promised for any action. Every site suggested is eventually looked at by someone. <<<<

>> What - totally random categories being worked on at random times. Yeah, it sounds like a really well time monitored resource. If editors can edit when they please, they could in theory, just do 1 site a day couldn't they. No time issue then hmmmmmm.

Yeah. Editors join the ODP to contribute information to categories they are interested in. They are not told where to edit. They are not told when to edit. They are not told which sites to edit. They are only told that acceptable sites should be listed, unacceptable sites should not be listed, and stuff they are not sure about should be left for someone with more experience to make a judgement call on. The guidelines for editors spell out exactly what is, and is not, suitable for listing. No-one monitors any time at all. There is no requirement to even look at the suggestion pile. Many editors sift Google results, links pages, posts in forums, magazine articles, billboards, storefronts, adverts on trucks, and many other places for sites of interest.

I edited in a Science subject in WikiPedia today. You want me to take notice of people screaming out that health topics are more important? Well, sorry, I edited the Science page that I found to be in error and incomplete. I contributed what I contributed, and if anyone doesn't like that, then that is their problem.

Likewise the ODP grew by over 1000 sites today. But not yours? Tough.

>>>> 37 000 editors? I have no idea where you get that figure from. <<<<

>> I can't post the source of the figure as TOS prevent me from doing so. But I believe the source to be highly accurate and that's that. <<

Believe what you want. But you're wrong.

Event_King



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 12:43 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

So many have been waiting years for inclusion, so you don't think there's anything strange with that? I don't care either way - just so you don't think I'm disgruntled lol.

I just found this forum and one of the posts was written about dmoz:

"Quality doesn't matter. Just get in there and let a whole bunch of sites get in, including yours, then walk away from the account. It's that easy, so what are you waiting for?"
------------------------------

Become an editor, list your site to get the traffic and then simply walk away. Not my words you understand. No wonder there are so many editors he he.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 12:52 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

So many have been waiting years for inclusion, so you don't think there's anything strange with that?

Nothing strange about that. DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters.

natim

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 1:30 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gimmster it appears that you are very defensive about the dmoz editors. I clearly said all people can't be thrown into the same group. I did in fact report in great detail about the situation to no avail. Lead generation sites are rampant throughout many areas of DMOZ and frankly many or most of the sales type sites are lead generation sites. This particular situation was one where the editor was protecting their own sites and not applying the same standards to all who applied. Perhaps I misunderstood dmoz concept that all should have an equal and fair change with the rules being applied equally to all. Didn't happen and I could care less at this point. DMOZ isn't the end of the world if you don't get in.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 2:06 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am NOT a meta editor so do not have access to abuse compliants etc .... but on a couple of other forums in which it is permitted to post URL's, any editor can then go and look at the editing logs to see the other side of the story .... in every single case in which complaints like this one have been made publically I have aggred with the decision taken by the editors (usally more than one gets involved).

Like most editors, I would not be editing if there was anything more than an insignificant amount of corruption - so I would be first to report it if I thought it was inapprorpaite (I have reported a couple of editor decisions I disagreed with, BUT they were not corrpution) .... but then again I am apprently so corrupt I am blind to whats really happening....

Almost always, and generally, the allegations made publically are not true and are nothing more than the webmaster jumping to the wrong conlcusion (eg editor is a competitor)

If you filed an abuse complaint and the listings did not change, then its safe to assume that the investigation made by the meta that handled this found that there was no abuse (from what I understand, these reports and investigations are open to all meta editor to see).... from what limited information I have access to (ie the sites editing logs), I have always agreed (I know nothing of your case).

I also understand that the results of these abuse reports are never made public as they would reveal too much information about detection methods etc.

(Having said the above, there was one occasion in which I did come across a site that did appear to be inappropriately tagged, so I initiated some dialogue with the meta that did it....BUT before this went too far I started getting this aggreesive abusive private messages from the webmaster via the forum... so much for trying to help ....don't figure :-)

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 3:32 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>abusive private messages from the webmaster via the forum...<<<

And I have gotten some of those from odp editors when I have pointed out the glaring faults of the odp....so don't feel bad...

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 4:09 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>There is no "prevention of submission".

while you cannot prevent submissions, there is a way to subtley influence fellow editors. An editor can delete a site out of the cue, and in the notes let it be known that the site is from a known spammer and not to let it or any other site by them back in.

I have seen such notations.

Note to the DMOZ editors, I'm just telling it like it is, ok? I'm not accusing DMOZ editors of bias, nor am I saying the OP is right or wrong. Just showing how a defacto black listing can occur.

Technically, afaik there is no blacklist. Functionally, a webmaster or site can have his/her sites blocked. This generally happens to genuinely spammy submissions. But if an editor is shady, and let's face it, with the amount of editors you have, the odds are realistic that the ODP has some bad eggs in there, a shady editor can subvert another webmaster with this method.

So on the face of it, the original poster's contention may (I didn't say it did, just may) arise from a real encounter in which his site has negative comments attached to it in the editing module of the control panel. But to be fair, the OP's website could be (note, I didn't say it is, only could be) total spam that deserves to be blocked.

And of course there's the third possibility that a rogue editor might be sabotaging legitimate website submissions from a particular webmaster by placing false accusations in the notation areas.

canthavejust1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 5:53 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been told more than once by ODP editors that people become editors to list their own sites.

Therefore:
1. They become editors over the categories where they want their sites listed
2. So, they edit their competitors
3. They can choose not to add their competitors

These are the simple facts.

If this were always done with fair judgment, there wouldn't be an issue.

I have a site that's been turned down. The site is a completely white hat site with good, helpful information. And in comparison to the others in the category, is much more user friendly. And editor gave me a list of reasons why it wasn't acceptable. I couldn't believe the list. It was inaccurate to the point that I almost thought they were talking about someone else's site. It was as if the editor didn't have an understanding of what they were accusing my site of doing. It was clear to me that either the editor was terribly misinformed as to what these accusations meant, or they had personal reasons for rejecting my site.

And I can't forget to mention...there are currently other sites listed in that DMOZ category that are guilty of the things my site was accused of.

I pointed out the inaccuracies to that editor. My comments weren't even addressed. This time, the editor simply told me that I needed more information on my site. I currently have about 150 pages, and I add to that constantly. It was very clear to me that the site won't be added.

My sites are already indexed and ranked by the main search engines, so a DMOZ listing is not a deal breaker. But the thought that so much credence is given to the opinion of people like this baffles me.

So, g1smd, I'm going to have to agree with the others. Editors don't need directory wide authority to control the environment for their own personal market. All they need to control is the category where their site is listed. It's really a no brainer. There's no conspiracy, no grand plot. DMOZ has just been infiltrated with editors (some, not all) who may not have enough knowledge of Internet terminology, or they're in it for personal gain only.

This is unfortunate for those editors who are honest. It gives them a bad name.

There is a growing opinion that DMOZ is rapidly losing credibility.

Is there any wonder why?

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 6:05 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been told more than once by ODP editors that people become editors to list their own sites.

Do you actually know how many editors have no sites? I think you need to get your facts right before going off on a fanciful and untruthful rant.

I have only ever met 3 editors in real life (offline). One was a teacher who edited as a class project. One was a Dr who edited in a medical discipline and the third was a university lecturer.

None of them had there own sites. Only one of them knew what SEO stood for.

BTW - I am an editor and yes I did list my own site, but within a matter of minutes I listed all my "competitors". The only bias I showed is that my site was in DMOZ 2 minutes before my "competitors"

You really need to be sure of facts befoe spreading so much mis-information.

I pointed out the inaccuracies to that editor. My comments weren't even addressed. This time, the editor simply told me that I needed more information on my site. I currently have about 150 pages, and I add to that constantly. It was very clear to me that the site won't be added.
If your claims are correct (and we have no way of knowing), this can easily be dealt with by a senior editor. What was the response to the abuse complaint you should have filled out? If you did fill one out and nothing changed, then it would have been because a more senior editor agreed with the decision.

As I said in a post above, every time I have seen allegations similar to the one above made in a forum where the URL can be listed, and what superficial checking I am able to do, I have everytime agreed with the editor. While I am not saying this applies to the above case, I am just not prepared to beleive such accounts until I can see the other side of the coin .... its always amazes me how economical with the truth same are when stating their side of the case ...guess there is nothing like the facts to get in the way of a good rant in a forum .

canthavejust1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 6:27 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Payne,
I'm not sure what other facts I need. I simply stated that I was told more than once by editors. Actually, I've been told that by two different editors in different categories. You are right that I cannot make that statement for all editors. I did not mean to imply "all". But I've only corresponded with four, and I was told that by two of them. I also used the term "some, not all". This post is only directed to the editors who fall into this category.

And in my closing statement, I also said that it gives the honest editors a bad name. If you're an honest editor, and if your editor friends are honest, then this post was not directed at you.

I have my facts. And whether or not editors like to hear it, these facts exist nonetheless.

Only one of them knew what SEO stood for.

However, I must agree with this point you made. This confirmed one of my observations. I said that the editor wasn't familiar with Internet terminology. I was told my site was a "particular type" of site, which it isn't.

I'm glad we agreed on something.

I hadn't planned on making these comments until I read that these others had experienced something similar. It is unfortunate that we can't discuss this more openly. It would be interesting to know who rejected my site for reasons that don't exist. I understand you are at a disadvantage because you don't know the particulars regarding this site. And I'm sorry you've taken this personally. It's quite funny, though, that you call this ranting. I was merely telling an experience I've had. I wonder what this would sound like if I was truly upset.

canthavejust1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 7:41 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Correction:
Of the four editors I corresponded with, three listed their own sites. (And if I can now count cbpayne, I've now corresponded with 5 editors, and 4 have listed their own sites.)

Interestingly enough one of them was a senior editor. And this 'senior editor' also told me that if it weren't for editors having the ability to list their own sites, DMOZ wouldn't have any editors at all.

This statement was made in writing.

It was from this statement that I drew the allegedly inaccurate conclusion that many or most of the editors became such for the purpose of listing their own sites. (once again, I didn't say "all editors") Let me add here, that I don't think there's any problem with this process as long as the editors remain honest.

So I took the statement of a 'senior editor' and accepted it as 'fact'. And this senior editor's statement supports the main points of my first post in this thread:

The editors reviewing your sites for inclusion are often your competitors. That alone opens the door for questionable conduct.

This could raise reasonable questions regarding the integrity of the ODP database, which is (once again) unfortunate for the reputation of the honest editors who were referred to by cbpayne.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 7:46 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> No wonder there are so many editors he he.

OK then, so they added their own site and 19 others, so who the hell did the other four million additions, and who has done the 10 or 20 million spam deletions?

Of course, some do that; but if all the sites they added are legitimate, then thanks for the 20 addditions, shame you didn't feel it useful to surfers to add more. If they aren't listable, then someone will spot and delist soon enough. The relevant thread over a RZ has thousands of errors reported and fixed.

>> This particular situation was one where the editor was protecting their own sites and not applying the same standards to all who applied. <<

You reported the sites, of course? If so, then multiple people will have looked into it.

>> An editor gave me a list of reasons why it wasn't acceptable. <<

Report that, and see what happens. Multiple people will look at it.

qwertyuio

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 7:52 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

First let's drop the blood preasures... calm... relax. Your / my, health is more important than Dmoz, my page, and your pages all combined. So relax a little.

Now on with the topic.
I have no ideal what "lead generation" is.

I was never given a reason for my page being removed, other than a threat from the editors husbant, a threat that shortly came true.

Ok, so there is no black list per say, but a sight log. Ok, a bad sight log can be used as a black list to help swim through the spam. With over a thousand Models listing themselfs on my page I get a lot of emails, sevendy five to eighty persent of those emails are spam. I do understand the need for easy outs, and am certianly guilty of taking that path myself.

How can I get a copy of that log, and get it corected.

The editor in question was a senior editor so apeals fell on death ears.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 8:09 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

A definiton for "Lead generators":

These are sites where you have to supply information for anything further to happen. They collect contact details of surfers for an agent to "get back to them". They do not freely give information. Lead generator sites have gotten more clever in adding more content around their basic site: but this is usually templated, non-unique content, same additions seen on hundreds of other sites, often word for word.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 8:16 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

A definiton for "Lead generators":

These are sites where you have to supply information for anything further to happen. They collect contact details of surfers for an agent to "get back to them". They do not freely give information. Lead generator sites have gotten more clever in adding more content around their basic site: but this is usually templated, non-unique content, same additions seen on hundreds of other sites, often word for word.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 11:07 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Of the four editors I corresponded with, three listed their own sites. (And if I can now count cbpayne, I've now corresponded with 5 editors, and 4 have listed their own sites.)

The vast majority of editors (probably >90%) never come into SEO forum's so you have talked to a very biased sample.

If a senior editor told you that there would be no editors if editors could not list there sites, then they told you wrong.

I can edit in ~50 categories - I have only a site in one of them. What do you think motivates me to work in the other 49?

Event_King



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 11:25 am on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

This particular situation was one where the editor was protecting their own sites and not applying the same standards to all who applied. You reported the sites, of course? If so, then multiple people will have looked into it

Except we know nobody looks into anything, as sites remain unlisted. Now, I've gone to the trouble of building something useful for my user base, but hasn't been listed in 2.5 years. I don't spam dmoz with re-submissions and I chose the right category too.

A few years back I submitted a really naff loking site, with hardly any content - I mean this was a crap site, really naff. Yet it got into dmoz, and got in FAST. Yet, it seems that quality sites can't get in.

Huh, explain that one then lol.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 4:37 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Right. It is "put up or shut up" time.

PM me the site and category and I will look at it. Any editor can look at any log for any site, any cateogry, or any editor at any time.

I cannot reveal what any editor notes might say, but if I find something that I don't like then I will alert a completely different Meta to all of this and let them deal with it. If I find no improprietory actions than I'll also let you know.

Event_King



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 4:55 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for that. I've emailed you.

regards

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2554 posted 5:14 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK I now have the domain; but you could not remember the category.

There are no editor actions on that domain at all: no edits, no moves, no deletions. Wherever it has been submitted it has never been edited; and is still sat there unreviewed.

If you knew the category, then I could look in the log for that category to make absolutely sure that the entry had never been touched. I cannot reveal what is in the editor notes. On this occasion it is very easy to abide by that: there is nothing there at all. So, I have no need to drop a Meta an email to look into anything. There is nothing to look into.

So: your ban, your implied editor malice, your editor corruption, has never happened to your site. There is no note saying "do not list". There is no long list of "site deleted as spam". There is no "multiple submit" history. If the site is still sat in unreviewed (and it should be if it hasn't been deleted, and there is no delete action shown for that domain in the log) could be added at any time by any editor that decided to review it - if they found it listable.

Your lack of listing is simply down to the fact that no-one has reviewed the site as yet - and that has been the case every time that I have offered to check a URL for someone and report any wrongdoing if any is found (and was the case for 99.9% of the threads over at that forum that no longer does status checks).

So, when an editor tells you had it is likely that X happened or Z did not happen, then that indeed is usually the case - even though legions of people rise up and proclaim it to be "impossible", and a "conspiracy" and "editor corruption". Most editors don't even know each other: how could they, they are scattered over 80+ countries.

There is no way that over 8000 people could all be working to the same vicious sub-plot against your site, or any site, unless it clearly and demonstratably does not abide by the submission guidelines and the guidelines for editing - and in that case that isn't editor malevolence, that is an editor doing exactly what they should be doing with such sites.

I purposely did not look at your site at all; as if I did I might have been tempted to offer an opinion as to whether or not it was listable; and as I do not edit anywhere near any of the categories you might have submitted to that would be pointless.

<edit>typos</edit>

[edited by: g1smd at 5:29 pm (utc) on Sep. 18, 2005]

This 109 message thread spans 4 pages: 109 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
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