Getting a red tag in Dmoz

[mikeD]

Know for a fact that quite a lot of affiliate sites have been red tagged at Dmoz by senior editors. This is basically the same as a Google pr0 in Dmoz terms. My question is if these sites change from being affiliate, do you really expect any editor to take any notice of webmasters emailing about red tagged sites (change of content). And what about some unlucky person who buys a red tagged site without the knowledge that it has no chance of being listed by dmoz (quite a burden). I feel that it would be in everyone's best interests if Dmoz posted a public page with a list of red tagged sites, so future webmasters can check it when buying a new domain.

[rogerd]

Probably will never happen, MikeD, just like Google will never publish a list of penalized sites.

[2_much]

mikeD you could try contacting the editor, and editors higher up, explaining your situation.

I've found some editors to be very honest and helpful, so if you have that situation it could be remedied.

[mikeD]

I found to my misfortune a while back that I had bought a red tagged domain and had put a lot of work into it before realising this. The only way I found out was when I became a dmoz editor (was getting fed up of submitting my site and getting no feedback). The URL was now completely changed from before and had no reason for being red tagged, therefore as a new editor I emailed the senior editor who had red tagged the site to review it. Guess what happened next? I was suddenly removed as an editor and recieved a rude email from the senior dmoz editor (also had lots of dmoz awards) saying I had decieved dmoz on my application because I hadn't stated I ran a site. I therefore binned the URL and moved it to another. From my experience of Dmoz it is quite clear that power corrupts and boy is Dmoz corrupt.

[2_much]

Hey MikeD that sounds pretty tought. I think it's important to always see things from the other person/entity's point of view. Due to Dmoz's set up they have to be really tough about things.

Seems like you've done the best thing you could've done and now you get the chance to move on and rank your site.

[skibum]

If the association wasn't mentioned on the app, I assume that could be grounds for dismissal. Otherwise it sounds like an unfortunate victim of circumstance. Actions of both parties make perfect sense to them, but add em' up and they don't.

Did you try explaining to the editor that you had just registered the domain and that the prior owner had been guilty of abuse?

Seems like that would rather conclusively show that you weren't the one to blame for past troubles. Registering it anonymously would of course make it next to imposible to verify this.

[mikeD]

I mentioned my problem in full and in a well mannered style. It seemed the editor wasn't even going to comtemplate my point of view, it was just dismissed out of hand.

[rafalk]

Considering you didn't mention the affiliation on your application, said editor had absolutely no grounds to trust you. That being said, editors are never removed simply because they "ask" about a site they are affiliated with. There's always other conduct that leads to dismissal.

[rafalk]

I forgot to add - It's always possible that you timed-out, instead of being removed.

[choster]

Sites, like people, change. Usually we see sites go bad, though from time to time the bad turn "good" again. Nixon became a respectable author, Lula went from revolutionary to president, and today Milken is a bona fide philanthropist.

You're a newspaper editor. Your paper years ago refused to run a column by the old, bad, Nixon. You eventually befriend him and clean up his act and now want to publish a review of one of his books. The other editors have been warned off the very name, so you argue forcefully that he deserves another shot.

Whoops, you forgot to disclose that you get a percentage of every book sold. That's not against the rules. But you were supposed to tell the ombudsman and the ethics officer. The paper, though disliked by a few, is still popular with the townspeople and has a reputation to maintain.

Now it doesn't matter how reformed Nixon may be, or how sincere your intentions in rehabilitating him. You're fired and will probably never serve on that paper's editorial board again. And some other editor will have to be convined that the Nixon piece is worth running.

[mikeD]

My point really wasn't that I failed to get my red tag changed, I can accept the editor's point of view. My main reason for posting was it would be useful if Dmoz published the sites it has red tagged. Therefore I wouldn't have wasted my time developing a site on the red tagged domain.

[NFFC]

Just a gentle reminder to read the charter before posting;

While it is sometimes appropriate to discuss ODP's policies, please keep in mind that we encourage constructive discussion, and if the discussion turns into "they fired me and I don't know why," it is no longer approprate for this forum and will be removed or edited.

Neither is it the right place to deconstruct an ex-editors conduct.

The question was and is;
---------------
if these sites change from being affiliate, do you really expect any editor to take any notice of webmasters emailing about red tagged sites
---------------
Please lets keep on topic [in a nice way:)].

[kctipton]

I'd notice if contacted via email somehow.

[skibum]

Seems like email to an editor would work or to bring it up in the unofficial ODP form. As for publishing a list of tagged sites, it is doubtful they'd do somethign like that. While it would be nice to know if one was buying a "tainted" URL, it would also alert the one who made it "tainted" that it may be time to start over and begin anew.

[ScottM]

it would also alert the one who made it "tainted" that it may be time to start over and begin anew.

I don't understand the logic behind this. If it is red tainted, then why should the ODP let on that it knows this?

So the spammer can start doing it again with another domain?

Just a rhetorical question....:)

[skibum]

It shouldn't, OTOH it sounds like it may make it more difficult for someone who unknowingly buys and expired domain that has been tagged in a prior life.

Maybe no different than a PR0'd domain in Google?

[rafalk]

With the amount of expired domains out there, the chances of any particular expired domain being red-flagged are very very small.

[glengara]

So what are the effects of a red tag?

[choster]

There are a variety of different ways that urls are annotated, with the aim of improving editor productivity while reducing burnout and avoiding reduplicative listing. Color flagging is one of them: [inelegant.org...] .

Please note that the content of all types of url notes are for internal use and cannot be disclosed to submitters or other members of the public.

[glengara]

Thanks Choster, confusion arose when I understood a 'normally' listed site had a red tag.

[hstyri]

The simple rule-of-thumb should be to always check the history of any "used" domain name you purchase. It may have been "tagged" by search engines and directories, and it may be included in one or more databases used by filtering software.

Some of these problems are easy to spot, others quite hard. Some are easy to correct, others will take time, some work, and maybe a little luck.

I would think a having a red tag in ODP would be one of the small problems you may encounter. ;)

[multex]

>it is doubtful they'd do somethign like that

There's no doubt at all. DMOZ won't, ever: and an editor who did divulge that (just like any other internal, confidential ODP records) is just asking for a prefix: "ex-".

IMO, buying pre-owned domain names is like buying your food predigested. You can spend a lot of money for the service, but you won't get any nutritional value in return.

Buying a "live" domain name is not much better. If the directories notice, that domain name will be toxic sludge. It's called "bait-and-switch", and there are NO second chances, EVER, for anyone who does that, or for any of their domains.

[NFFC]

>"bait-and-switch"

I'm not a big fan of buying a pre-owned domain I must admit but as long as domains expire it will happen. As many have stated expired domains can pose a threat to the system but lets be honest DMOZ needs to help a little here.

Immagine that a certain company went bust and the domain became available. Imagine that I had a geocites site called My Special Nose, a wonderful HTML masterpiece that dealt with the problems of having a big nose. So I scoop up the now availble domain and go to DMOZ to submit my masterpiece, before I do this I check to see if it already listed.

[search.dmoz.org...]

Thats not bait and switch, thats the system not giving the webmaster the tools he needs.

[ettore]

Re: bait and switch techniques...

Bait & switch we don't like occurs when somebody buys grat-domain-name.com with a lot of traffic, good PR, etc. and already listed in Shopping/Widgets/Blue (wich we assume here being a high traffic category/area), and then replaces the content of the previous site with his oh-so-wonderful online casino (I have nothing against online casinos, just an example), waiting for the traffic from blue widgets searchers to come in, and hoping nobody notices.

If you do want to play on the safe side when you happen to find an expired domain name you want to use, do check in which ODP category the domain is listed, replace the site content with whatever you want, and do use the "update URL" link at the top of the category, explaining why the content has changed and suggesting a new description/title/category. Being honest and upfront always helps. Emailing an editall pointing him/her to the change also helps, and might result in having the site re-reviewed, re-described, and moved to the proper category without being unreviewed in the meanwhile, whereas this kind of action is not granted. Just notice that new content often equals new title/description/category, thus you should expect your "new" site to be sent in unrevieweds in the new category and then wait with others pending review, like any new submission.