Changing DMOZ directory listing

Changing DMOZ.ORG directory Listing

[jaspen meyer]

I'm new here..
Anyone had any success in changing the directory DMOZ sticks your site in?

I've recently had two sites indexed in the semi-generic business../northamerica/pennsylvania/d/... and this dmoz page is ranked at 3 by google.

I'm interested in having the site listed under a more convinging page, i.e. something with higher rank. thanks, jaspen_meyer

[lazerzubb]

Try the Directories Forum [webmasterworld.com]
There dmoz and other directories are discussed.

The reason why you will not see any changes at directory.google.com is because the RDF dump, which you can read more about at the link above.

Also:
Welcome to Webmaster World [webmasterworld.com]

[victor]

If you originally submitted to a "more convincing" page, and the editor chose to put you in this category, write to the editor with a convincing case for why the original category is better.

Google page rank is irrelevant for the case -- you have to show that the content is such that you belong elsewhere.

[OntheEdge]

sounds like you got a regional listing, in many cases you can have both. Check and see, it may have been submitted in regional and a category close to what you wanted.

[coconutz]

>>I've recently had two sites indexed in the semi-generic business../northamerica/pennsylvania/d/...

Did you submit to a regional or topical category or both?

If you submitted to a topical category only, your submissions may have been moved and listed in the regional category. This could be due to your business being located in and serving a limited regional area.

If you submitted to both, your other submissions may still be in the unreviewed queue.

If you didn't submit your sites and they were added by a regional editor building his category, then I would submit the sites to the appropriate topical category if they meet the requirements for that category. Check the category description.

Welcome to WebmasterWorld.

[rfgdxm1]

May I suggest that you reconsider what you are trying to do. First, don't waste your time trying if your site really is in the best possible cat, and you are just doing that to try and get on a directory page with a higher PR. As an ODP editor if someone tried complaining on that basis, not only would I not move the site to another cat, I'd probably also edit the description to be less favorable to the site, yet comply with the guidelines. (You'd be surprised what people complain to ODP editors about. I had one site owner complain I didn't stuff the description with a lot of keywords, and submitted a keyword stuffed description that he wanted it replaced with. And, NO I am not making that up.) And, if your site really is better listed in that other cat, this may cause you problems. If the editor of the cat your site is currently listed in doesn't have editing privs in the cat you want it moved to, then all that editor can do is remove your site from the current cat, and send it to the unreviewed queue of the destination cat. In many areas of the ODP the queues are backed up as long as 2 years. Thus, it is possible if the editor agrees with what you want this will mean you'll lose your ODP listing for the next 2 years. Might be best to settle for what you've got.

[willybfriendly]

Victor, my experience is that it is a wasted expenditure of energy to discuss categories with the DMOZ editors/staff. When a cat I have a site in was completley rearranged, quite illogically I might add, I exhanged numerous communications. Even went so far as offering a logical way to reorganize it. The response(s) were defensive. The overall flavor was to justify the decisions of the editors, even while acknowledging that my suggestions made more sense than what was being done.

And, don't fool yourself that these editors are not aware of how their decisions effect rankings in the SE's. It was very clear that they are intimately familiar with this, even as they say that they do not let such things influence their decisions.

End result was that two editors with a vested interest in the cat were able to move a significant number of competitors from a PR 4 cat to PR 3 and PR 2 cats, and nothing could be done.

I lost a lot of respect for the whole DMOZ system over this one. The reorganization left zero information brochure sites with misleading descriptions in higher levels than content rich, informational sites. It really defied logic no matter how I looked at it, except from the perspective of editors protecting their turf.

[clickclick]

It gets abit irritating reading gripes about DMOZ editors. I edit two small cats and delete over half of what gets submitted by often quite devious search engineers. But it takes time and effort to do it. When we try to do something which is, in our opinion, an improvement, we are berated by the very people who try to cheat the system in the first place. If you don't like it join the system, become a editor. If you have a genuine complaint, escalate it up the chain. Its all there in black and white.

Just as a side issue, my main site has been deleted from the cat that I submitted to, thats not moved, but deleted. And I spend around 2 hours a week working on the project!

[rfgdxm1]

>And, don't fool yourself that these editors are not aware of how their decisions effect rankings in the SE's. It was very clear that they are intimately familiar with this, even as they say that they do not let such things influence their decisions.

Don't be so sure about that one. While some ODP editors know this, my guess is the vast majority don't. I actually wish that the ODP would put up this information in an easy to understand manner for those editors that don't know this. The reason is that editors who are knowlegeable about such will be able to prevent and spot abuse easier if they the tricks spammers use against the ODP to manipulate search engines.

>End result was that two editors with a vested interest in the cat were able to move a significant number of competitors from a PR 4 cat to PR 3 and PR 2 cats, and nothing could be done.

Did you submit a complaint about this, with a detailed explanation as to what you believe they did?

[willybfriendly]

rfgdxm1- I carried on a discussion with higher level editors at resource-zone. I offered my best reasons for why the reorg was illogical. I offered a different way to reorg that mades sense within the cat. They "agreed" while defending the right of their editor to continue the project.

In short, I did everything BUT file a complaint. Why? The cat reorg was not "clearly" editor abuse. What I mean is that any incompetent person could have justified the reorg as done.

I did offer specific examples of sites left in inappropriate levels of the cat, and also of sites with misleading descriptions to no effect.

clickclick - we may think that what we are doing is an improvement when it is not. If someone with some expertise in the field points out that there may be a better way, we can either sit up and listen, or we can defend what we are doing as right.

When brochure sites end up in higher levels than informational sites, the reorg is illogical.

[coconutz]

First, don't waste your time trying if your site really is in the best possible cat, and you are just doing that to try and get on a directory page with a higher PR. As an ODP editor if someone tried complaining on that basis, not only would I not move the site to another cat, I'd probably also edit the description to be less favorable to the site

Moving a site that was already appropriately listed and giving it a less than desirable description just because someone complained? I always thought that editing was supposed to be unbiased.

[stever]

>I always thought that editing was supposed to be unbiased.

It is, and AFAIK it is supposed to be carried out with the end-user in mind rather than the submitter or the personal prejudices of the editor - thus both the original enquiry and the response "I'd probably also edit the description to be less favorable to the site" are, IMO, equally false attitudes to take to the ODP.

[rfgdxm1]

>Moving a site that was already appropriately listed and giving it a less than desirable description just because someone complained? I always thought that editing was supposed to be unbiased.

Please note that "less favorable"!= "unfavorable". For example, it is possible that the site was added by a previous editor who was the click-through type and let some marketing hype slip through from the original submission. Thus, after the complaint I might notice it, and edit it to a neutral, hype-free submission. And, now that I think about it, no matter how obnoxious and annoying the complainer was, that would be a bad basis for any action. The reason is that their is no way of knowing *who* submitted an update for a site. It is logically possible that it could be a competitor impersonating their competition, and trying to get me pissed off at their competition.

[rfgdxm1]

>rfgdxm1- I carried on a discussion with higher level editors at resource-zone. I offered my best reasons for why the reorg was illogical. I offered a different way to reorg that mades sense within the cat. They "agreed" while defending the right of their editor to continue the project.

One thing that may be possible here. Standard protocol is that one bring up major reorganizations in the appropriate internal editor forum. For example, if this was in the Shopping branch, this would be done on the Shopping forum. Also all editors that might be effected should be contacted by feedback. If this editor did bring this up in the forum, and detailed exactly what he was going to do, it is possible everyone basically said "sure, go ahead". Thus, even if the reorg had the effect of benefitting his own sites, because he obtained editor consensus first before doing this he can't be accused of abuse.

[jaspen meyer]

I had posted originally to a specific listing and was moved into the regional listing after the following sequence:

referrer =

/editors/editunrev.cgi?site=22&cat=Shopping/Food/Produce/Organic&chainsaw=1

/editors/editcat-unrev.cgi?cat=Test/Misplaced/Regional/USA/

/editors/editunrev2.cgi

/editors/editcat-unrev.cgi?cat=Regional/North_America/...Business_and_Economy&chainsaw=1

what's &chainsaw=1?

possibly was rejected because i didn't meet the requirements for the catagory, " [the site must offer] online, fax, or phone ording". We offer phone and fax ordering but not online ordering and i suspect the editor flagged the site based on their liberal interp. of the cagatory.

thanks and play nice, jaspen_meyer

[hutcheson]

jaspen, the main shopping category is not just for electronic ordering. It also requires content about a company that delivers "to multiple states or multiple countries."

I see the site claims to cover a region including PA, CT, NJ, NYC, WV ... and there's the rub: is that really "delivering to multiple states" or is that "a business near the state line delivering only to adjacent counties"? (from a less New-England-centric perspective, some of those named states look like a Wyoming county after half of the acreage and all of the scenery has been surgically removed.)

I'm not going to adjudge that issue, but I do believe it (and not "editor revenge on the spammers" is what is driving the choice of categories.

Note that a listing in Shopping would be in addition to, not a replacement of, the listing in Regional: whatever its international significance may be, the business represented by the site clearly has a regional focus, and people in that region may want to find it.

[hutcheson]

And now for something completely different:

>what's &chainsaw=1?

It's the way the editor views the page of unreviewed sites.

FWIW, the name comes from an old editor-created tool that allowed mass deletion of mass-submitted spam: true "editor's revenge" (described as "like a chainsaw for spam"). It was so useful that similar functionality was built into the ODP server. (And from groaning at spammers, some editalls like me actually went _looking_ for categories that had been heavily targeted. vroom, vroom....boys and their power tools...)

Now, an editor can see either the more compact list of unreviewed sites (no chainsaw), or an expanded but more informative list (chainsaw=1) or a list including all unreviewed sites for all subcategories (chainsaw=2.)

In general, low-activity categories will be viewed with "chainsaw=2" more often, high-activity with "chainsaw=1" more often. But an editor can switch back and forth between modes with one click.

I nearly always use "chainsaw=1" because I'm often in categories where multiple moves or deletions are appropriate; and I always like seeing its expanded submittal-summary -- it helps pick out sites that will be easy to quickly handle, whether moving, reject, or accepting.

That's probably more detail than you wanted, but it leads up to the short answer which is:

It's merely the editor choice of how the unreviewed list is displayed.