Forum Moderators: open
Did DMOZ clean house or what?
We're always cleaning house.
I've seen that happening before, especially in commercial cats. Last time I seen that, lots of listings got dropped which effectively were doorway sites.
Can't say I blame the editors for getting rid of those.
[edited by: choster at 2:33 pm (utc) on May 15, 2003]
FWIW I have noticed hundreds of sites disappearing in the Caribbean. Under lodging for individual countries, there used to be lodging directories. Now in many of them the category has been completely emptied.
In other words it is not a case of one or two spam sites going but everything in that category has been removed.
My guess would be that across several contries, well over 100 sites have been removed as categories have been emptied.
I would assume this is a policy decision by DMOZ to remove lodging directories wholesale.
I have noticed hundreds of sites disappearing in the Caribbean
Ahhh, the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon... ;)
Funny you should mention Bermuda, that is one of the countries for which sites have disappeared ;)
In other words it is not a case of one or two spam sites going but everything in that category has been removed.
The amount of lodging directories that have a significant amount of unique content can be counted on one hand. Everything else is basically an affiliate booking engine with a wrapper of syndicated (and in some cases stolen) content to make the site look different. From the ODP perspective all of the sites are spam.
There is no policy to delete lodging directories wholesale. OTOH, there is a policy of requiring unique content, which is why all of those sites got axed.
More frequently, categories in spammy areas (e.g. travel, real estate, debt consolidation, personals, weight loss, term papers, ringtones, herbal remedies, and all the other usual suspects) are often purged because the ratio of useful content to ads and spam seems to decline progressively.
In general, I'd say the directory's guidelines and culture are rather (sometimes too-?) disinclined to deleting listings or rejecting submissions.
A born diplomat choster, a born diplomat ;-)
Thanks for your info there, interesting history and that which I can understand without having 'been there' makes a good deal of sense..
Nick
On the contrary, I would suggest that when a guideline (diktat) comes from on high about dubious sites in "the usual suspects" then senior editors need to check that middle/lower rank editors are not throwing out the babies with the bathwater ;)
There is a danger of a "if in doubt, throw it out" philosophy occuring - which, I would accept, may be what senior editors intend in the first place!
I almost have to agree (even my site)...
When I recently attempted to apply as an editor, I found that trying to find three sites that I would approve for inclussion was rather difficult. The few sites that I did find had to ruin the chances with nasty pop-up consoles or voice/wav adds... Finding good sites are difficult. Like me, everyone is after that evil dollar/frank/pound/or what ever that cash is called.
I'm tempted to make a go at applying to Dmoz.
I take it you have no problems getting your sites listed in DMOZ? Also - you are familiar with DMOZ's rules and terms?
My 2 cents
1. A directory needs editors
2. Editors either cost money if full time - nobody has made this route work to date
3. Or you use volunteer editors, and live with the problems that this raises as on DMOZ
In short there is not a better directory, and Google are unlikely to bear the cost of creating one from scratch
Not worth even that. 2 anti-ODP trolling statements and I bet you aren't done yet...
1 pro-ODP trolling statement and I bet you aren't done yet... ;)
This is probably one (of the many) um, _challenges_ that _always_ face a volunteer-edited directory: and not just in categories attracting viscious abuse!
>which, I would accept, may be what senior editors intend in the first place!
"If in doubt, throw it out" is IMO a pretty fair statement of what we intend for sites offering online hotel reservations.
It would be perhaps benefical if you could clarify this
1.Is this statement therefore true of all submissions to DMOZ, and "and not just in categories attracting viscious abuse. In other words if editors take less time to check suspect submissions, then you can clear the unreviewed queue quicker.
Can we therefore expect smaller unreviewed queues and more rejections
2. "a pretty fair statement of what we intend for sites offering online hotel reservations."
There are 2 or 3 large sites offering genuine online booking facilities (I am sure both you and I know who they are) as opposed to affiliate sites. Do I take it that ODP policy is to remove these sites too?
3. I assume you do not intend removing single hotels offering their own online booking for that one hotel.
4. I assume you do not intend removing hotel group hotels offering online booking for that group (Marriot, Hilton, etc)
5. Would it not be an idea to "lock" categories where you will not accept submissions. Stop everyone wasting time.
>>Isn't this a little off-topic from the orginal thrust of this thread? Yes, but post 23 did deserve post 24 as a response
Is this statement therefore true of all submissions to DMOZ . . .
Nobody said it was.
In the case of hotel booking directories due to the overwhelming ratio of sites with no unique content to sites with content, it makes sense to assume that the site has no unique content to begin with. Furthermore if an experienced editor can't find unique content on such a site, then regular users most certainly won't either. We will continue to list sites like Expedia, Travelocity, etc because it's pretty obvious their content is unique.
3. I assume you do not intend removing single hotels offering their own online booking for that one hotel.
It depends. If the site is run by the hotel itself then no. However, it's become common for webmasters to create affiliate websites for particular hotels. Those will be tossed along with the rest of the trash.
4. I assume you do not intend removing hotel group hotels offering online booking for that group (Marriot, Hilton, etc)
No, those won't be removed.
5. Would it not be an idea to "lock" categories where you will not accept submissions. Stop everyone wasting time.
Who's time is being wasted? Nobody's forcing a submitter to submit their site. It's also made patently obvious as to what is acceptable content, and what isn't. The recent trend of webmasters trying to cloak their affiliate links, etc, makes it pretty clear people know what these expectations are.
Other spam-prone categories don't have _precisely_ the same situation. Basically, Joe Shmoe's garage [website-building] business cannot possibly provide either its own hotel or its own multi-hotel reservation system -- so such a site, if it isn't a real hotel or one of the two-or-three-big-name-reservation-programs, it MUST be an affiliate site, no matter how hard it tries to hide it! We don't have to have ever heard of it, we don't have to know which major system it's affiliating with, to know it ain't nowise unique content.
That's not true of, say, gift-and-klitchware (Joe Shmoe COULD theoretically be selling his wife's line of handcrafted gnome figurines) or real-estate (Joe could be running his own office in Podunksville, New Jersey, without me ever having heard of him).
The ODP doesn't necessarily react to spam quickly, but, using protoplasmic-based tools, it can react flexibly to those particular kinds of spam that (diving in the septic tank of the SEO industry) seem especially persistent and pestilential--which certainly includes hotel reservation affiliates.
