Remove Listing from DMOZ

It is interesting that supporters of child porn call others troll.

 

Referring to the way Adult works I don't think you will get much argument from a large percentage if not a majority of editors.

If we are still on the Adult theme I don't think you will get much argument from a large percentage if not a majority of editors.

 

Withdrawn - one shouldn't feed the troll.

 

on the contrary, it's entirely logical to have multiple listings. In the case of Adult, if I'm looking for fair-haired buxom maidens, i'd like to know that a good page on a site isn't going to be omitted from the Fair-Haired Buxom Maidens category just because it also has a very 'good' page elsewhere on the site about Entrancing Oriental Damsels and got listed there first

Put it this way: if listing a site several times doesn't improve the ODP as a resource, by your logic it would be equally 'illogical' (i think you may have meant something other than illogical - unfair? impractical?) that a search engine doesn't just index a single page from a site, or that it returns that page for several different search queries

if your argument was that it's not practical - you don't want to see subpages showing up all over the place since the more it happens, the more likely it becomes that subsections being listed aren't really worthy of getting listed alongside the parent site, or that it favours editors that use it to get deeplinks, then I'm with you. I'm not sure what other arguments could really be presented for preventing multiple listings, as long as these are within relevant categories and the sites being listed are good enough for the categories they are listed in. It may seem unfair to a webmaster waiting for his site to be reviewed which others can get multiple listings, but we're not in the business of pleasing the webmaster community if it means reducing the quality of the resource we offer the Internet (as evidenced by your desperate pleas for us to enlist the services of a PR agency!)

 

Perhaps you should read the reply from brizzie, bradley. You might learn something...

 

but I don't consider you a troll!

(yes, I realise you were talking about her other reply )


Would you care to elaborate on your point, and eschew the snide one-liner method of communicating, by any chance?

 

The listing of multiple pages from the same site in the main directory is not unusual but relatively well controlled - there are key resources such as IMDB that will turn up in every movie category, or news sites where an article fits an issue or people category. We do this with sites that provide exceptionally good unique information on a broad spectrum and it is an excellent policy. Note that virtually all the sites that have multiple listings have never once applied for a single listing - they are the obvious resources everyone goes to for information. I don't think anyone really objects to IMDB or the BBC or the Sydney Morning Herald, or the CIA country reports listed whereever they are relevant. Put aside uncataloged CNN archives which are a complicated legacy nuisance - besides we have the same owners who pay for the servers and bandwidth.

But a site selling life-size plaster casts of fair haired buxom maidens and of entrancing oriental damsels will get a single listing in the subject category, maybe another in the Regional category, and one per language it is genuinely translated into. It will not, except in rare exceptional circumstances, get each product page listed in adjacent or even the same pages and any editor doing so will get a swift kick up the backside.

That practice does not extend to the Adult directory and the situation is therefore inconsistent even though covered by a different set of guidelines. The logic that applies to the main directory cannot simply be illogical in the Adult section. We are not a search engine - we do not set out to index every page on a site. It would be impossible to index the 8 billion pages Google does. Yet a limited number of Adult sites appear to have been given the search engine style treatment. And these sites are not exceptional in any way, they simply present a set number of images of dubious quality most of the time. The webmasters know the number of images they have to include to get a page listed so padding is inevitable.

If the Adult directory came into line with the remainder of the directory there would be a lot fewer listings but a much greater representation of different webmasters' wares for the same amount of editing effort. And a lot fewer perceptions that the whole thing is up to its eyeballs in nefarious practices. The evidence I have seen suggests that most corruption and abuse in Adult has been dealt with but that there is a legacy of quality control problems that are substantial. And an embarassment. And difficult to fix because of those damned inconsistent (viz a viz the rest of the directory) listing policies. I for one will not go into Adult and in effect condone guidelines I personally think are completely wrong. And I'd be willing to bet there are substantial numbers of other editors on the same wavelength.

The perceptions of Adult unfortunately appear to the outside world to impact on the perception of the rest of the directory. Not something I think most editors are aware of. We tend to treat it as something separate and distinct in that most will not touch it with a barge pole. That is a PR hurdle to overcome. If the will exists.

And by the way, editors do disagree about anything and everything all the time every time. In case anyone was sensing irreconcilable splits in the DMOZ camp. This type of discussion (without trolls making obscene suggestions about what editors motives might be) is not untypical of an internal discussion.

 

Eeek I've been emasculated.

 

It seems you are agreeing on most points with me. Just add the following facts to your text and we are in total agreement.

1- Those pages are only done for the purpose of DMOZ listing and to help the editor get good ranking in search engines since there is no way anyone can find those pages except from DMOZ directory (There is no link in home page of the site for those pages)

2- There is no possibility that those pages would have been listed in DMOZ if the owner was not DMOZ editor.

3- Those sites with multiple listings are owned by editors and have no useful quality ( 2 pages with 3 affiliate link- multiple mirrors with different name) and the only purpose for these sites is to make money for the editor.

 

I agree. I have tried to write as clearly as possible why these sites are listed. Not for him (his opinion can not be changed) but for other people who might read this and who are open for the truth.

 

For facts read fantasy. DMOZ guidelines are devised and/or approved courtesy by Netscape/AOL and last I heard they do not operate Adult websites. You still seem to have some weird notion with no foundation in reality that a corporation of their stature would idly sit by whilst a group of sleazy porn merchants take over control of one of their front line products. The fact is that any sleazy porn merchant can get their second rate image galleries listed under the guidelines as they stand, which is my personal gripe, and abusive editors have been removed so that element is of little concern. The legacy you see is more likely than not to be a consequence of little editor interest in working in the Adult branch to clear up quality control issues. Not least because trolls like yourself with your highly offensive accusations and insinuations mean they put themselves up to be shot at in the most obscene possible way.

Come clean, you are an Adult webmaster yourself gworld, and your site(s) haven't been listed have they. Don't deny it, it is an irrefutable fact. Has it occured to you that your site(s) are not listed because at this moment in time the Adult branch has very few editor resources.

 

I also very clearly explained for you that why your excuses are just bunch of BS to justify the corruption but you chose not to answer any of the issues.
It seems ate least 1 editor here brizzie has a lot of doubt about your explanation (BS) too.

Before you start on your next editors mantra about I am angry because I am not listed, I must inform you that I have 4 sites listed in DMOZ (Shopping, finance) and it didn't cost me more than $200.

The only reason I don't like DMOZ or DMOZ corrupt editors is that I don't like corruption and bullies.

 

I could have given the exact same explanation - the guidelines dictate whether a listing is permitted or not permitted. Opinions as to whether the guidelines are right are an entirely different matter.

Prove it.

 

How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

I have also helped others here to have their listing in DMOZ.

 

Ah, abusing the directory yourself, and nothing to do with corruption. Just about sums you up.

 

nice one, gworld - complaining about DMOZ' quality being reduced by the nefarious actions of what you allege to be ALL editors, then on the sidelines cheating it yourself by buying up listed domains, then replacing the site they were listed for with a site of your own no matter how bad the quality or relevance to the category, all this on the sly without letting DMOZ know the site has changed and that there's a new site there which needs to be reviewed anew. What total hypocrisy.

 

Wow, I wonder if he's aware of the fact that children have access to those parts of the ODP. Yeah I'm sure he knows; that would make him a virtual flasher, wouldn't it?

Get a conscience man, don't show your smut to the children.

Do the digital-pointers know what you do? I'm sorry but I can't imagine most of these good people being ok with that.

 

Don't worry about it.

All 4 sites are showing quality sites about DMOZ editors corruption. I am not using it for my own benefit, just to expose DMOZ.

 

It's not good to hate yourself. Now I am understand where you are coming from. Give yourself a hug.

 

For some unknown reason, Google is relying on listings from DMOZ to populate their SERPs. This gives rise to a number of crucial problems from an SEO standpoint.

ODP editors adhere to a set of guidelines when listing a site, and they will title a site in their directory as they see fit. This is a critical problem for webmasters and business owners who are attempting to maximize their Google rank. From our experience, the site title, as it appears in the ODP directory, seems to be overriding the page title that is set by the owner for their index page. This essentially removes control of page titles from the site owner with a resulting negative impact on your rank and on your traffic.

According to their own editors DMOZ has a no reasonable listing removal policy. Once your site has been included in the ODP these are your options for removal:

• violate their guidelines for inclusion (which also happens to violate the terms of every major search engine)

• take your site down for three [3] or four [4] months in the hope that their editors do not see it come back online

From our vantage point this is nonsense. Had we known about these issues prior to submitting our URL to DMOZ we would never have made the initial request for inclusion.

Moreover, for some unknown reason, DMOZ editors get their backs against the wall when someone makes such a request. Here is a rather heated thread in their forum relating to listing removal.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43498

DMOZ use a robot called Robozilla to check for outdated links. When they get a 404 in the log, one of their editors will manually check to see if that URL is indeed down for the count. However, if they see that the URL still resolves to the proper site they will ignore the 404 and do nothing.

Listing Removal Option #3.

Option #3 isn't really an option, but is a way of sending the ODP editors and DMOZ a message of protest. We use a .htaccess rewrite rule to send Robozilla into lala land in the hope that their editors will get the message that we want to be removed from their directory. Here is the Robozilla rewrite rule for those of you who would like to protest the DMOZ non-removal policy.


RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Robozilla [NC]
RewriteRule ^.*$ http://www.removefromODP.org [L]


Good luck
[organix]