Remove Listing from DMOZ

That forum is a privately owned (not by DMOZ or AOL certainly) channel of communication - you have no right to free speech there. As is demonstrated time and time again.

LOL, RZ is definitely not democratic and it is quite easy to turn off new registrations for a while until people get bored trying.

 

They have nowhere in their terms that they are not democratic and people don't have the right to free speech, so I can only assume that there is such right. They can fix it by adding it to their terms.

The other thing will be even more interesting, we are a DMOZ forum that won't give any submission statue check and we won't allow any one to register for the forum either. Very useful forum, don't you think?

I think the difference between us is that you like to deal with every situation as hypothetical and a collection of IFs and may be and some times in future while I deal with reality and now.

The guy that started this thread, has a problem that effects his business now, the solution should be about how to solve it today and not a general answer about DMOZ editors are good, let them talk and may be in 10 years something will be done about it.

 

Hmmm, can you see the contradiction? It doesn't say in their terms they won't send you a Christmas card every year either but I bet you won't get one.

Chocolate fireguard springs to mind... has been for a while with the exception of the Quality Control section.

It is hypothetical that taking the direct action you suggest would have any positive (from your perspective) effect, hypothetical that anyone would actually take up your suggestion. So in that respect my response would be hypothetical and include "if" you did this... the likely consequence is... Seems fair enough to me but if you feel more comfortable in your reality then live and let live.

The reality is that DMOZ has no intention of solving his problem for him, probably no intention of even discussing it since it is a dead duck of an internal debate - his problem is with Google and the Google algorythm and the solution is to pursue Google to change their algorythm or work out why it has the effect it does and counter it. That is the only practical solution available today.

 

No, my suggestion is not hypothetical.

Someone else had this problem and the listing was removed after exactly trying my suggestion. My suggestion is backed by the real life experiment. You can search and read about it in this forum.

And that is the reason, you need to force the stupids to do the right thing, instead of being able to discuss with them like human beings.

 

Whatever gworld. I have personally been on the side of allowing removal of (some) sites on request for some years, feeling that an absolute ban on it was a touch bloody minded and that in the great scheme of things - 5 million listings - it is no skin off anyone's nose to remove one or two as a courtesy. But the more you go on the more I am moving in the opposite direction. So I'll leave it there before I end up totally opposed to any delistings on request whatever the circumstances - you have that effect on people you know.

 

What was the result of you being for it? Absolutely nothing.

What was the result of my way to pressure them to remove? The site was removed.

What was the result of you wanted to change the adult section? Absolutely nothing.

What was the result of my way of public pressure to deal with situation in adult? Some moderate success but the work must continue.

Are you noticing a pattern yet?

 

You learn something new everyday. Like what "a while" means.

 

Yep. This discussion has become tedious beyond belief.

 

Read my post in other thread about the influence of cult views on former cult members, defending the cult is a natural instinct.

Wrong again. The pattern is that being reasonable, logical and polite never works with the group that is in power in DMOZ, they can only be forced to do that right thing.

 

As of 1 May 2006, 7:00 GMT it hadn't run since mid December 05. In '05 it removed 3% of listings amounting to 137,000 listings. If it is off on a run again then a dip can be expected when the next report is released. 5 months is a lot of bad links building up notwithstanding new tools that are resulting in minor dips. Anything to add ishfish?

 

Not sure what I can add, except that non-editors sometimes don't have the latest information.

 

Then please enlighten us ishfish. Are you saying that the explanation for a plethora of dead links is something other than a long gap since the December 05 Robozilla run? If that is the explanation wasn't the answer reasonable?

 

Are you suggesting that he should break DMOZ privacy rules? You know that every thing is secret in DMOZ, don't you?

 

That information isn't secret - unless someone wants to fill in an abuse report against chris2001.

 

I am quiet sure that you are convinced that the stupidity you are mentioning here is including but not limited to some editors, at least the ones not sharing your views.

Obviously, there has been a Robozilla run lately. Don't see what the big fuzz should be even confirming the same.
Also it should not be a matter of intelligence to figure it out from the postings here.

 

Ishy, you big tease!

I've been seeing lots of red for several days, it's been a welcome break from cleaning in adult.

 

It did not start with organix either. Here's what he said:

Organix is complaining about two things here:

1. Google is using the DMOZ title for his page (in his case the company name) and he's upset about that and rightfully so - that is a Google problem, not a DMOZ problem

2. In order to rectify the Google problem, he wishes to remove the DMOZ listing and is being told that won't happen - THAT is a DMOZ problem. He's not the first to run into this problem and the DMOZ policy on that issue is boneheaded and pointlessly obstinate.

Vulcano and the orlady then launched a defense of how DMOZ creates their titles and how it's all consistent with DMOZ editor guidelines.

WHO CARES?

That is not the issue. The issue is that he feels the DMOZ listing is damaging his business and/or site listings in Google and would like to have his listing removed. It has nothing to do with whatever rules DMOZ may concoct about what THEY think is an appropriate title for their directory. he's not asking DMOZ to change his DMOZ title. He's asking DMOZ to drop his listing.

And for the usual boneheaded reasons, DMOZ refuses to even consider it.

 

As for Robozilla, either it has run since December 2005 or it hasn't. I agree with previous posters: What was the point of your coy posts on the topic, ishfish? Either provide information or don't. Posting what in essence says, "I could tell but I won't" is a game children play. Give it up or shut up.

 

Obviously.

Obviously.

Obviously. But cryptic comments are so much more useful don't you think?

I wouldn't have used the word "tease". Obviously.

Sorry, thanks for the confirmation vulcano. Though as I am sure you'll understand things aren't always obvious when someone mentions lots of bad links and the last published report of robozilla running was December. And you are not seeing red numbers blinking at you. It was a reasonable conclusion that lots of dead links = robozilla silent but I should have added:

"If those dead links start to disappear it is a sure sign that robozilla is once again on the rampage. Who knows, it may already have started"

 

Brizzie - I guess you didn't read my post earlier in the month