__/ [ *ProteanThread* ] on Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:35 \__
is it still being maintained / updated ?
Yes, but only those categories which still have a moderator/maintainer, which is a volunteer job (and who moderates the moderators?). There don't appear to be many of them... or maybe they just /all/ hate /all/ of my sites.
Best wishes,
Roy
-- Roy S. Schestowitz | Community is code, code is community http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux В¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E 7:45am up 39 days 13:18, 11 users, load average: 4.46, 3.99, 3.74 http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
On 6 Jun 2006 04:54:04 -0700, "canadafred" <canadian_web@hotmail.com> wrote:
*ProteanThread* wrote:>> is it still being maintained / updated ?>
I am in the process of removing 20 web sites from their directory. I>can't stand their descriptions and I hate seeing them in the SERPs.>Most DMOZ editors are a joke and have more agendas than the ultruistic>desire to make a sound, authentic directory that they so shamelessly>try to convince us is their only motive. No, most of them heve never>earned the power to position keyphrase competitors at their discretion.>
MSN stopped using DMOZ for descriptions on web sites in it's listing. It takes so long to get listed in DMOZ without being a volunteer it is almost of no use and I've heard that the importance of DMOZ is going to be going downhill.
On 6 Jun 2006 07:02:43 -0700, "webseoguy" <webseoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
is it still being maintained / updated ?>
MSN stopped using DMOZ for descriptions on web sites in it's listing.>It takes so long to get listed in DMOZ without being a volunteer it is>almost of no use and I've heard that the importance of DMOZ is going to>be going downhill.
You only just heard this? It's old news around here.
MSN stopped using DMOZ for descriptions on web sites in it's listing.> >It takes so long to get listed in DMOZ without being a volunteer it is> >almost of no use and I've heard that the importance of DMOZ is going to> >be going downhill.>
You only just heard this? It's old news around here.>
No, just posted it for the newbies who may not have been aware.
MSN stopped using DMOZ for descriptions on web sites in it's listing.> It takes so long to get listed in DMOZ without being a volunteer it is> almost of no use and I've heard that the importance of DMOZ is going to> be going downhill.
Wanna know why? Here's an example.
http://www.quattroownersclub.com has a DMOZ entry. It's moribund - check it out - no one has posted there for months, the club committee has resigned en masse and rumour has it they've even deleted their membership database.
http://www.quattroforum.com is its successor - a vibrant forum averaging dozens of posts a day. Seriously useful to Audi quattro owners.
Don't just take my word for it - check 'em out.
I suggested to the relevant DMOZ editor that the entry for the former was distorting search results - talking people to a dead forum when there is a MUCH better and lively forum that really ought to get prominence.
Essentially, I got flipped off.
Do a Google search on "uk audi quattro". Thanks entirely to DMOZ, the top entry is a complete waste of space.
If you find sites that are outdated or no longer meet Dmoz listing> guidelines then feel free to use the update URL link at the top of the> page it's listed on, or go to Resource-zone and report it in the> quality control thread. Update requests are generally handled with> priority. Sites change over time, so what was once a listable site may> no longer be listable.
For your next trick, take a guess on how many times I've done exactly that in this case.
I lost the plot with DMOZ when I tried to get something completely unrelated to this changed, and was told that the request would go in the queue.
But, for a fee, I could obtain advice on how to bump it up that queue. ISTR GBP250 was mentioned.
Dmoz has very little to no effect on what ranks where with search> engines.
I am not so convinced. I watched a MSN listing take on the DMOZ description for half a day and it lost 30 positions during the interuption. When MSN later determined a description on it's own, the page shot up to the top again, instantly. I have repeatedly tried removing my web sites from DMOZ to avoid this particularly negative DMOZ effect.
It's not just for those key words, but for any popular> keywords you search for you'll get mostly crap that occupies the top> positions. I'm sure you've noticed in search results sites that have> nothing to do with the keywords you entered or the same site that pops> up 10 times for the top 20 results.
Yep, that's true, if you are still talking about MSN. It is fairly simple to flood non-competitive keyphrase SERPs.
If you find sites that are outdated or no longer meet Dmoz listing> guidelines then feel free to use the update URL link at the top of the> page it's listed on, or go to Resource-zone and report it in the> quality control thread. Update requests are generally handled with> priority. Sites change over time, so what was once a listable site may> no longer be listable.
Maybe I'm on a different planet again but it has been over four months and three attempts to rid DMOZ my web listings.
then why don't we create a new dmoz-type / dmoz-style search engine ? part of dmoz's problem is not enough volunteers, correct ?
canadafred wrote:> Francios wrote:>
<snip>>
Dmoz has very little to no effect on what ranks where with search> > engines.>
I am not so convinced. I watched a MSN listing take on the DMOZ> description for half a day and it lost 30 positions during the> interuption. When MSN later determined a description on it's own, the> page shot up to the top again, instantly. I have repeatedly tried> removing my web sites from DMOZ to avoid this particularly negative> DMOZ effect.>
It's not just for those key words, but for any popular> > keywords you search for you'll get mostly crap that occupies the top> > positions. I'm sure you've noticed in search results sites that have> > nothing to do with the keywords you entered or the same site that pops> > up 10 times for the top 20 results.>
Yep, that's true, if you are still talking about MSN. It is fairly> simple to flood non-competitive keyphrase SERPs.>
If you find sites that are outdated or no longer meet Dmoz listing> > guidelines then feel free to use the update URL link at the top of the> > page it's listed on, or go to Resource-zone and report it in the> > quality control thread. Update requests are generally handled with> > priority. Sites change over time, so what was once a listable site may> > no longer be listable.>
Maybe I'm on a different planet again but it has been over four months> and three attempts to rid DMOZ my web listings.>
Phil Payne Wrote: > For your next trick, take a guess on how many times I've done exactly> that in this case.>
I lost the plot with DMOZ when I tried to get something completely> unrelated to this changed, and was told that the request would go in> the queue.>
But, for a fee, I could obtain advice on how to bump it up that queue.> ISTR GBP250 was mentioned.
What happens with update requests is that most are rejected. You aren't sent an acceptance/denied response. Most requests don't fall within Dmoz listing guidelines. That is requesters want a description filled with keywords or they ask to be moved to a category were their site shouldn't be placed, etc. So, if you've sent in an update request chances are someone has looked at it, and since you've noticed no changes with the site(s) it's probably been denied. Posting in the Resource-zone quality control thread will yeild you quicker results than using the update url form because editors are constantly checking that thread.
I'm not sure what you're talking about in the last two sentences.
I am not so convinced. I watched a MSN listing take on the DMOZ> description for half a day and it lost 30 positions during the> interuption. When MSN later determined a description on it's own, the> page shot up to the top again, instantly. I have repeatedly tried> removing my web sites from DMOZ to avoid this particularly negative> DMOZ effect.
Maybe I'm on a different planet again but it has been over four months> and three attempts to rid DMOZ my web listings.
I think we were talking about two different things. If you are trying to get your site unlisted then that will be very, very hard. Dmoz doesn't delete listable sites, especially not upon request. That alone would make it very easy for someone to get a competitor's site removed, but I don't even think that's the reason of why it's so hard. If your site is listable and it can benefit the directory's users then they're not going to remove it. Sorry.
Seems more like the DMOZ moderators Damage Control Unit trying to> Oogloogle the masses.>
[edit] No, just stating the fact that Dmoz does not remove sites on request; they have to break Dmoz listing guidelines in order to be removed from the public side.
Catherine Yronwode 11 July 2006 09:20:31 [ permanent link ]
*ProteanThread* wrote:>
then why don't we create a new dmoz-type / dmoz-style search engine ?> part of dmoz's problem is not enough volunteers, correct ?
Hah. Well, having once been a DMOZ editor, i can say from experience that what you describe is only a problem bcause of other, more deeply structural problems with the entire DMZ model that produce a lack of volunteers. DMOZ is a concept that worked for a short time and then failed due to lack of oversight of high level editors who were working according to s=ocial, cultural, religious, monetary, and other biases and non-scholarly agendas.
then why don't we create a new dmoz-type / dmoz-style search engine ?> > part of dmoz's problem is not enough volunteers, correct ?>
Hah. Well, having once been a DMOZ editor, i can say from experience> that what you describe is only a problem bcause of other, more deeply> structural problems with the entire DMZ model that produce a lack of> volunteers. DMOZ is a concept that worked for a short time and then> failed due to lack of oversight of high level editors who were working> according to s=ocial, cultural, religious, monetary, and other biases> and non-scholarly agendas.>
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
