> If you find sites that are outdated or no longer meet Dmoz listing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.

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 If you find sites that are outdated or no longer meet Dmoz listing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.

--

Best Regards - Fred
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/

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.
>
> --
>
> Best Regards - Fred
> http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/

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.


--
Francios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francios's Profile: http://www.highdots.com/forums/m80
View this thread: http://www.highdots.com/forums/t177732

canadafred Wrote:
>
> 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.

You might be interested in taking part in this discussion about Dmoz's
effect on search engines at R-Z.
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43713

canadafred Wrote:
>
> 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.

You might be interested in reading this thread as it relates to what
you are trying to do.
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43498


--
Francios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francios's Profile: http://www.highdots.com/forums/m80
View this thread: http://www.highdots.com/forums/t177732

Francios wrote:

<snip>

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

Seems more like the DMOZ moderators Damage Control Unit trying to
Oogloogle the m***es.

Yes oogloogle is a new word I think but haven't a definition for it
yet.


--


Fred - wake me up when it's all over

canadafred Wrote:
>
>
> Seems more like the DMOZ moderators Damage Control Unit trying to
> Oogloogle the m***es.
>

[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.


--
Francios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francios's Profile: http://www.highdots.com/forums/m80
View this thread: http://www.highdots.com/forums/t177732

*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.

cat yronwode
http://www.luckymojo.com/lovespells.html Free Love Spells and Magic

catherine yronwode wrote:
> *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.
>
> cat yronwode
> http://www.luckymojo.com/lovespells.html Free Love Spells and Magic


http://www.rtdos.com/links/directory/ ? perhaps ? but you're right,
there needs to be more oversite from top level downwards.