BIG problem with DMOZ
Posted 04 June 2003 - 11:51 AM
I submitted our website to DMOZ in October 2002. I posted an inquiry on our submission status on www.resource-zone.com. I just recently got a reply saying the following:
"An editor looked at the site and decided that as a part, of the pacificode.com project, it was not listable. "
Pacificode is the software company that hosts our website. Why would we be un-listable because of that?
One more question...If you get black-listed from DMOZ, does that mean that you are black-listed from Google? If you are black-listed, is there any way of getting back?
Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:18 PM
First off, if you don't know what DMOZ's response means reply to the post for clarification. They are usually happy to illucidate. Besides, you'll get it from the horse's mouth. Point out in your reply that you are simply hosted by pacificode.com.
As to pacificode.com - never heard of them. When DMOZ decline a submission it has no bearing on Google's acceptance of your URL in their index. DMOZ have their own set of criteria for acceptance and may have very valid reasons for declining. Being listed in DMOZ assists site credibility within Google (it's a human edited directory, after all) and can help with Page Rank, dependent upon your associate listings in a specific DMOZ directory.
You are not 'black listed' (at least it is unlikely that you are unless you are a persistant spammer), DMOZ have simply declined acceptance into their directory.
It may well be worth considering the editor's reply. Obviously something is amiss.
One reason for declined submission is that your site is spawned from or mirroring a site already accepted or offers no real value to the Net (as is the case with thousands of affiliate submissions received ever year by DMOZ, and which are always declined, or removed once spotted).
A worse case scenarios would involve you rehosting with a different company to resolve the issue, and given the clout a DMOZ listing (still) confers, it may be worth considering.
On a positive note, contrary to popular belief, it is wrong to assume DMOZ submission is a one hit wonder; get it wrong and you're not out for good. DMOZ submission guidelines encourage professional, well presented sites which makes everybody's life easier, the Net for valid, quality content and the editors' for ease of validation but editors appreciate that innocent mistakes are made and a part of the rejection process is (or should be) to educate and correct.
It is the sheer volume of submissions received (much of it spam) which sometimes means a site is not evaluated for many, many months (I have a hotel site which remains queued after 10 months!).
Good luck with it and please return with a follow up.
Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:46 PM
Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:59 PM
Secondly, these pacificode guys designed, developed and hosted your site? When you say 'your site', I presume you represent the company with the initiative?
Having looked at your site, it appears to be little more than an affiliate site, spawning affiliate links - which is why they won't list it.
Looks like pacific develop/mass produce affiliate sites and they therefore have indeed been blanket banned from DMOZ.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 01:11 AM
Enigma's answer is pretty comprehensive.
It may just be that the DMOZ editors are looking at the site thinking that it is an affiliate site, and that there are others like it that they aren't going to enter into their directory. As a filtering system, the discretion of the editors does limit the size of the directory, and keeps it relevant.
The design of the site does make it feel like it is an affiliate site.
How to get into DMOZ?
To be frank with you, you need to build some pages that are interesting, compelling, and don't read like a brochure aimed mostly at separating visitors from their money.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:43 AM
As Enigma says, it's quite possible that Pacificode have been blacklisted, so you should make your relationship with them clear. There are operations out there who will spawn hundreds of near identical portals. These tend to get hunted down en masse, and it *is* possible that your site has been misidentified.. if indeed that *is* the problem with Pacificode.
Here's the thing though, there *is* a lot a spam out there, especially on booking systems. In order to be listed you would really need to control the who booking system from end to end, so from the point the customer books the ticket, through to the actual ordering of those tickets from the venue, it needs to be your operation. If all you're doing is acting as a front end to some else's booking system, then that will probably count you as an affiliate.
If it *is* entirely your system, you need to go back to the Resource Zone and make that clear. Also, if you have a bricks-and-mortar operation that will help your case, plus an explanation of your business processes. The thread still appears to be active, you probably just need to login again.
(Scarily, Enigma lives just a mile away from me. Small world, eh?)
Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:00 AM
Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:50 AM
I've been hearing a lot of legit sites being declined.
A senior member at my forum had his site declined w/o reason, and as I posted here one of my own sites, Concrete-Home.com, was declined for inclusion. Funny thing, too, because it is the ICF site on the Internet. When some Gov't sponsored ICF researchers finish their research, they always release their reports on that site only. Yet it was declined:
Your site was denied this month as not having enough content to warrant a listing.
I'm thinking we might need a new DMOZ. :?:
Posted 05 June 2003 - 07:33 AM
Whilst I don't condone such errant responses - we all make mistakes. Many (read on) DMOZ editors are volunteer recruits (apart from those with a business angle who manipulate submissions and results, as we all know happens) and these guys do their collective best to promote an ailing directory.
But I do know how frustrating it can be when the response warrants incredulity.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 11:33 AM
Posted 05 June 2003 - 11:42 AM
You've now learned another piece of the puzzle. There are some serious SEMs here who will take your predicament seriously.
What are you going to do about this? You cannot just go 'ah, well'.
And you don't need to make your pages [sic] 'flat'. They're db driven for a reason.
Rationalise your intiatives, recognise contamporary issues and modify.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 12:54 PM
We don't care how you organize your page (flate, database driven, etc). but rather what content your page offers. In your case all of the content comes from http://www.thereservationcompany.com
You'll be better off focusing your efforts elsewhere.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 02:48 PM
You didn't want to comment on this? :
Your site was denied this month as not having enough content to warrant a listing.
Funny how that site made it into Sites_Owned_by_Ex-Editors/J/jscott777/ hasn't than I could say boo, but it took how long to be reviewed for the category to which I submitted???
You know I think you're the best editor at DMOZ, but even you have to agree DMOZ has lost it.
Remember why DMOZ was started in the first place. Because Yahoo! was like DMOZ is now. Kinda ironic. :?:
Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:04 PM
You didn't want to comment on this?
Just because I haven't made any comments, does not mean that the issue is dead. Premature comments are useless, and as such I comment only once an issue has decidedly settled one way or another.
Infer from that what you will . . .
Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:18 PM
You know what I think of you. Please don't take my comments in regard to the ODP personally. If every editor at the ODP had your fairness of judgement, that place would be 100 times better.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:32 PM
I never take things personally ( ). The reason why I responded the way I did is because people are constantly contacting me and then get huffy when they don't get an answer immediately (and I'm not talking about you here).
If I don't have an answer one way or another then it's a waste of my time to respond with a "I'm looking into it." That's why, sometimes it's a good sign when it looks like I'm ignoring you.
Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:13 PM
Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:44 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users