Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

BIG problem with DMOZ


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 11:51 AM

Hello Everyone, (I'm new to all this search engine stuff, so bear with me)

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?

Thanks,

Shauna~

#2 Thanol

Thanol

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:01 PM

Could you post your URL?

#3 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:18 PM

Hi Shauna, and welcome aboard cre8asite forums.

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.

#4 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:46 PM

I tried to post a reply, but it looks like the thread has been inactivated, and I can't seem to reply to them. Should I post another inquiry on a new thread? Our domain is www.bookvegas.com.

#5 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:59 PM

Yes, I would engage another thread asking for clarification and enclosing the original editor's reply.

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.

Sorry.

#6 bragadocchio

bragadocchio

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15634 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 01:11 AM

Hi shauna510,

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.

#7 Dynamoo

Dynamoo

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:43 AM

Yes, I'd say that it felt like an affiliate site from the look and feel, even though it might not be.

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?)

#8 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:00 AM

Bedfordians of the world unite 8) (Down the Bluebell, f'rinstance?)

#9 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:50 AM

I don't know the stance of this forum on ODP editors - some forums bend over backwards to accomodate them - but it's my opinion that DMOZ is on crack recently.

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. :?:

#10 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 07:33 AM

Er...somebody's blown a valve declining your site. Just had a quick ganders... not enough content? Your reviewer's brain cell count would be better awarded the comment :)

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.

#11 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 11:33 AM

The SAD thing is, it IS all of our own content. It looks like an affiliate site, because back in 1998, the owners of our company decided to make our pages data-base driven. We do business as bookvegas, but our pages all link back to the data-base driven pages of our previoius sites. I'm working on making all our pages FLAT pages, but until then, I'm struggling just to get our site listed. The reply I recieved from the editor sounded funky, and it didn't seem like a reason why we would be declined. Oh well. I guess i will have to suck it up until we get flat pages.

Thanks everyone :)

#12 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 11:36 AM

Oh yeah...AND to separate us from Pacificode. :roll:

#13 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 11:42 AM

Shauna, don't back off so quickly.

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.

#14 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 12:54 PM

Bookvegas.com will not be listed. Period.

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.

#15 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 02:48 PM

apeuro,

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. :?:

#16 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

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 . . .

#17 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:18 PM

apeuro,

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.

#18 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:32 PM

John,

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.

#19 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:13 PM

apeuro, thanks for intervening. At least now we know why. Cheers.

#20 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:44 PM

Thanks a million for looking into that, apeuro. 8) If you ever want to change web directories we'd love to have your help. 8)

#21 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:13 PM

Thanks again for letting us know where tings are at apeuro. :P

#22 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 11:45 AM

No way. Our content is not comming from thereservationcompany.com. Thereservationcompany.com is our site we created when we decided to expand our business outside of las vegas, and thereservationcompany.com is getting it's content from the same place that bookvegas.com is getting its content. We have not tried to market thereservationcompany.com yet because we have not yet obtained inventory for other cities. Until we get it going, our bread and butter is still comming from las vegas.

Do you mean to tell me that each company is allowed ONLY ONE website to market??

Are we not allowed to expand our company?

Are we supposed to sell rooms in San Diego under bookvegas.com?

I don't think so.

The content on our websites is OUR CONTENT. We are NOT an affiliate page, and we are trying to stop looking like it.

I know for a FACT that SEVERAL of OUR competitors websites are listed in DMOZ and all THEY are, are affiliate sites.

No matter where bookvegas.com is getting the content, it is our own content that we obtained ourselves.

Why is it so impossible to consider listing us?

#23 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:20 PM

How you run your business is your concern, not mine.

The ODP lists sites based on "unique content" If you're "getting" content from somewhere, rather than creating it yourselves, then that's a pretty good indication that the content is not unique.

But that's besides the point - because save for the booking part of the site there's no unique content on bookvegas.com - only links to other sites. Considering that thereservationcompany.com has the exact same booking engine (plus other unique content) we would list thereservationcompany.com and NOT bookvegas.com .

#24 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:21 PM

I know for a FACT that SEVERAL of OUR competitors websites are listed in DMOZ and all THEY are, are affiliate sites.


In that case fill out this form and it will be taken care of.

#25 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:30 PM

Fair enough.

The thing is, we have not updated the content since 1998. Bookvegas is still pulling it's content from OUR old site database that we do not do business under anymore. If we update our content, could we be listed then? Is our main page that we do business as doomed for good because we were denied in the first place?

If we use the same booking engines for book vegas as thereservationcompany.com, does that cause a problem?

I just want to know what we are doing wrong to prevent being denied in the future for our nationwide site.

Thanks for any help, or criticism.

#26 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:52 PM

That's one thing dmoz is usually good at - shutting down doorway sites and duplicate content sites.

I was browsing through the ODP the other say - some category in the Web Design and Development: Authoring , and I saw a competitor had become an editor, and had "cooled" his own site. I almost fell off my chair laughing. :P I didn't even bother to report it because I know that the meta editors will catch it soon enough (the probably already have).

#27 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:59 PM

The thing is, we have not updated the content since 1998. Bookvegas is still pulling it's content from OUR old site database that we do not do business under anymore. If we update our content, could we be listed then? Is our main page that we do business as doomed for good because we were denied in the first place?


What content does bookvegas.com offer in the first place? It only links to other sites.

If we use the same booking engines for book vegas as thereservationcompany.com, does that cause a problem?


To begin by "booking engine," I mean the database of hotels that you reserve hotels from. As such, I don't know how you could offer a different engine on the two sites without resorting to lodging affiliate. Secondly since thereservationcompany.com is the more comprehensive site it will always be listed as opposed to bookvegas.com , as long as the two share content.

I just want to know what we are doing wrong to prevent being denied in the future for our nationwide site.


As long as your nationwide site offers unique content it will be listed. You're not doing anything wrong now, per se. But we will not list X amount of sites when that same content is offered on 1 site. That's why bookvegas.com will not be listed.

#28 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 01:01 PM

Oh, and John you might want to take a look here. It might interest you.

BTW: There are plenty of "fair-minded" metas at the ODP - you should try to get to know more of us. :P

#29 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 01:13 PM

The other sites bookvegas.com links to are OUR sites. We do not link to outside sources.

We started out booking shows, so we had a site just for shows.

We expanded to booking rooms, so we started a website for rooms.

After we started booking tours, we created bookvegas.com so that we would have a general las vegas website, and not so specific.

The pages that you are saying that bookvegas links to are OUR pages.

We are trying to fix the problem so that everything doesn't link to all our other sites. We're trying to focus on bookvegas in general instead of our specific sites just for shows, or rooms, or whatever.

I didn't know much about DMOZ before I submitted, and did not realize that this was going to be such a big problem. Had I known, I would not have submitted it.

Are we black-listed forever?

#30 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 01:20 PM

To begin with, you're not on a blacklist.

I know full well that the sites that you link to are your sites, but that's irrelevant. As I said above, we evaluate sites, not businesses. You chose to split up your content among X amount of sites. That has resulted in bookvegas.com having no unique content of its own. That's why it won't be listed.

#31 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 01:28 PM

Oh, and John you might want to take a look here. It might interest you.

BTW: There are plenty of "fair-minded" metas at the ODP - you should try to get to know more of us. :P


apeuro, I LOVE YOU! thanksd a ton for looking into that. 8)

Yeah, I know there are plenty of good editors at dmoz. Donald B. is cool, but he doesn't come by much any more. The thing is, when I've gotten into it with a certain editor, then a lot of ODP-ers draw lines and it becomes "us vs. them".

The thing is, we sdon't need to be mutually hostile. This has been proven over and over again. My dealings with you have always been of a friendly nature, and with a couple other meta editors as well.

I think tw/ some ODP meta editors, there may be a preconceived hostlity, with my being an ex-editor, or because of some things I've said about the ODP. (That category for sites owned by ex-editors really stinks). But I'm working to change the notion of my being an "enemy".

8)

Take care, apeuro.

regards,
"Friendly Good Guy" John

#32 shauna510

shauna510

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 02:24 PM

That's what i'm trying to say.

I'm trying to eliminate the linking back to our other sites by making the flat pages so that the content is bookvegas content, and not linking to the other sites.

When we do this, could we be listed then?

#33 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 02:39 PM

Brilliant, John. So that's how it's done 8)

My most cherished apeuro,

Given that the sunne doest surely radiate glorious from thine behind,
Might thine favoured glance flicker momentarily and
Illuminate mine darkened site - www.apollo-hotel-cyprus.com.
For surely 'tis said a single prayer from mortal mind,
Is ne'er too whisper'd nor declined.

Ta.

#34 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 07:34 AM

You'll have to do better than that. Don't be shy - just lay into the flattery like there's no tomorrow. :)

Just kidding, of course.

I did notice over at RZ that some editors were saying the hyphenated domain names are subject to more scrutiny because of their use by SEO's. .... I like them simply because it seperates the words and makes it easier to see what the site is about.

#35 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 07:54 AM

:) Couldn't resist it, John.

Just kidding, of course.

Of course :D

...hyphenated domain names are subject to more scrutiny...

What? That's nonsense. To be honest, hyphenation makes no odds (I believe). The domain and page names are parsed by the ranking algos so what difference does it make? Like yourself, if I'm managing 100 pages, at-a-glance grab and load is often much easier when you get the breaks. That's as bad as suggesting that underling is similarly dodgy.

I'll have a ganders at that and report back.

Perhaps we should lobby for spaces to be included...Remember your first programming sessions :D How M$ permitted spaces in object, variable and file names!

An example: I've got cannabisseeds.com. It's #1 on GG for 'cannabis seeds'. Why? Because I'm a brilliant SEO and I've tuned the page optimisation to perfection. Er, probably not. More likely because of the domain name and it's in Yahoo. (But I don't mind telling you that I was apprehensive that the complete site redesign would see it plummet.)

#36 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 08:31 AM

I was just trying to locate that thread for you, but RZ seems to be down again. (And I offered them free hosting!!)

As I was attempting to locate it, it occured to me: "resource-zone.com" contains a.... *drum roll*.... hyphen. 8)

And if you're into the cannabis movement, you might be interested in this recent topic.

The whole keyword domain discussion is a funny one. I've liked keyword domains for a long time, a long time before I was ever interested in SEO. It's just simpler to understand what a site is about:

cannabisseeds.com - most likely going to be about cannabis seeds.
nantokan.com - brandable, but what's it about???

But if I get into that discussion on this board, I'll be outnumbetred 10 to one. *keeping an eye on Advisor and Grumpus*

:wink:

#37 enigma

enigma

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 330 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 09:07 AM

John, I'm not into the cannabis scene but I was into the challenge. I did think twice about riding with it but then thought, heck, it's business and I'm getting paid for it.

...resource-zone...contains a hyphen

Well spotted :) I must be thick, I even typed in the URL when I was attempting to log in and seek enlightenment :oops:

Nothing like a good foot shot to brighten the day.

#38 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 09:20 AM

John, I'm not into the cannabis scene but I was into the challenge. I did think twice about riding with it but then thought, heck, it's business and I'm getting paid for it..


Why did you think twice? It makes me sick to think about all the people the Gov't puts in jail for using/ growing the stuff. As if they had any right to dictate how people live their lives. I personally can't stand the smell of it, but that's no reason to put people in jail.

I was raised in Japan, and live there most of the time, and the personal freedom in Japan is a reality; in the US, I have never felt free. Whenever friends come over from JP, they always comment on how strictly regulated society is. A "police state", to be sure.

#39 kctipton

kctipton

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 09:44 AM

Cyprus hotels AND lots-of-words-separated-by-hyphens.com sorts of domains both have a Very Bad Reputation and get lots of scrutiny.

#40 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 09:57 AM

Curious. Is that official policy or just something that came about?



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users