Does ODP listen to web site owners?

The ODP exists to make the Internet a more valuable place. So why do editors not listen carefully to what web site owners have to say? Take my case, for example.

I submitted a web site for a dentist in the UK. I felt that the description written by the editor did not touch on important points covered by the web site content, which had been carefully prepared for reader interest. I tried to update the description a few times, but my requests were rejected.

I was told by the 'powers that be' that the site 'has an appropriate title and description and that will not be changed'. In other words, I am entirely at the mercy of an unknown editor, with no ability to appeal. Yet ODP has vast influence on search results on the Internet (by the way, trying to enter into any kind of dialogue with ODP is 'Mission Impossible').

My only conclusion from all this is that the people at ODP do exactly what they like, with hardly any reference to the people who feed them the information in the first place.

Is this how a major Directory should be?

Mike Druttman

Because ODP editors are trying to be objective they can't listen to web sites owners. That can change the description of a specific site and will not be fair for others. And because they are human they can make mistakes.
Unfortunatly, because the number of sites waiting to be listed is so big, I don't believe they have the time to chat with every site owner and argue about the site description. If your site wasn't listed at all, would you be happyer?


All the above is just my opinion

The ODP description does NOT repeat NOT repeat for good measure NOT "affect your site's search results on the internet."

You are also operating under several misconceptions.

We are a directory, not a webmaster listing service. We don't "owe" webmasters anything.

Webmasters do not "feed" us information. We could build an excellent directory with absolutely no input from webmasters. The acceptance of suggestions is somewhat a necessary evil, although there is a roundly endoursed train of thought that if suggstions were shut off entirely, the directory would only improve as a result.

We work very hard at not entering into discussions with webmasters because time and time again, when we don't give then what they want, the conversation turns nasty, the threats begin.

Most of the editors edit because they want to build a directory. They are not the least intersted in promoting someone's business or wasting their time making cosmetic "vanity" changes to titles and descriptions, and they have no desire to have themselves, their families or their livelihood threatened by an angry webmaster who has probably never even bothered to read the editing guidelines and the category description.

We do consider URL update requests -- but decline the vast majority of them because they result in little more than an attempt to keyword stuff the title and description.

with hardly any reference to the people who feed them the information in the first place.

Click to expand...

The VAST majority of good listings I have added to the directory are ones that I found on my own, not from the pool of suggested sites.

Additionally, the submittal guidelines, which you indicated you had read and agreed to when you submitted your site, state in part:

"Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to...the content of the title and description of the site." (Emphasis mine.)

Actually it's my impression that most submission are made with titles and descriptions provided by submitters who

...do exactly what they like, with hardly any reference to the submission guidelines defining how to write a compliant title and description

Having reviewed thousands of sites in the unreview heap, tt's extremely rare to find any with correct titles and descriptions.

I was told by the 'powers that be' that the site 'has an appropriate title and description and that will not be changed'

Click to expand...

And coming here to complain isn't going to help matters any.

My only conclusion from all this is that the people at ODP do exactly what they like, with hardly any reference to the people who feed them the information in the first place.

Is this how a major Directory should be?

Click to expand...

In a word, yes. A directory (or even a links page, for that matter) should be able to link to a site using whatever text they choose to use as long as that text isn't factually wrong or libelous. Your site has been listed with an appropriate title and a factually correct description. It may not be what you want for a description and/or title but as noted earlier in this thread, we reserve the right to list a site how and where we deem most appropriate.

hutcheson said:

The ODP description does NOT repeat NOT repeat for good measure NOT "affect your site's search results on the internet."

Click to expand...

I would have to say that hutcheson addressed the correct topic. You assume that search engines look at the DMOZ listing description. But I have found that not to be true. The search engine only looks at the listings in a category then looks at what is on the site itself i.e. meta tags, keywords, links, readable content, etc.

It really is a great day so ..... or not.

Exactly. See my article for more:
Google and Dmoz: are they in love?

Great Article, Jean. :rose:

luggagebase said:

You assume that search engines look at the DMOZ listing description. But I have found that not to be true. The search engine only looks at the listings in a category then looks at what is on the site itself i.e. meta tags, keywords, links, readable content, etc.

Click to expand...

Nope. They might look at the meta description but it's not taken into account for ranking purposes. They don't look at keywords; not meta tag keywords.

Title would also have a strongish influence. (Similarly, I'm not going to do a searchof downstream data users but if any of them used description to link to the site then description would count...

I know it's tempting to get into a detailed discussion of search engine algorithms, but it could lead us away from the purpose of this forum.

The SEs don't give away their secrets, so there is always a tremendous amount of speculation over these things. For instance I don't think that we can say for sure that no engine uses the meta tags for description and keywords, though they were so abused that some major engines stopped using them for ranking or never did use them AFAIK.

What we can say for sure is that the Dmoz description does not affect rankings in SEs. I have looked at hundreds of downstream users and not seen one that links from the description. Why would they? The easiest thing to do is simply use the rdf as they get it.

Using 'Update Listing' feature

motsa said:

And coming here to complain isn't going to help matters any.

In a word, yes. A directory (or even a links page, for that matter) should be able to link to a site using whatever text they choose to use as long as that text isn't factually wrong or libelous. Your site has been listed with an appropriate title and a factually correct description. It may not be what you want for a description and/or title but as noted earlier in this thread, we reserve the right to list a site how and where we deem most appropriate.

Click to expand...

I do not dispute ODP's right to determine title or description for a web site. There is a lot of abuse of the system I know.

However there are also fair-minded people who wish to play by the rules and not beat their own drum too much.

The Update Listing facility gives people an opportunity to state their case for improvements. I used this to suggest small but constructive alterations to the web site in question. My feeling is that whatever I wrote was ignored and that in fact this facility has little real effect. I wonder what would be your response to the changes if I suggested them again.

Perhaps the main difference between yourselves and a paid Directory like Yahoo is this. Both parties reserve the right to write titles and descriptions of their own choosing. However Yahoo is willing to consider changes and ODP is not.

I think that one has to put some faith in people and not assume that they are all out to grab some unfair advantage and therefore must have their requests rejected out of hand.

Regards

Mike Druttman

Adjusting site description

miromulus said:

Because ODP editors are trying to be objective they can't listen to web sites owners. That can change the description of a specific site and will not be fair for others. And because they are human they can make mistakes.
Unfortunately, because the number of sites waiting to be listed is so big, I don't believe they have the time to chat with every site owner and argue about the site description. If your site wasn't listed at all, would you be happyer?


All the above is just my opinion

Click to expand...

Thank you for your balanced comments. I would like to make one further observation. The 'Update Listing' facility should exist to give people an opportunity to state their case for changes. If, for example, the content of a web site is devoted 75% to dentists and 25% to patients, it would be incorrect to state 'patients' in the site description and not 'dentists' (as was the case with me). There could also be an argument for placing 'dentists' before 'patients'. Another point is mentioning 'contact information'. A description does not really need to mention this because every site has this feature as a matter of course. It would be better to use the limited word count to mention something of greater value, such as 'case studies' which deliver more value in terms of specialist information. The same number of words, just more value.

When such points are carefully made on the 'Update Listing' page but are later not reflected in the site description, it suggests that whatever the public says must be suspect and therefore rejected.

It makes sense for both the public and ODP editors to play the 'fair-minded' game. If there are valid and reasonable arguments for change, they should be considered and perhaps implemented. Nobody is trying to take decision-making away from editors.

Regards

Mike Druttman

Update requests are not rejected out of hand, I assure you.

It is important that we retain the feature that allows suggested updates, because it can be used to advise us of changed URLs, complete changes of content or actual errors in the description that have been overlooked.

I have been giving priority to processing update requests in several categories and some have been very useful indeed. Others were rejected, because they simply suggested descriptions that did not follow our Guidelines, when there was a perfectly good description in place (from our point of view.)

No misconceptions, just expectation of fair play

spectregunner said:

You are also operating under several misconceptions.

We are a directory, not a webmaster listing service. We don't "owe" webmasters anything.

Webmasters do not "feed" us information. We could build an excellent directory with absolutely no input from webmasters. The acceptance of suggestions is somewhat a necessary evil, although there is a roundly endoursed train of thought that if suggstions were shut off entirely, the directory would only improve as a result.

We work very hard at not entering into discussions with webmasters because time and time again, when we don't give then what they want, the conversation turns nasty, the threats begin.

Most of the editors edit because they want to build a directory. They are not the least intersted in promoting someone's business or wasting their time making cosmetic "vanity" changes to titles and descriptions, and they have no desire to have themselves, their families or their livelihood threatened by an angry webmaster who has probably never even bothered to read the editing guidelines and the category description.

We do consider URL update requests -- but decline the vast majority of them because they result in little more than an attempt to keyword stuff the title and description.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and detect a fair amount of anger directed at the annoying public who wish to add an entry to your listings. I am sorry that you feel this way.

My point focuses on the URL update request. It should be possible to determine, from the way that the request is written and the arguments put forward, whether the person at 'the other end' is objective or not.

Within the commonwealth of the Internet, there ARE people who seek to provide valuable information on their web site. It should therefore be possible to enable a valuable description about their site. For example, using the limited words in a description to mention 'contact information' seems unnecessary when every site has this element.

I mentioned this in my update request, yet my comments had no effect. There was no attempt to 'keyword stuff', just to mention important content areas.

By the way, I do understand the difference between a directory and a 'listing' service, whatever that is.

Regards

Mike Druttman

The influence of ODP

hutcheson said:

The ODP description does NOT repeat NOT repeat for good measure NOT "affect your site's search results on the internet."

Click to expand...

There are a great many Directories that take their information from ODP. Get the information wrong in ODP and you mess up a great many other places on the Web.

I am not concerned about Search Engines. However I AM concerned about an 18-22 word description for a web site accurately reflecting the content that is inside.

This is the crux of my correspondence with ODP.

Regards

Mike Druttman

druttman said:

I am not concerned about Search Engines. However I AM concerned about an 18-22 word description for a web site accurately reflecting the content that is inside.

Mike Druttman

Click to expand...

I believe what Mike wants to say is that, if ODP is focused on quality, the editors must listen to web masters suggestions. That way they can improve the description. We must not forget the editors are human and can make mistakes.
The problem I spot here is that the site owners are not allways fair and objective. Also, they don't allways read the guidlines (it looks like reading is hard work for some of people ).
I can't even make a suggestion to solve this problem because I am new in here, but mayby someone with a higher understanding of what ODP is can bring some light in here.

If there are inaccuracies, of course we want to fix them, and quickly.

And we do get reports about inaccuracies, enough to keep that feature available to the public, even though we get a lot of keyword-packing serp-perping spammers that abuse it.

I am entirely at the mercy of an unknown editor

Click to expand...

Yep.

Did someone say your site involves a massage therapist or acupuncturist? That's the sort of correction we want to make ASAP if it's wrong.