As a recently approved editor and an Epinions member, perhaps I can add some light to the flames (heat, ... whatever).
This also dates back before the DealTime (PriceTool) and Epinions merge, so I'm only referring to the epinions.com content.
Epinions was, and still is to some extent, a site that provided consumer reviews on products and services. It would be more in keeping with present ODP guidelines, as I understand them, for most of the deeplinks to be deleted in favor of a few dozen (or a few hundred) higher-level deeplinks. For example, instead of the links that someone (through an automated process) added links from each magazine's category to the corresponding Epinions category, to place a link to Epinions.com in http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information , and delete all deeplinks below that point. This was done recently, and may be being done in other trees.
This also dates back before the DealTime (PriceTool) and Epinions merge, so I'm only referring to the epinions.com content.
Epinions was, and still is to some extent, a site that provided consumer reviews on products and services. It would be more in keeping with present ODP guidelines, as I understand them, for most of the deeplinks to be deleted in favor of a few dozen (or a few hundred) higher-level deeplinks. For example, instead of the links that someone (through an automated process) added links from each magazine's category to the corresponding Epinions category, to place a link to Epinions.com in http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information , and delete all deeplinks below that point. This was done recently, and may be being done in other trees.
Lowry, I can't imagine how someone could get the impression that you were concerned about promoting your site through the ODP. Who was it that was saying:
>"The DMOZ needs to take responsibility for aiding in crippling many small businesses this Christmas with it's intentional or unintentional promoting of Epinions.com."
>If you believe this issue isn't affecting hundreds if not thousands of online businesses...
>you must admit that a great injustice is occuring on the web...
We admit no such responsibility, feel no such compulsion, and recognize no such injustice.
Our perspective (and this is exactly the way it was stated by staff, who made the decision) is that the "ODP used epinions" to "seed new categories"; and epinions donated their taxonomy to the ODP.
Later on, someone else bought epinions: the entity that so concerns you was not the entity that enhanced (not "infiltrated") the ODP. But it matters not: the content is still there, and we are free to revise the taxonomy and adjust the deeplinking as desired.
Like most experiments, this one partly succeeded (there are some rich Consumer_Information categories, where there was nothing before) and partly failed (there are some CI categories that still haven't attracted other submitters or editors.) Like most of the ODP taxonomy, this one is under continual review.
Our decisions, however, will NOT be based on (1) the effect on ANY website at ANY search engine, (2) the business model of the owner, or (3) the total number of listings the site has.
Did I overlook any of your objections to epinions?
>"The DMOZ needs to take responsibility for aiding in crippling many small businesses this Christmas with it's intentional or unintentional promoting of Epinions.com."
>If you believe this issue isn't affecting hundreds if not thousands of online businesses...
>you must admit that a great injustice is occuring on the web...
We admit no such responsibility, feel no such compulsion, and recognize no such injustice.
Our perspective (and this is exactly the way it was stated by staff, who made the decision) is that the "ODP used epinions" to "seed new categories"; and epinions donated their taxonomy to the ODP.
Later on, someone else bought epinions: the entity that so concerns you was not the entity that enhanced (not "infiltrated") the ODP. But it matters not: the content is still there, and we are free to revise the taxonomy and adjust the deeplinking as desired.
Like most experiments, this one partly succeeded (there are some rich Consumer_Information categories, where there was nothing before) and partly failed (there are some CI categories that still haven't attracted other submitters or editors.) Like most of the ODP taxonomy, this one is under continual review.
Our decisions, however, will NOT be based on (1) the effect on ANY website at ANY search engine, (2) the business model of the owner, or (3) the total number of listings the site has.
Did I overlook any of your objections to epinions?
...Also, the Google problems this holiday season really have nothing to do with the ODP at all. They changed their algorithm lately. You can read ALL about that on one of the many webmaster/SEO forums out there.
The epinions sites have been around for four years, and there are many fewer of them than there were in the past, so the recent Google stress can't possibly be the fault of our "adding" epinion sites. More likely your SERPs have just been turned on their head by what Google's doing. Go ask about that in a Google forum and you will find many other webmasters in the same boat.
The epinions sites have been around for four years, and there are many fewer of them than there were in the past, so the recent Google stress can't possibly be the fault of our "adding" epinion sites. More likely your SERPs have just been turned on their head by what Google's doing. Go ask about that in a Google forum and you will find many other webmasters in the same boat.
P
phphph
google adwords
Hello
I found the below news on The Internet. Is it true what they say ? Actually it was my plan to subscribe for adwords. But now I doubt. Is there anyone who can give me advice on this ?
Thanks !
Peter Hudson.
News, Dec 11 2003.
Two weeks ago, Jan Mackenzie, a search-engine expert and president of The National SE-club approached us with interesting news about Googles’ Adwords Program.
Up to date Mr. Mackenzie was able to collect more than 3000 complaints from Google advertisers which, according to the expert will soon result in a 30-million-claim against Google.
The Club’s president is receiving an average of over 30 complaints/day, most of them with detailed information about how much the advertisers’ damage is and the period it occurred. The expert told us to be in in the final stage of the court case-preparations and added :
“ Our statistics show that the average damage is approximately $ 5000 per advertiser. Before we start the collective court case I’ll collect 3000 more complaints, which enables us to pay our lawyers. The ultimate claim will be approximately thirty million dollar. Every complaint we receive must include as many details as possible and fortunately most of them are very complete. Our lawyers expect they’ll be able to prove their case.
Finally Googles’ Adwords customers discovered the reason why so many keywords don’t work in Adwords : Google has disabled many keywords that are no Trademark at all. Examples are : home depot, beer and casino. Generic Terms that can be found in dictionaries can never be trademarked. Nobody can protect words like house, casino, church, beer, water, milk, hardware, home depot, furniture. But Google already disabled many of those keywords in their advertising program. Nobody understands why Google immediately disables a keyword after a complaint from a company claiming that the keyword is their trademark. Even without proof that it is a protected Trademark. That is an enormous disadvantage for Adwords customers. I think that Googles' customers are entitled to know exactly what is going on with trademarks. But Google doesn't react at all when receiving complaints from Adwords Customers related to Googles' Trademark Protection Policy. And Google refuses to provide her Adwords customers with the list of protected Trademarks. My conclusion is : think twice before you start with Adwords, its very limited. Before starting with Adwords, investigate very well if your desired keywords are allowed and even then things can still go wrong because Google keeps on disabling keywords on a daily base thus making their own advertising program a poor one.”
Our Newsroom asked Google 3 times for a reaction and heard nothing from the Search Engine.
So at least Mackenzies' complaint about a silent Google seems to be justified.
Is the Giant afraid of dwarfs ?
Peter Parmeson.
Hello
I found the below news on The Internet. Is it true what they say ? Actually it was my plan to subscribe for adwords. But now I doubt. Is there anyone who can give me advice on this ?
Thanks !
Peter Hudson.
News, Dec 11 2003.
Two weeks ago, Jan Mackenzie, a search-engine expert and president of The National SE-club approached us with interesting news about Googles’ Adwords Program.
Up to date Mr. Mackenzie was able to collect more than 3000 complaints from Google advertisers which, according to the expert will soon result in a 30-million-claim against Google.
The Club’s president is receiving an average of over 30 complaints/day, most of them with detailed information about how much the advertisers’ damage is and the period it occurred. The expert told us to be in in the final stage of the court case-preparations and added :
“ Our statistics show that the average damage is approximately $ 5000 per advertiser. Before we start the collective court case I’ll collect 3000 more complaints, which enables us to pay our lawyers. The ultimate claim will be approximately thirty million dollar. Every complaint we receive must include as many details as possible and fortunately most of them are very complete. Our lawyers expect they’ll be able to prove their case.
Finally Googles’ Adwords customers discovered the reason why so many keywords don’t work in Adwords : Google has disabled many keywords that are no Trademark at all. Examples are : home depot, beer and casino. Generic Terms that can be found in dictionaries can never be trademarked. Nobody can protect words like house, casino, church, beer, water, milk, hardware, home depot, furniture. But Google already disabled many of those keywords in their advertising program. Nobody understands why Google immediately disables a keyword after a complaint from a company claiming that the keyword is their trademark. Even without proof that it is a protected Trademark. That is an enormous disadvantage for Adwords customers. I think that Googles' customers are entitled to know exactly what is going on with trademarks. But Google doesn't react at all when receiving complaints from Adwords Customers related to Googles' Trademark Protection Policy. And Google refuses to provide her Adwords customers with the list of protected Trademarks. My conclusion is : think twice before you start with Adwords, its very limited. Before starting with Adwords, investigate very well if your desired keywords are allowed and even then things can still go wrong because Google keeps on disabling keywords on a daily base thus making their own advertising program a poor one.”
Our Newsroom asked Google 3 times for a reaction and heard nothing from the Search Engine.
So at least Mackenzies' complaint about a silent Google seems to be justified.
Is the Giant afraid of dwarfs ?
Peter Parmeson.
Re: google adwords
This isn't a Google or general SEO forum -- it is for issues relating to the Open Directory Project (which Google adwords don't qualify as). I'd recommend you ask your question someplace like http://www.webmasterworld.com .
This isn't a Google or general SEO forum -- it is for issues relating to the Open Directory Project (which Google adwords don't qualify as). I'd recommend you ask your question someplace like http://www.webmasterworld.com .