How can I avoid my site from being listed in DMOZ?

I understand that editors can pick websites from the internet and list them in the directory without the webmaster or site owner knowing. And the process taken is to alter the title and descrition of the webmaster that best describes a website.

I want to eliminate this haphazard posibility just in case my site is targetted for processing and listed where I may not want it to be listed, or altered if listed.

Is there a page where one can automatically nullify an unwanted listing? And does a proper and efficient complaints procedure exist other than such forums and discussion boards.

Many thanks for your co-operation.

Websites are in the public domain. We have no mechanism for preventing an editor from listing a listable one. Of course, if your website is of the sort that we don't list, the matter doesn't arise.

If your main concern is that some external search engine might prefer to use our description instead of yours, you could consider using the NOODP metatag.

There's a report abuse/spam link at the top of every category page.

Surfers have a variety of ways of suggesting things that might make the ODP more valuable to other surfers. All are designed for maximum efficiency -- with what trade-offs, anyone familiar with optimizing transformations will recognize.

The emphasis, as always, is "by surfers for surfers." A concern that doesn't affect surfers, is not legitimate within the ODP, and any procedure that takes it into account is by definition not only improper but abusive.

I understand that editors can pick websites from the internet and list them in the directory without the webmaster or site owner knowing.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why editors are not required to give a priority to the pool of suggestions. It is one of our best features.

And the process taken is to alter the title and descrition of the webmaster that best describes a website.

Click to expand...

Trolling aside, how can we alter a title and description on something that has never been suggested?

I want to eliminate this haphazard posibility just in case my site is targetted for processing and listed where I may not want it to be listed, or altered if listed.

Click to expand...

Even if you suggest your site, there is nothing you can do to have your site listed where you want it (versus where it should properly be listed), and eidtors always have the right/responsibility to changes titles and descriptions to match both the site contents and the editing guidelines.

>... the title and descrition of the webmaster that best describes a website.

The "best" title in one context may well be inadequate or even misleading in another context. The webmaster is responsible to himself for coming up with the best title and description on his own site. And most webmasters do an abysmal job of it anyway -- and in any case, what matters to them may not matter to anyone else; in fact, what matters most to someone else is often what the webmaster wants most to conceal.

The editor in each ODP category is responsible (to the community, to surfers, and to the editing guidelines) for coming up with the best title within the ODP context -- and that means that the same site listed in two different categories, almost certainly should have two different descriptions.

Google is responsible to surfers and shareholders for coming up with the most useful description in its context. Since Google doesn't hand-describe sites, they are limited to choosing which source to use as the description. (That source might include several distinct fields in the page itself, several distinct directory listings including ODP and Yahoo: it's limited by their imaginations, not ours.)

The "O for Open" in "ODP" means they are free to use ours, modified or not, as they wish. (Over the years they have used the ODP data, like other sources, in various ways -- and I'm sure they'll keep tweaking their methods.)

But we HAVE to write the best descriptions for OUR contexts, not anyone else's.

Is there a page where one can automatically nullify an unwanted listing? And does a proper and efficient complaints procedure exist other than such forums and discussion boards.

Click to expand...

jimnoble touched on this in his post but I want to clarify things. No, there is no page where one can automatically nullify an unwanted listing. Regarding "a proper and efficient complaints procedure", the report abuse/spam link that jimnoble mentioned is for abuse or spam -- not listing your site with the title or description you want (assuming the title and description we've given it is accurate and guidelines-compliant) is neither abuse nor spam and reporting it as such would be an abuse of our abuse reporting system. A site owner is welcome to request an update to their title and/or description using the Update listing link at the top of the category but requests that ask us to change the title or description to something not compliant with our guidelines are not acted upon.

hutcheson said:

And most webmasters do an abysmal job .

Click to expand...

Jinnoble, hutcheson, spectregunner, motsa,

Thank your for your replies. Collectively, it was quite informative reading, singularly though, exposes some individuals abysmally inadequate qualifications to be called an editor. This confirms the synonyms, often expressed in colorful metaphors, describing editorial abilities pertaining to the directory that I have read in noteable forums and popular websites.

I have seen websites that represent world class representation of the DMOZ guidelines summarily discarded and refused listing by editors that are trained to evaluate good websites. Websites with original content, useful information, quality products to name but a few that your users would be interested and looking for.

Could you please pool your resources together and give an explanation as to why and when it all went wrong at the directory mozila project. And are there any future plans aimed at improving procedures that may instill some confidence that the directory may be able to redeem its lost virtues.

AltavistaGuy.

That's one of those have you stopped beating your wife questions . It's based upon a false premise so there isn't a rational answer to be given.

I have seen websites that represent world class representation of the DMOZ guidelines summarily discarded and refused listing by editors that are trained to evaluate good websites.

Click to expand...

Unless you are, or have been, and editor I don't see how you could possibly have seen this. The biggest reason for listable suggestions from the public not being listed, is the the large volume of such suggestions, and the large percentage of these which are (for one reason or another) inappropriate. It takes time to review a site, there are a lot of sites waiting for review, and there is only a finite number of editors to do this.

Just becuase a site hasn't been listed a week, a month, or even a year after it was suggested does not mean that it has been rejected. Far more likely is that it is still waiting for review. And the only way to know for sure is to be an editor with rights in the category it was submitted to. Since I presume you're not an editor, you would do well to stop making assumptions, and start listening to those who are in a position to know.

If you have specific suggestions about how the ODP can improve its directory (for the benefit of surfers, not webmasters) then we will listen. This project has been going for quite some time, and we think we do a pretty good job with the resources available. Nevertheless, if there are ways we can improve, we'd like to hear them. You'd do well to check out the FAQ here first though, for reason why some of the more commonly suggested things aren't going to happen.

If you notice problems with any current listings, please report them in the Quality Control forum here, or submit an 'update listing' request from the ODP category page.

If you have real evidence of listable sites being rejected by editors that could be abusing their positions, then the appropriate course of action is to file an abuse report at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ . It is against this forum's rules to talk about specific cases in the forum, and it's rather bad form to talk in general terms when you don't have any evidence.

altavistaguy, if you haven't looked at a few dozen websites and seen webmasters' own descriptions that were simply atrocious, then ... we'll have to agree to differ on our concept of atrocious. Which is OK, which is perfectly OK.

But it leaves us in the position of being absolutely uninterested in what you think is a "good" description, and I think we'd already established you don't care what we think is a good description.

With that, any real possibility of real conversation ends.