Listed Site With Tons of Duplicate Content

Hello, I found this very smart way to spam from one of your dmoz listed sites in this Category site description is: Diann and Glen Tonnesen - Prudential Americana Group Realtors - Provides residential realty services. Includes featured homes and team profile plus details on neighborhoods, golf communities, and condominium projects.

If you click on any Nav menu item, then go to the middle of the frame if you use IE, right click, goto properties, look at what the url shows, copy and paste that url into your brower, you pull up another page which by the way is now static with no navigation menu and a different url than the frame page, but with the EXACT same content...here is an example Frame Here -Static Page Here notice that the urls are different, the content is the same, the meta tags are different, the title tags are different and it even goes deeper than that for sneaky..LOL but I wont go into that here.

BTW this site has SEVERAL pages duplicated this way, any page that is in their navigation is duplicated this way. I find this to be very sneaky, but I have to admit smart.

Not a problem for us -- it may help SEO, unless their algorithm recognizes the frame and the static page as being the same, it which cases it would hurt SEO.

arubin]Not a problem for us -- it [i]may[/i] help SEO said:

SEO.

Click to expand...

So based on your guidelines as I understand them here is a quote.

If URL cloaking is being used, the target page will be displayed in a full size frame, so that the redirect URL is kept in the browser's address bar and the real URL of the displayed page remains invisible. Cloaked URLs are sometimes called "vanity URLs." Some well known vanity URLs include: come.to, welcome.to, go.to, surf.to, listen.to, fly.to, move.to, jump.to, run.to, and talk.to.

Go to http://www.welcome.to/Boomers_from_Mars . Right click on a frame, and open it in a new window. The URL resolves to a different URL. The real URL being cloaked is http://www.geocities.com/boomers_from_mars.

Click to expand...

This site is violating your guidelines. If you disagree with what your guidelines say then please explain.

Redirects within a single domain are not a violation of our listing guidelines. As far as I can see, the frame URL and the static URL are both on http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com so there isn't an issue from our POV.

Ok thanks for the responses, I will admit I am a bit surprised. I have always heard not on on this forum but several others, editors stating that dmoz only wants quality sites to list. If this site is considered quality I guess I have a lot to learn.

I know dmoz is not the internet police but spam is spam is spam and this type of spam does not represent quality or the type of character from a submitter I would wish to list. We always hear editors from dmoz stating that the real estate category is full of spammers, but yet some sites that spam get listed, while others who dont spam do not get listed but are called spammers. Go Figure.

Seeing as how ODP supplies the listings to Google and we all I am sure know this is a violation of Googles guidelines for this site in question, why would ODP list something that is against Googles guidelines?

Question, so if I was to create say a page of very unique content and duplicate that 100 times in the site, I too can get a dmoz listing?

Thank you for your time.

homonym - one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning

Spam is such a word.

In ODP use - it generally means multiple submissions to the same or multiple categories of the same (URL not necessarily the same) site.

In Google use - SEO techniques that are not necessarily above board

American use - a canned meat.

Thanks for the responses, I guess no need to discuss here as it is being discussed at Digitalpoint HERE, thank you all for the information and clarification.

Ok thanks for the responses, I will admit I am a bit surprised. I have always heard not on on this forum but several others, editors stating that dmoz only wants quality sites to list. If this site is considered quality I guess I have a lot to learn.

Click to expand...

No one here commented on whether the site is considered quality or whether it's even listable. You asked if the frame/static URL thing was against our guidelines. We said "No". That's all.

Seeing as how ODP supplies the listings to Google and we all I am sure know this is a violation of Googles guidelines for this site in question, why would ODP list something that is against Googles guidelines?

Click to expand...

We're not Google. Why would Google's stand on anything be something we would even think about as we're editing?

We're not Google. Why would Google's stand on anything be something we would even think about as we're editing?

Click to expand...

I can think of one good reason. DMOZ supplies Google with its data for their directory. Whether ODP sells the data or gives it away to Google, by doing so IMHO you are representing that companies best interest / interest that you supply the data too. If you supply Google with directory listings that are filled with spam, you as a company are promoting all that Google stands against. You also help those that Google is trying to STOP manipulate their search engine results.

I am not looking for a fight, I am looking at what seems logical. When I represent a client, whether I earn a commission or not, I am ethically bound to represent that clients best interest, I believe the same applies to all businesses. Dmoz is a supplier of data to Google so in a sense whether it be morally or ethically you should want to protect your companies best interest as well as Googles.

can think of one good reason. DMOZ supplies Google with its data for their directory. Whether ODP sells the data or gives it away to Google, by doing so IMHO you are representing that companies best interest / interest that you supply the data too. If you supply Google with directory listings that are filled with spam, you as a company are promoting all that Google stands against. You also help those that Google is trying to STOP manipulate their search engine results.

Click to expand...

Google chooses to use data that we provide, as do a number of other sites. We are not representing anyone but ourselves and we shouldn't be expected to represent anyone but ourselves. What we as a directory do is different from what Google as a search engine does. What is appropriate or acceptable in one isn't necessarily appropriate or acceptable in the other -- sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

When I represent a client, whether I earn a commission or not, I am ethically bound to represent that clients best interest, I believe the same applies to all businesses. Dmoz is a supplier of data to Google so in a sense whether it be morally or ethically you should want to protect your companies best interest as well as Googles.

Click to expand...

We aren't ethically bound to be everything to everyone who chooses to use our data. We do what we do (catalogue sites) and share what we do with anyone that wants it. If what we do doesn't meet any particular company's needs, then it doesn't meet their needs -- they are free to move on to something else. But we're not ethically, morally, or in any other way duty-bound to alter what we do to meet someone else's expectations.

We don't represent Google in any way. They are very well to stand up for their own interest.
DMOZ is only interested in what a normal visitor (like you, me and all other people of flesh and blood) will see on the site (what we call Content). We will not look at any hidden tricks a site is using to manipulate searchengines (commonly called SEO). Unless these tricks make the content very difficult to find or see.

You're confused about the reality of the situation.

The ODP gives its product away -- to EVERYONE. We aren't responsible for how ANY of them use it. We should feel responsible for giving such information in such a format that will be of help building a directory valuable to surfers -- which is a completely different and almost entirely unrelated issue.

So Google is not an ODP "client". They are a "licensee." They did not enter into any kind of arrangement with the ODP -- they merely took advantage of a blanket permission the ODP gave to the world and ALL of its dogs.

So there is no factual basis for the ethical or moral issues you raise.

So Google is not an ODP "client". They are a "licensee

Click to expand...

If I offer a service or product license to someone, you then create a fiduciary responsibility to that licensee. You then become legally responsible to protect that licensee's interest in your product or service to the best of your ability. Licensing Contracts 101. I wont comment more than that on this but I am sure you can figure it out.

The ODP license is by U.S. law NOT a contract. It is a _license_: a free permission to do something that the ODP copyright holder otherwise could have forbidden. There are no obligations on the licensee -- only limitations on what is permitted.

And if the law had ever said that just because you give world+dog permission to use your copyright, you assume any obligations whatsoever towards the interests of world OR dog, then the law would have been an idiot. You don't KNOW, and have no way of knowing, who-all uses material on which you could have claimed copyright! And that fact doesn't change, just because you happen to find out about one particular user.

So any speculation about contractual obligations is totally irrelevant.

If I offer a service or product license to someone, you then create a fiduciary responsibility to that licensee. You then become legally responsible to protect that licensee's interest in your product or service to the best of your ability. Licensing Contracts 101. I wont comment more than that on this but I am sure you can figure it out.

Click to expand...

If I offer a service or product license to someone, you then create a fiduciary responsibility to that licensee.

Click to expand...

Licensing Contracts 101 - Section (1a)
Terms of Use:
The difference between Offering a Service and Choosing a Service.

The service provider offering a service is bound to promote his/her service with; warranties, discounts, some additional work and quality as in case of Choosing a service provider The Consumer has to exercise proper due diligence in choosing one. Responsibility often lies within the service provider thus service providers are always on receiving end, but not anymore. In which case if a service provider has been chosen, Consumers are bound to terms of use as such there are limited warranties within a specific time frame or non, no additional work, no discounts. Its a buyers beware or choose another provider. That is the Consumers Responsibility.

You then become legally responsible to protect that licensee's interest in your product or service to the best of your ability.

Click to expand...

Licensing Contracts 101 - Section (1b)
Contract
Choosing a service provider means accepting the terms and conditions of the Provider. (Please Read Carefully as Specified) Most cases are written at the end or back of contracts. Warranties may be provided but on limited terms. Quality Control. But in case there are no contracts Consumers are responsible, liabilities are limited and in cases may be subject to Terms or Conditions of the Service Provider.

Just some clause you forgot, Sir on Business 101 (CFR).

It's not duplicate content - it's even a trick it a technique called frames, where you can load different content in different sections of a web page. It is typically used exactly as they are using it, to keep a navigation menu staticly available as people move through a website and loading the individual subject pages for them to view in a second frame on the same page.

Contrary to being an SEO boost, frame based sites usualy do more poorly in search engines han non-frame based sites.

Neither their chosen design method, not their SEO/search engine performance are really relevant to their listability.