Please remove my listing

I found this: http://www.dotcomicide.com/2005/05/did-googles-success-overwhelm-dmoz.html

Recently, in order to combat the "scraper site" phenomenon, Google has returned to using DMOZ descriptions in their SERPs again, probably because the DMOZ descriptions have a less keyword-laden snippets than Google's machine generated "ransom notes" do.

Click to expand...

Google themselves say

Google's creation of snippets is completely automated and takes into account both the content of a page as well as references to it that appear on the web. We don't manually change sites' descriptions, but we're always working to make our snippets as relevant as possible.

Click to expand...

I think I know why they are picking up the DMOZ description but you're the SEO expert and I don't get out of bed for less than £200 an hour*. Hint: check competitors' sites who don't have the DMOZ description as the snippet and see what they do you don't.

* for clarity, joke, please don't ever offer editors money as it tends to elicit dramatic and unpleasant consequences.

oneeye said:

please don't ever offer editors money as it tends to elicit dramatic and unpleasant consequences.

Click to expand...

IMHO it is allowed to offer a person who is a DMOZ editor money as long as the task you are paying him for has nothing (not even remotely) to do with DMOZ. If not my current boss is in big trouble.

That's true. I don't get out of bed for anything unrelated to DMOZ for less than £200 per hour.

One could speculate about what you do for £200 per hour... :evil:

But that would be inappropriate. Very, very inappropriate. And so no one would ever do that.

motsa said:

One could speculate about what you do for £200 per hour... :evil:

But that would be inappropriate. Very, very inappropriate. And so no one would ever do that.

Click to expand...

LOL

motsa said:

One could speculate about what you do for £200 per hour... :evil:

But that would be inappropriate. Very, very inappropriate. And so no one would ever do that.

Click to expand...

Now you've done it! That's like saying "Don't think about pink elephants!"

Especially if one is thinking of someone with the claim to fame of being the Most Long-Winded Editor of 2004 and 2005...

pvgool said:

You could ofcourse solve the problem which caused Google to use the DMOZ description instead of some text directly from your site. As you offer SEO services this shouldn't be a big problem for you.

Click to expand...

Just to add - Google seems to be using DMOZ descriptions of websites on the basis that as a third-party description it is potentially more reliable and informative - and trustworthy - then a site describing itself.

That is why if the description seems poor it can appear potentially damaging.

It's not directly an issue of SEO, as much as the changing face of internet use, and how Google is attempting to make its listings as useful as possible.

I think the point about using the update form is very much underlined.

I said:

Just to add - Google seems to be using DMOZ descriptions of websites on the basis that as a third-party description it is potentially more reliable and informative - and trustworthy - then a site describing itself.

Click to expand...

You should ask yourself the question "why is Google using the DMOZ description for my site and not for other sites".
There are several possible reasons (I have seen people discussing these reasons on SEO forums). And all of them are Webdesign / SEO related.

pvgool said:

You should ask yourself the question "why is Google using the DMOZ description for my site and not for other sites".
There are several possible reasons (I have seen people discussing these reasons on SEO forums). And all of them are Webdesign / SEO related.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this remains true. In March this year Google began to experiment with the use of directory descriptions or meta descriptions in place of the usual snippet from the page. There was indeed discussion on several forums as to the reasons why one was chosen over the other.

However this month has apparently seen a further change, with greater use of directory descriptions. It is not yet clear (to me anyway) whether Google is now using our descriptions for all pages that have them. I suggest that we hold off from comments here until the picture is clearer. Google is still in the throes of an update.

And, I believe it is accurate to say that we will not change what we do or how we do it as a result of how a downstream user chooses to use our date -- even if that downstream user is very, very large.

Thus, I suspect, a plea that we change a perrectly good description (from our perspective) to something else because the webmaster does not like the google description will not get much (if any) consideration.

Any meta is free to disagree.

It is not yet clear (to me anyway) whether Google is now using our descriptions for all pages that have them.

Click to expand...

As usual, it is always difficult to predict or explain what Google does and why, and it is not really a DMOZ problem (except maybe for the license, depends on whether this kind of use could be considered a 'derivative work'; just imagine an ODP attribution at the bottom of every Google search result page :nirvana: ).

I can understand that webmasters would not be very happy about such a use of our descriptions, as many of them were written in the context of the category a site is listed in.

Yes, I can understand that webmasters would be unhappy.

But I can't imagine that being a problem for Google either -- they're pretty good at focusing on surfers also.

depends on whether this kind of use could be considered a 'derivative work'

Click to expand...

In my view yes, and I preferred the old system in which Google also gave a link to the relevant category in the Google Directory along with any description taken from it. However it is up to staff to consider the trickier issues surrounding the license. With ODP data being used now in ways that the founders didn't have in mind when the license was shaped, it's all beyond me.

Yes, I can understand that webmasters would be unhappy.

Click to expand...

At first glance it seems a bit cruel of Google to mess with people's well researched and sometimes expensive manipulation. Then you realise it is well researched and sometimes expensive manipulation. And like DMOZ you pay nought for being listed on Google so you have no right to complain that your well researched and sometimes expensive manipulation no longer works. The answer is the pay option where you can list any description you like in the sponsored spots for cash - on Google that is, not DMOZ. As long as the description is not defamatory I cannot see how there is any other recourse. It is a pity really that the things that are free on the Internet are the things most people complain about. Maybe because free usually means trying to manipulate results is a risky business you cannot control. I don't think the Internet came about to fill the need for tens of millions of spammy jerks to foist their adverts on an unsuspecting world. We do our bit and the sooner Google finds a way to exclude them the better for everyone. Including good honest webmasters who just want to provide some original information once but get sucked into the need to fight fire with fire.

Instead of trying to get your site removed from dmoz (bad idea) due to a poor description or title and having an impact on your google serps (as google sometimes takes the dmoz data and uses it for meta), give google a quick email and explain that the title/desc they are using from Dmoz is not relevant to your web site.

I did this and within 1 day I had an email back about the situation and 1 week later google was showing my original title/description again. Result!

glow sticks: "I did this and within 1 day I had an email back about the situation and 1 week later google was showing my original title/description again."

Very interesting. Can you post the DMOZ title/description and your current title/description please.

Google and Dmoz

I have updated my page Google and Dmoz - Are They in Love to take account of the increased use of the directory description and the worries that have arisen over this.

I think the worst of these are based on myths. I know of no evidence that

google sometimes takes the dmoz data and uses it for meta

Click to expand...

The description given to a page/site by the ODP has no visible effect on the ranking of that page/site in Google's SERPs.

The ODP contains a list of six million sites, of which a higher percentage are high quality entries compared with any random sampling of six million sites gleaned from anywhere else. The sites are all human reviewed, and whilst there are some dead listings here and there (darn webmasters deleting old pages, or changing URLs on us), most of the stuff is spot on.

Why would Google decide to use a description written by some third-party directory editor in preference to the one written by the webmaster and appearing on the site itself?

Have you asked yourself that question?

What quality crieria do you think Google apply in their algorithm, when they decide to use your description, or dump yours and use ours?

Work that one out, and maybe you could offer a new service to the multitudes of SERP PERPs who haven't yet figured it out. It's quite a meaty subject, you know. Google seem to have canned quite a few site descriptions in recent months.

jeanmanco: "The description given to a page/site by the ODP has no visible effect on the ranking of that page/site in Google's SERPs."

I agree but I have heard from lots of people that think it does. My feeling on this is that Google using the DMOZ description is a display issue only.

How ever I think you agree on that it can and in some cases does effect the click through rate.

giz: "Why would Google decide to use a description written by some third-party directory editor in preference to the one written by the webmaster and appearing on the site itself?"

Alot of sites don't have Meta description on their pages and in that case Google uses machine generated snippets. I think that Google is trying to product better descriptions tham what they get from their machine generated snippets and that is what we see happening.

Keep in mind the number of sites that are SEO'ed are a huge minority compared to the sites that are out there on the internet. So I don't think this is an issue where Google is trying to tone down the SEO'ed titles. Google is working toward a better visitor experience and I think for the best part a DMOZ description is going to be better than a machine generated snippet.