Site has been delisted because of "Affiliate Site"..what to do?

Hi

We have a clients site that was in the directory a little while ago but we were told by the editor of the category that a "higher" level editor tagged the site with a "do not list" for the following reason: "Affiliate site with <another url here>"

This was done a while ago when some of the content was same as the other site. The content of this site has changed since and is not affiliated with the other site anymore except for maybe a link exchange (which should be ok). However, when contacting the editor he says that cannot re add the site because a higher level editor already tagged it with DO NOT LIST...so he cant do anything at this point.

So, how to get out of this situation if the editor of the category cannot even re add it?

Please help.

I'm not sure exactly what was alleged to be said in the note. And I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "not affiliated", except that when webmasters say that it usually means what we mean by "affiliated", or perhaps what we mean by "affiliate"--those two are not the same thing.

If an editor finds unique information on a site that seems to contradict previous editing notes (and HE thinks the site should be listed), then HE can always discuss the site in the internal forums.

There's no need for the webmaster to be involved in any way, and there's no mechanism for the webmaster to be involved in any way.

I have no idea what he means by affliated also, thats where the problem lies. We are not talking about AFFILIATE link sites. Perhaps i can explain more about the site.

The site in question is a community chat site. The content on the site is original when compared with the site claimed to be "Affiliated" with. The only thing which is "affiliated" is the chatting software put on the site leads to the same chat software as the one it claims to be affliated with (however a different room within that chat with its own title ...so really seperate). Therefore, this "higher level" moderater deleted all the sites that had the same chatting software on it. He did that for other sites listed in the directory as well. In every other way the site is "unique" so it seems to have been a trigger happy editor who did not dig deeper into the site. Each site has its own unique community. Just using the same chat software to save on expenses.

Shall I contact the editor of that category again to bring it up in the "internal forums"? I'm not sure if he participates in those forums or not. I hope he would take the time to do so.

Using the same software can never be a reason for deletion. Else we should delete all forums using vBulletin (as this forum is) and all blogs using wordpress.
But if the link on site A for the chat room redirects to a piece of software hosted on site B it might be that they are seen as affiliated. Certainly in a case as you write "a different room within that chat".

Then that is the reason I guess even though like i said it leads to a seperate room.

Its almost to say that if SITE A hosts images contained on SITE B (but those images are not on SITE A), it is considered affiliated.

This is not a good rule to delist sites. Now will have to purchase another server to host the chat software just to be relisted.

The other content on the site is different and the people in each room is different. Its just the chat software is hosted from SITE A for SITE B. Nothing more.

I don't know what you mean by "affiliated," and it's fairly clear you don't understand what we mean by it either. I would not recommend making decisions about your server configuration based on the misunderstanding. If you think moving an unlistable website to another server will magically make it listable, that would be an even bigger misunderstanding. If you think concealing the unlistability of a website by some technical trick will work, I'll take the other side of that bet. If you're making any kind of changes to a website based on guesses about what will be listable, I can almost guarantee you won't generate a listable site.

If any editor has a question about an alleged "clique" of "affiliated" websites, they can discuss it in the internal forums. Some affiliations are deceptively concealed, others really aren't relevant to a surfer. Sometimes it's a judgment call and the editing community has to work to achieve consensus. Because of the problems of deliberate deceptions (vstore and travel affiliates are the classic cases) we don't publicly discuss how we puzzle out affiliations.

Webfanatic said:

This is not a good rule to delist sites. Now will have to purchase another server to host the chat software just to be relisted.

Click to expand...

You should create a website for your visitors not for a listing in DMOZ.

pvgool said:

You should create a website for your visitors not for a listing in DMOZ.

Click to expand...

Of course but getting visitors helps with a DMOZ listing. Also, the website HAS been created for visitors and not for DMOZ. Its just DMOZ's (or this editor in particular) interpretation of affiliated sites and how that is determined what i'm questioning here.

Affiliation has a couple of dimensions. (1) is uniqueness of content -- a site should have a solid core of content which only it has, or perhaps a significant perspective only it can authoritatively present. ("The Gallmark catalog of klitchy figurines" or "the CFA catalog of floral arrangements" or "Joe Blow's descriptions of Joe Blow's opinions on whatever"--Joe may not have a clue about anything off the football field, but nobody else can authoritatively define his opinions on the socioeconomic ramifications of global fearmongering).

(2) is independence of source -- two sites aren't really unique if one of them is "half of Joe Blow's opinions on whatever" and the other one is "the other half of Joe Blow's opinions on whatever". Another example is "One product line sold by Robby Retailer (or shipped by Patty Packager)" and "another product line also sold by Robby Retailer (or S.B.P.P.)." Another: "one slice of Debby's Database" versus "another slice of Debby's Database": where only www.debbys-database.com would be listable. Another: "one eBay peddlar" versus "another eBay peddlar" (because the user can find all of their content more conveniently at eBay, which is listed, than at forty thousand separate eBay subsite links, most of which aren't active at any particular time.)

I agree with those explanations, however, when it comes to a community site its a little bit trickier because it doesnt necessarily provide content when it starts..the user that comes to the site creates the content.

For example, If SITE A has a chat room, a forums and, say a picture gallery...then SITE B comes along and also has its own chat room (utilizing software shared with SITE A but still has its own unique space), its own UNIQUE forum and its own UNIQUE picture gallery..... does that make SITE B less likely to be listed? If that was the case we would lose alot of community sites because community sites can just provide the user with the tools (just like Myspace and Facebook does) and its up to the users to create that new unique content (with respect to forums postings, personalities in the chat room, etc)

Hope you see my point and how this can be misinterpreted by editors.

Hope you see my point and how this can be misinterpreted by editors.

Click to expand...

No, I don't see how it can be misinterpreted by editors.

Duplicate content is duplicate content. You obviously had it at one point. Maybe you've cleaned up your act, maybe you've just hidden it well.

We certainly don't know what the editor (if it is an actual editor) is telling you, or if the editor has 100 editors or 100,000 edits. In editing, experience counts. It counts a lot.

All we have is your side of the story, and your interpretation of a conversation you say happened.

I'm retired, I don't edit here any more, but I simply don't buy what you are selling and suspect a good number of active editors are simply too polite to say so. No editor with enough experience and sufficient permissions to be able to tag a site would tag it as an affiliate simply because it uses common software. If that were the case, half the directory would go away tomorrow.

What I suspect is that there is a lot you are not telling us, and a lot that is being half told.

when it comes to a community site its a little bit trickier because it doesnt necessarily provide content when it starts..the user that comes to the site creates the content.

Click to expand...

No, there's no trick at all. A community site without a community is unlistable, worthless to surfers and therefore also worthless to potential content creators (who'd be better off going to some site that HAS a community.)

If the a unique community ever adopts a site as its forum, then it'll be worth listing as the authoritative voice of that unique community.

spectregunner said:

No, I don't see how it can be misinterpreted by editors.

Duplicate content is duplicate content. You obviously had it at one point. Maybe you've cleaned up your act, maybe you've just hidden it well.

We certainly don't know what the editor (if it is an actual editor) is telling you, or if the editor has 100 editors or 100,000 edits. In editing, experience counts. It counts a lot.

All we have is your side of the story, and your interpretation of a conversation you say happened.

I'm retired, I don't edit here any more, but I simply don't buy what you are selling and suspect a good number of active editors are simply too polite to say so. No editor with enough experience and sufficient permissions to be able to tag a site would tag it as an affiliate simply because it uses common software. If that were the case, half the directory would go away tomorrow.

What I suspect is that there is a lot you are not telling us, and a lot that is being half told.

Click to expand...

Thats a great assumption, but wrong. I'm telling exactly what happened and the truth. There is absolutely nothing to hide. Nothing to leave out. I really don't know what experience you have had in the past with others complaining about their sites being delisted but I can guarantee that there is more than a handful of people who have had sites removed or not listed for reasons unexplained by DMOZ editors. Like you say, maybe too polite to say so. So, yes, editors can misinterpret the rules and perhaps even stretching the rules further than what it says for the sole purpose of having that site removed. To say that has never occured at DMOZ is just being in denial.


I already acknowledged the sharing of the same software and will get that fixed but please do not suspect i am hiding anything. There are still many decent webmasters out there.

hutcheson said:

No, there's no trick at all. A community site without a community is unlistable, worthless to surfers and therefore also worthless to potential content creators (who'd be better off going to some site that HAS a community.)

If the a unique community ever adopts a site as its forum, then it'll be worth listing as the authoritative voice of that unique community.

Click to expand...

Basically what you are saying in a nutshell is delete all the sites that dont have a community (very small number of users) and just keep sites like Facebook and Myspace? Our site is quite a few years old so we dont have this problem, but this makes it very difficult if you are a new community site starting out, doesnt it?

To spectregunner above...(dont know why my previous posting didnt show up): NO, you are wrong. I have nothing to hide. I just feel our site has a unique community of people but shared software with another site (that is our mistake) but still has enough of its own uniqueness to be listed. We will get this all fixed by not sharing software. There is nothing to hide so please do not assume only half truths are being told. There are still decent webmasters out there who just want to be treated like DMOZ editors would treat their own sites.

I do want to say that content is being shared all the time. For example: some community sites such as facebook have applications where videos from Youtube are used.

hutcheson said:

I don't know what you mean by "affiliated," and it's fairly clear you don't understand what we mean by it either. I would not recommend making decisions about your server configuration based on the misunderstanding. If you think moving an unlistable website to another server will magically make it listable, that would be an even bigger misunderstanding. If you think concealing the unlistability of a website by some technical trick will work, I'll take the other side of that bet. If you're making any kind of changes to a website based on guesses about what will be listable, I can almost guarantee you won't generate a listable site.

If any editor has a question about an alleged "clique" of "affiliated" websites, they can discuss it in the internal forums. Some affiliations are deceptively concealed, others really aren't relevant to a surfer. Sometimes it's a judgment call and the editing community has to work to achieve consensus. Because of the problems of deliberate deceptions (vstore and travel affiliates are the classic cases) we don't publicly discuss how we puzzle out affiliations.

Click to expand...

Sorry missed this post by you.

Nothing is being concealed. We shared software with another site. Can't be more clear than that. When our user enters the chat, he/she ends up on the same chat platform as SITE A, but in its own unique room (the users entering from SITE A enter into its own unique room just the same, but SITE A owns the chat server). Many sites do this to save costs on software and some are evident in this directory still. This is not a scam like an airlines site where someone goes to Site A to buy an airplane ticket and if he goes to SITE B to buy one hes actually really buying that same ticket indirectly from SITE A.

Nothing like this at all. We are not selling a product. Our site is a community site which allows people of all ages a means to gather together and share common interests and have discussions. The chatroom was shared with another site and this is now pretty clear what the problem is.

The editor who removed the site clearly believes that every site in that category must have its own unique software to even begin to be considered included in the directory. That is the editors interpretation of affiliation and I think this was a grey area and we try out best to get this fixed in the meantime. If we rid ourselves of this affiliation claim, it cannot hurt our chances of being reincluded into the directory. Especially, when you compare with the other sites currently already listed in the directory. The site had been listed for years and was removed in my best guess, within the last year or so.

As I said before the software being used can not have been the reason for removal (atleast not as reason on its own).

pvgool said:

As I said before the software being used can not have been the reason for removal (atleast not as reason on its own).

Click to expand...

Yes, and as i said before, the software being SHARED (owned by SITE A but letting SITE B share it to save server costs) between two sites was the only reason it could have been removed. (10 year old + site, unique users, unique forums) There is no other legitimate reason. The editor probably received some sort of report from a competitor saying the software was being shared and did a very quick purge.

Please do not mix software being used like the Vbulletin example above. No one said that, and that would be ridiculous of me to say that....All my posts above indicate my point pretty clearly.

Ah, so the website is offering two things, (1) a service which is basically running some software -- a nonunique service, since other sites have the same software; and (2) a community, which at this point may not be large enough to be significant.

The point isn't that anyone NEEDS a reason to REMOVE a listing: what a reviewer would need is some reason to KEEP the listing. If no adequate reason to KEEP the listing can be found, then it would be inappropriate NOT to remove the listing.

To first address #2...no, the community is large enough. It has been around for 10 plus years and has thousands of users coming to it daily. Again, thats besides the point. If it has 1 user or 1000 user, does that make it any better or worse? 90% of the community sites listed have less than 5 visitors a day. We do not fall into that category but clearly the others do. Did the editors consider whether the other sites were large or small? Adding a site because its more popular than another is ridiculous. Anybody with a little money can get users to their site. Should that give them a leg up on getting into the directory because of that?

Now, to address your #1 point: You find that strange for sites to run the same software? The sites listed in the directory (out of the thousands of sites that are out there, there are only maybe 3 or 4 different chat software programs being run. How many companies actually build chat software? I'm pretty sure you couldn't list more than five) Its just like shopping sites, most sites use the same shopping basket. Don't you think it is a little too much to ask for each webmaster to have a unique brand of software? Maybe i misinterpreted your response but seems you are trying very hard to be critical of the site and justify why it was removed (or in your words , no reason to be kept).

Its very hard to get the point across to you because very clearly you have no experience in this particular category and are either making guesses or getting second hand information from your other fellow editors. We are going in circles. Furthermore, the responses i'm getting are like you're speaking to me in riddles.

The fact is editors make mistakes and rules can be interpreted incorrectly (they can be stretched or shrunk to meet the outcome they desire). I know it is in your best interest to defend your fellow editors and justify their actions, so i will stop right here as im starting to sound like a broken record and you/your peers carry the thread closed button.

Every response is composed of riddles and suggestions that there is a coverup of some sort. Its time to stop playing Sherlock Holmes.

We will work hard to clean up any areas of the site and bring it up to the standards of other sites set forth and currently listed in DMOZ.

This is not a personal attack and i know you are not taking it as one. The fact of the matter is, if someone is a "higher" level editor does not make them a "know-all" of every category in the directory. There is not one single person on earth who can edit every single category to its best.

I know i'm coming across as upset or bitter but it is frustrating sometimes to deal with issues like this for many people when confronted with a DMOZ removal or non-listing. The fact is our site received 2 or 3 visitors a year as a result of DMOZ. Having said that, as all of you editors know, every bit helps from an SEO standpoint. I do believe that having the site listed in the directory makes the directory better. We will work to get it to that standard.

I do want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiries.

To first address #2...no, the community is large enough. It has been around for 10 plus years and has thousands of users coming to it daily. Again, thats besides the point. If it has 1 user or 1000 user, does that make it any better or worse?

Click to expand...

Not better or worse, but we don't list sites like forums or blogs until they have sufficient content in terms of members (for forums) and posts. Brand new, such sites do not meet our guidelines for sufficient unique content.