Site Removed

Hello

Why my site <URL Removed> listed from so many years has been removed from dmoz directory.

Dharmendra

Please see the announcement at the top of this forum. We no longer provide status reports.

Listings can be moved, removed or temporarily removed for many reasons including:-

The website stopped working.
The website is the sort that we don't or no longer list.
The website is on its way to a better category.

jimnoble said:

Please see the announcement at the top of this forum. We no longer provide status reports.

Listings can be moved, removed or temporarily removed for many reasons including:-

The website stopped working.
The website is the sort that we don't or no longer list.
The website is on its way to a better category.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, "on its way to another category" you say.

In the mean time, no consideration is given to the fact that the website, the poor webmaster is describing, is absent.

This sounds very haphazard and lacks assurance of any kind. In particular the foremost concern on website owners and webmasters minds that ranking, indexing and a multitude of other reasons could be affected. Affected by an all too familiar attitude of DMOZ since its downward spiral of a couple of years ago.

I might be butting in here, but it is friegtening to know that I too could have been a victim, just like the original post and what I see is very poor assurance. Terse, taciturn, uninterested, reticent and a reply devoid of any reassurance to the webmaster worried about the future of his/her website.

How can such a haphazard thing happen when webmasters around the world, in all languages, fervently talk of being listed in DMOZ means the be all and end all of being listed in the major search engines? Some wait for months to a year. This person above finds he/she is ERADICATED from the directory.

Unbelievable haphazardness. Total disregard to faith of the directory.

Although I might suggest to the original question that it really makes no difference whether listed or not in DMOZ but he/she is thinking otherwise and I think it is draconian that your reply interprets as "like it or lump it".

Sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but look at your offer to a desperate question.

The leading post describes an anticipation, a worry, a desperately concerned person that has found out that his/her website is no longer listed in the crème-de-la-crème of directories.

Please give the person assurances that the website in question “Will not suffer” as a result of clandestine and "jolly go lucky" procedures instigated by unapproachable rules.

What if the websites only claim to life on the internet, especially in google, depended on the listing here. Will the site be affected or not is the real question because of the clandestine actions taken against his site for whatever reason. And he/she is told to like it or lump it.

DMOZ was once thought of as the gateway to the internet. My advice to the leading post is to forget DMOZ altogether. Obviate the need to ask a question. Obviate the need to be held to ransom and obviate any worries on relying on haphazard indexing in a has-been directory. Obviate the dangers of being listed in such a directory since any benefit in being listed had long gone with the wind. Inappropriate descriptions abound, altered, amended and re-categorized based on methods not in tune with ever changing algorithmic indexes used by search engines.

It just does not make any sense. A website becomes a sort of site no longer listed.

Thank heavens, no real damage in reality will occur to the website since no real value will be lost in not being found in DMOZ. But what if indeed the search engines applied a lot of weight to sites found? What will your answer be if you knew that. Perhaps you already know the site may indeed tank in rankings and you simply apply a "like it or lump it" attitude to the person asking. Did you know that in all search engines that do indeed apply weight to being llisted here the site may indeed tank? Since link popularity is the basis of the internet you are setting up a domino effect to sites that will also suffer as a result?

DMOZ is loosing credibility by the day. It is a shame because it was indeed the at one time promising to be a good directory.

Your statement is typical of what is happening to degrade the credibility of this directory. No personal attack on you. Nothing intentionally directed at you. It is the legacy and the indoctrination of the way this once promising directory has been mishandled.

iwlgifts said:

Hello

Why my site <URL Removed> listed from so many years has been removed from dmoz directory.

Dharmendra

Click to expand...

Dharmendra,

Don't worry. I am a webmaster just like you. Not an editor. I refused the job after I found its system corrupt many years ago.

Look to never depending on being listed in DMOZ. It is not a truely functioning system.

As a webmaster, I believe you are worried about how this might affect your ranking in search engines. A couple of years ago, for sure, your website will have dropped in rank, But now, it might even benefit you if you simply look to more appropriate websites to link to you. Do not rely on a system that will at random remove you from their index.

DMOZ should grow up and realize it is a service to websites, and not an exclusive club for privileged members.

The sytem is flawed. A cancer has been eating away at it for a long time. There were times when you got high ranking if you were listed in DMOZ. Imagine if that was the case now. Your website will have tanked, and all you will have got from DMOZ is "We no longer list your sort of website". By default of sites being listed gaining good visibility was always unfair on websites that could not get in.

The system is flawed more than ever and search engines know it. Don't worry about your rankings.

The ODP is not, and will not be, a service to websites.

It is understandable that some people would like that. But there are innumerable sites that offer services to websites, and there is no need for us to try to build another one--especially since, as many people have noticed, our community is interested in doing something else anyway.

We may all disagree about what is most important. That's fine, so long as none of us becomes Fuhrer, each of us can work on what he considers most important. And we may disagree about what is fair. That may be a problem, but it is not the kind of problem that the ODP can solve. All the ODP can do is provide a framework in which people who more-or-less agree about fairness can work together, and which other people can ignore in favor of their own work towards their own ideal of fairness.

But I think we can all agree on this: "Look to never depending on being listed in DMOZ." Indeed, the submittal policy says so, in so many words. "No site is guaranteed a listing."

So the "poor webmaster" and the "filthy rich webmaster" and the "middle-class but content webmaster" are all, potentially, in the same position: that is, quite possibly the same position they would have been in, if Rich Skrenta and a few thousand friends had not built the ODP.

Which seems fair to me, but it's not really an issue I'm concerned about. I'd lots rather ignore it and focus on something I think of as a real social contribution.

But don't think I'M trying to tell YOU what to do with YOUR time and YOUR friends. If you think your mission is important enough to spend the kind of time it would take, then ... go for it! You wouldn't be competing with the ODP for customers (we serve the surfers, you the webmasters), workers (you'd be drawing on people with entirely different concepts of value), or content. The web is big enough for two sites -- and if everyone who complained about the ODP really pitched in like the average active ODP editor does, you'd have tens or hundreds of thousands of hours effort per year.

It doesn't interest me, but ... what does that matter? Did you ever ask me about what I thought was important before? If you feel you need my permission to go to work, you have it. And as a free agent, I'll continue to assume I don't need your permission to work on what I think is important.

If, however, you ever give any indication of sharing my priorities, I'd be happy to discuss ways in which we could avoid duplicative work by some minimal coordination of activities.

AltavistaGuy said:

In the mean time, no consideration is given to the fact that the website, the poor webmaster is describing, is absent.

Click to expand...

Correct

AltavistaGuy said:

This sounds very haphazard and lacks assurance of any kind. In particular the foremost concern on website owners and webmasters minds that ranking, indexing and a multitude of other reasons could be affected.

Click to expand...

We totaly don't care about individual websites and webmasters and we certainly don't care about ranking and the other things you seem to be concerned about. We care about the directory as a whole.

AltavistaGuy said:

How can such a haphazard thing happen when webmasters around the world, in all languages, fervently talk of being listed in DMOZ means the be all and end all of being listed in the major search engines?

Click to expand...

It is not our fault that these webmaster have the wrong ideas about DMOZ. For years we have been explaining what DMOZ is about and how it operates.

AltavistaGuy said:

Please give the person assurances that the website in question “Will not suffer” as a result of clandestine and "jolly go lucky" procedures instigated by unapproachable rules.

Click to expand...

As we have totaly no influence on websites itself, only their owner has, our actions can not harm it. A listing in DMOZ is just a listing like a link on any other site.
We don't have "rules", we have guidelines. And these are available for anybody to read. Nothing unapproachable about them.

AltavistaGuy said:

But what if indeed the search engines applied a lot of weight to sites found? What will your answer be if you knew that.

Click to expand...

Exactly the same.
DMOZ is not a tool for webmasters to promote their site. And they should never rely on any influence it might have, either real or imaginary, on their website or its popularity.

hutcheson said:

The ODP is not, and will not be, a service to websites.

It is understandable that some people would like that. But there are innumerable sites that offer services to websites, and there is no need for us to try to build another one--especially since, as many people have noticed, our community is interested in doing something else anyway.

We may all disagree about what is most important. That's fine, so long as none of us becomes Fuhrer, each of us can work on what he considers most important. And we may disagree about what is fair. That may be a problem, but it is not the kind of problem that the ODP can solve. All the ODP can do is provide a framework in which people who more-or-less agree about fairness can work together, and which other people can ignore in favor of their own work towards their own ideal of fairness.

But I think we can all agree on this: "Look to never depending on being listed in DMOZ." Indeed, the submittal policy says so, in so many words. "No site is guaranteed a listing."

So the "poor webmaster" and the "filthy rich webmaster" and the "middle-class but content webmaster" are all, potentially, in the same position: that is, quite possibly the same position they would have been in, if Rich Skrenta and a few thousand friends had not built the ODP.

Which seems fair to me, but it's not really an issue I'm concerned about. I'd lots rather ignore it and focus on something I think of as a real social contribution.

But don't think I'M trying to tell YOU what to do with YOUR time and YOUR friends. If you think your mission is important enough to spend the kind of time it would take, then ... go for it! You wouldn't be competing with the ODP for customers (we serve the surfers, you the webmasters), workers (you'd be drawing on people with entirely different concepts of value), or content. The web is big enough for two sites -- and if everyone who complained about the ODP really pitched in like the average active ODP editor does, you'd have tens or hundreds of thousands of hours effort per year.

It doesn't interest me, but ... what does that matter? Did you ever ask me about what I thought was important before? If you feel you need my permission to go to work, you have it. And as a free agent, I'll continue to assume I don't need your permission to work on what I think is important.

If, however, you ever give any indication of sharing my priorities, I'd be happy to discuss ways in which we could avoid duplicative work by some minimal coordination of activities.

Click to expand...

hutcheson, Your post is nothing less than poetic reading. I raise my hat in honor of your scholarly skill. “duplicative work by some minimal coordination of activities”. Delightful reading. A visual enchantment to feast the eyes. It would not look out of place if added to a verse written by Ovid. A testimony to the power of the written word and how it can be demonstrated and conveyed in a public arena.

But alas, your superlative skills in conveying your multitude of notable opinions are almost inhuman in the pleading eyes of the original post that oozes a desperate petition for help by a human. However elegantly and articulate you have been in your post. It lacks a human touch. The absence of any reassurance, and the total lack of a hint of help to the lost webmaster is not what that webmaster wants to read.

Like it or not. Whatever the futile defense your put forward to maintaining the predestined directory as a non search engine criterion, powers far beyond your control had long ago surreptitiously usurped your indoctrinated endeavors that you call a directory, and they superciliously made it “their” quintessential database to rank websites. Your denial of this is uncalled for and it is a fact amongst all webmasters on the planet.

Sometimes we may do something in life that may seem benign and done with goodwill. Rather like the DMOZ directory. If what you are saying is true, then millions of webmasters have been led astray. DMOZ was indeed the be all and end all of all directories. Not to me, but it was to many webmasters. It still is. You should look to accommodate such a following. Not to direct people to small text written on an obscure page to disclaim your responsibilities.

But alas, your superlative skills in conveying your multitude of notable opinions are almost inhuman in the pleading eyes of the original post that oozes a desperate petition for help by a human. ... The absence of any reassurance, and the total lack of a hint of help to the lost webmaster is not what that webmaster wants to read.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our forum policy dictates that we do not give status information about sites, including (but not limited to) questions about why a previously-listed site is no longer listed. I know you feel that jimnoble's original reply was too terse but, really, how much more could he have said without violating our own forum policy?

pvgool said:

DMOZ is not a tool for webmasters to promote their site. And they should never rely on any influence it might have, either real or imaginary, on their website or its popularity.

Click to expand...

pvgool, Yes Sir.

Your second post was more reticent than the first.

Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion towards the lost webmaster. But unlike him/her, I don't go away. I can stand up to anything you can put my way.

Until I note that he/she can defend themself against your indoctrinated and indomitable attitude, I will be here in a sonorous way speaking on his/her behalf.

You have a duty as an editor to accomodate. To realise that DMOZ had not gone your way. Search engines usurped it off your hands. Webmasters do indeed know that there is a huge advantage if indexed in DMOZ.

I would gladly go away if documented evidence is displayed to me that the major search engines put zero weight on a link from DMOZ.

You are saying what suits you. That is not my language. I don't yield to pontification of something you cannot prove.

You are trying to forcefully make me accept what you say is the Gospel of DMOZ, written in small text on a abscure page to relinquish any blame for what google and other search engines have done.

I would respect your replies if you admitted that search engines have indeed done things you never intended.

motsa said:

Unfortunately, our forum policy dictates that we do not give status information about sites, including (but not limited to) questions about why a previously-listed site is no longer listed. I know you feel that jimnoble's original reply was too terse but, really, how much more could he have said without violating our own forum policy?

Click to expand...

Motsa, Noted.

AltavistaGuy said:

You have a duty as an editor to accomodate.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that "duty" as you call it is to build the directory. It is not to help webmasters to promote their site, it never has been and it never will be.

AltavistaGuy said:

I would respect your replies if you admitted that search engines have inded done things you never intended.

Click to expand...

Sure, we all know that some of our data users have done things we didn't forsee. But do I care. No. Live has thought me not to bother about things I can't influence.

pvgool said:

Yes, and that "duty" as you call it is to build the directory. It is not to help webmasters to promote their site, it never has been and it never will be.


Sure, we all know that some of our data users have done things we didn't forsee. But do I care. No. Live has thought me not to bother about things I can't influence.

Click to expand...

pvgool, thank you for admitting a few things. I respect your truthfulness and sincerity.

You say you do not bother with things that you cannot influence. I respect that. It is your choice.

Me, I am a sort of quasi captain and a marathon runner. I go the extra mile if not content, to find secrets others care not about. A sort of pseudo scientific experiment to solve issues impotant to me. Especially to do with the transfer methods of data.

Peace and goodwill to you.
.

I would gladly go away if documented evidence is displayed to me that the major search engines put zero weight on a link from DMOZ.

Click to expand...

Would you go away if there was suitable evidence that a link from the ODP was treated in exactly the same way as a link from any other web site is?

Altavistaguy, you have asked for no help that I am in a position to give. You asked for a site status -- it's against the rules of the forum, and to help in that way, I'd have to betray other people -- people, moreover, whom I believe I have an ethical duty to trust and honor, because of their accomplishments.

And in addition to that, there's an ethical duty to be fair to those who DON'T ask for unfair special consideration -- in fact, I consider that it's a social AND ethical duty to lean over backwards to provide positive practical feedback to society, by focusing my efforts to help on those who don't think of themselves as deserving it. (I read G. B. Shaw at an impressionable age. Mine, not his, that is.)

chaos127 said:

Would you go away if there was suitable evidence that a link from the ODP was treated in exactly the same way as a link from any other web site is?

Click to expand...

Oh my God, not another moderator. Where do they all come from. Are there any webmasters, general public or end users in this ordained editors club?

I don't recall "rattling" your cage.

Will you be quite if I "don't" rattle your cage?

If you have something to say. Say it. Don't just make an offer or the kind of subtle or idle threat for me to go away. How could you possibly prove to me what you indicate. I don't for one minute believe you can.

hutcheson said:

Altavistaguy, you have asked for no help that I am in a position to give. You asked for a site status -- it's against the rules of the forum, and to help in that way, I'd have to betray other people -- people, moreover, whom I believe I have an ethical duty to trust and honor, because of their accomplishments.

And in addition to that, there's an ethical duty to be fair to those who DON'T ask for unfair special consideration -- in fact, I consider that it's a social AND ethical duty to lean over backwards to provide positive practical feedback to society, by focusing my efforts to help on those who don't think of themselves as deserving it. (I read G. B. Shaw at an impressionable age. Mine, not his, that is.)

Click to expand...

hutcheson, I am indebted to you.

I find myself lost for words. Your ability to write is overpowering my resentment towards a few of the comments made by other less able moderators here that belie the truth.

You are a living testament of a gifted person endowed with an awe inspiring ability to communicate.

It has been a pleasure reading your posts. I have learned more in a sentence from you than all the other moderators ambiguous replies put together.

I won't forget our encounter. You are an asset to the directory.

Thank you for our exchanges.

Last month it has been removed from dmoz directory

My site <URL > listed in domz from so many years. Last month it has been removed from dmoz directory
What is the problem from my website? if you tell so I can correct that.

Please see the answers given in the similar recent thread: "Listed then Removed". Thanks.

chaos127 said:

Would you go away if there was suitable evidence that a link from the ODP was treated in exactly the same way as a link from any other web site is?

Click to expand...

I wouldnt go away but, I would love to see that suitable evidence!