I don't know what happened -- as has been mentioned, I don't know the exact URL. But communityarchitect.com is still listed, so whatever it was, it wasn't just a matter of removing all links to the domain (or, alternatively, of the server blocking robozilla and robozilla getting even.)
Site wiped out
- Thread starter chaz7979
- Start date
Since he's already said he wasn't going to mention his URL, it's safe to assume he wasn't talking about communityarchitect.com when he said his site was removed. communityarchitect.com is a service provider that chaz7979 was making use of.
communityarchitect.com was not the site but the company that allows you to offer free sub domain hosting. They dont have anything to do with anything except that they let the free sub domain hosting get out of hand. Which is what got my site penalized.
Knowing that could you shine some more light maybe?
EDIT: wow you are fast
Knowing that could you shine some more light maybe?
EDIT: wow you are fast
I am almost 100% sure that the reasons mentioned are not feasible.
1.My server does not go down.
2.Removing a listing because it no longer is worthy would make sense except there were 5-6 deep links that were not even mine, and they were not related. Also I never submitted my main url or the 1 deep link to my domain specifically it was added by editors.
That is why I think that this may have been malicious. Not only that but I think they notified google as well. Maybe its a conspiracy theory but to lose 2 such listings within hours of each other seems so highly unlikely.
1.My server does not go down.
2.Removing a listing because it no longer is worthy would make sense except there were 5-6 deep links that were not even mine, and they were not related. Also I never submitted my main url or the 1 deep link to my domain specifically it was added by editors.
That is why I think that this may have been malicious. Not only that but I think they notified google as well. Maybe its a conspiracy theory but to lose 2 such listings within hours of each other seems so highly unlikely.
Chaz, Google doesn't listen to us. (They don't have to, they're the search engine.)
Google doesn't react that quickly to spam reports anyway. Their approach is always to consider what algorithmic changes might be made to solve the general problem, not to whack any particular site for technical reasons.
Google doesn't react that quickly to spam reports anyway. Their approach is always to consider what algorithmic changes might be made to solve the general problem, not to whack any particular site for technical reasons.
hutcheson said:
Do you think that someone from google might be an editor or work with an editor or maybe even just be friends with an editor?
There is a form to report a url specifically on google. Sites can be whacked for a technical reason. I have reported many bad results in google to see them disapper within the week. I cant resist when I see a site url like http://shoes-mens.tennis-shoes.com/mens/tennis/shoes/mens-tennis-shoes.html
I always report it and bookmark it.jeanmanco said:
I dont ban anyone
Every bot, crawler, SE, and link checker has access to my site. No sure if that is a good thing or not, I have never really looked into it.EDIT: look at those spelling mistakes, now we know why I did not get accepted when I applied to edit my own home town!
Chaz, chaz.... we have an anonymous editor, who for reasons unspecified is so ticked off at you personally that he'll risk the chance of losing editor rights just to remove a few pizzley links to your site from THIS site ... AND who just happens to have a friend at Google who is willing to risk getting fired from HIS job just to help out a friend's grudge?
That may not be the most improbable ODP conspiracy theory I've heard, but it is a good effort.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories. If you must know, I'm too busy taking over the Brazilian tourist industry. (Or, at least, so I have been told.)
That may not be the most improbable ODP conspiracy theory I've heard, but it is a good effort.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories. If you must know, I'm too busy taking over the Brazilian tourist industry. (Or, at least, so I have been told.)
1. He would never lose his editor rights because no one would ever investigate.
2. Like I said there is a form at google to submit a bad url, he wouldnt need a friend there.
Its not a big conspiracy theory, it is all pretty simple if you think about it. You could go delete 20 listings right now for fun and no one would ever know.
You can make fun if you like. Or you could wonder how an upstanding site that was listed in the ODP and GOOGLE for years was removed from both in the same 24-48 hour period.
2. Like I said there is a form at google to submit a bad url, he wouldnt need a friend there.
Its not a big conspiracy theory, it is all pretty simple if you think about it. You could go delete 20 listings right now for fun and no one would ever know.
You can make fun if you like. Or you could wonder how an upstanding site that was listed in the ODP and GOOGLE for years was removed from both in the same 24-48 hour period.
motsa said:
So the bot that checks for availabilty puts a site into unreviewed if it is not available? But that same bot does not come back to see if it is available a day or two later and put the site back live?
I have heard how people think the ODP is awful and the whine about how their site doesnt get reviewed and the people of ODP usually just say that it is what it is. My question is, is there a forum for suggestions on how to make the ODP better or more efficient? Seems like there is a ton of room for improvement, if for no other reason than to make editors lives easier. We are talking about a few lines of code and maybe a couple of hours worth of work to help make the process easier for anyone associated with the project.
EDIT: Rest assured if this site is never re added I will be fine with that. I am not looking for my listing back I am intrigued by my findings. I like to question things, that is what life is about.
I have 8 other websites that are not listed in DMOZ because of the one site that is. Those sites all perform well in SE's and the one that was in DMOZ honestly received maybe 10 hits per year from its listing. I dont find my listing being gone to be a real problem. Just one of interest.
It's a more complicated process than would be appropriate to describe here. But, once a site is unreviewed by the link checker, it wouldn't be appropriate to put the site back automatically. It requires a living, breathing person to verify the state and listability of the site for it to be relisted. The lack of automation there is not a mistake or an oversight on our part.
I get it, the domain could expire go down for a day and go back up as something else. In other words a site not being available could be a clue to content change.
But if the bot cached enough information about the website it would know if the content was the same. Thus saving the editors time.
But if the bot cached enough information about the website it would know if the content was the same. Thus saving the editors time.
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
That would be a possibility. By calculating a hash total of the site content, then if the site simply went down and came up with the same content, it would be easy to automatically release the site to public view again.
However, my gut feeling (from all the sites I've looked at that had been automatically caught an unreviewed) is that the above does not happen too often.
I usually look at sites that were unreviewed within a day, and check if they are in fact still down. It's very rare to find one that is up. In many cases, domains have expired or sites have been hijacked to other content. Of the ones that are just plain inaccessable, I move them to a holding area, and check them again a week later, If they are still down, I leave them around for a while, and check again a month or two later at which point I gave up and delete them
Surprisingly I do find sites that are down for several weeks, and come up at least a month later. However, that's maybe one out of several hundred. I'm not sure the effort of trying to automate this process is justified for the small percentages that could be recovered.
However, my gut feeling (from all the sites I've looked at that had been automatically caught an unreviewed) is that the above does not happen too often.
I usually look at sites that were unreviewed within a day, and check if they are in fact still down. It's very rare to find one that is up. In many cases, domains have expired or sites have been hijacked to other content. Of the ones that are just plain inaccessable, I move them to a holding area, and check them again a week later, If they are still down, I leave them around for a while, and check again a month or two later at which point I gave up and delete them
Surprisingly I do find sites that are down for several weeks, and come up at least a month later. However, that's maybe one out of several hundred. I'm not sure the effort of trying to automate this process is justified for the small percentages that could be recovered.
We have a lot of fairly sharp techies -- people with C.S. degrees and extensive experience with complex software. My experience has been that once editors tell them what patterns of problems are actually occurring, they are very good at devising automated ways of addressing them within the ODP environment. Bobrat is asleep at the switch here, I think, or he'd remember (I'm sure he knows) that we're seeing hijacked websites leave the original home page up to delude editors -- so checksumming the whole site is impractical, and checksumming the home page is inefficacious.
And spammers really really really want us to go more towards automated systems, because once you find the weakness of an automated system, you can exploit it repeatedly with impunity: whereas an editor may say "Hey! wait a minute!" the third or fifth time you try to sneak the same dumb exploit past him -- and then hunt you down with a pitchfork. So it's important for the integrity of the system that people keep looking at sites -- and not letting automated systems run rampant (or, more realistically, let spammers run riot through the cracks in the automated system.)
And if it is slower than automation -- it does no harm to have the ODP and Google both; something that slips past one may get caught by the other, and the surfer has a choice of either or both. I've worked on several other large indexing projects of one sort or another (besides the ODP), and I never believed that one index could encapsulate all the reality of the indexed corpus. So -- if you have a better idea for an index, go implement it! Most heavy surfers, including many ODP editors, would love to see it!
And spammers really really really want us to go more towards automated systems, because once you find the weakness of an automated system, you can exploit it repeatedly with impunity: whereas an editor may say "Hey! wait a minute!" the third or fifth time you try to sneak the same dumb exploit past him -- and then hunt you down with a pitchfork. So it's important for the integrity of the system that people keep looking at sites -- and not letting automated systems run rampant (or, more realistically, let spammers run riot through the cracks in the automated system.)
And if it is slower than automation -- it does no harm to have the ODP and Google both; something that slips past one may get caught by the other, and the surfer has a choice of either or both. I've worked on several other large indexing projects of one sort or another (besides the ODP), and I never believed that one index could encapsulate all the reality of the indexed corpus. So -- if you have a better idea for an index, go implement it! Most heavy surfers, including many ODP editors, would love to see it!
I think some of the problem may lie in the fact that people at the ODP think that the organization is so perfect and high and mighty that it dos not warrant change.
The fact is that I too have a C.S. degree and I am a 'sharp techie' and I can think of ways to make the process of what you do more efficient and if done correctly there would be no way to exploit it. There are things that would be more helpful to editors involving reviewing sites and receiving notifications that would have nothing to do with spammers trying to get through and those things are not done either.
And here comes the defensive smart comment...does it make you feel better to zing this in?
"So -- if you have a better idea for an index, go implement it! Most heavy surfers, including many ODP editors, would love to see it!"
Bottom line is that has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that no one in life can criticize anyone unless they go do what they do better than them? I can not say that Roger Clemans did a crappy job pitching last night unless I go pitch better than him? No, Roger Clemans pitched crappy period. It was his goal to go out and pitch well and he did not. Whether or I can throw 98 mph or not he still stunk.
That being said....I do run an index on a much smaller and more targetted scale and it was not difficult, some of it is automated and a lot of it is manual, and no sites slip through my cracks unless they are hijacked once they are approved. Which is something neither I nor the MOZ can do anything about. Well we could, but it would be inefficacious.
The fact is that I too have a C.S. degree and I am a 'sharp techie' and I can think of ways to make the process of what you do more efficient and if done correctly there would be no way to exploit it. There are things that would be more helpful to editors involving reviewing sites and receiving notifications that would have nothing to do with spammers trying to get through and those things are not done either.
And here comes the defensive smart comment...does it make you feel better to zing this in?
"So -- if you have a better idea for an index, go implement it! Most heavy surfers, including many ODP editors, would love to see it!"
Bottom line is that has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that no one in life can criticize anyone unless they go do what they do better than them? I can not say that Roger Clemans did a crappy job pitching last night unless I go pitch better than him? No, Roger Clemans pitched crappy period. It was his goal to go out and pitch well and he did not. Whether or I can throw 98 mph or not he still stunk.
That being said....I do run an index on a much smaller and more targetted scale and it was not difficult, some of it is automated and a lot of it is manual, and no sites slip through my cracks unless they are hijacked once they are approved. Which is something neither I nor the MOZ can do anything about. Well we could, but it would be inefficacious.
Yes, the ODP community is achievement-driven. If you want credibility for your advice, yes, you'll absolutely need to show how your ideas enabled you to achieve something that the community cares about.
It doesn't mean the community is perfect -- unless, of course, nobody can be more experienced than you without being perfect. But I would not assume that.
It doesn't mean the community is perfect -- unless, of course, nobody can be more experienced than you without being perfect. But I would not assume that.