Unchangable site listing(s)

Was reading all the topics about questions, answers, frustrations and so on, about the DMOZ listings. I'm not here to judge anybody and it is not my intention to be critical against a volunteer based project, but I must post here my experience, because I'm also one of many others who have tried and tried for about two years now to update my site's listings and finally I gave up.
As I wrote, I tried many times to update my site's listings.
To be clear enough: my company sells its own products and as such I think it has the most valuable information about the products.
I changed the domain extension, the old listing's descriptions are outdated (the company is growing and changing the product descriptions), there are a few errors in the text (ok, our fault), even the original domain name is listed with a typing error (I presume that the editor didn't even bother to check it)...
Well, after trying for some time I gave up. And the reason is very simple: if I cannot change such important information about my company, and I suppose I'm not the only one, then the fact is that DMOZ has tons and tons of outdated listings and as such, it has a very questionable value to anyone. An outdated directory means nothing to anybody. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How can I trust site's listings when I know that updating information is nearly an impossible mission?
The only thing that is annoying is that many sites take the site's description from DMOZ directly (alexa, for instance) and the result is that the outdated info gets all over the net. Is that logical? Even for a volunteer project? If the listings depends exclusively on editors and they, as volunteers, have all the time in the world to think about the requested changes, at least please do not pollute the net with outdated info.

Once again, I do not want to offend anybody. But facts are facts.

Regards

A coupla tips.

1. When raising update listing requests, there are a several traps that the requester can fall into.

- Request a URL change when the original is still functional. Most editors won't action those. It's best to have a redirect from the old to the new (by whatever mechanism - even a big note on the home page). That way, we'll know that the requester has access to both of them.

- Request a vital change but fall prey to the temptation to keyword stuff or hype the title and/or description. It's all too easy to decline the request on sight without noticing the real meat of it.

2. Consider using the NOODP metatag. Several search engines honour it.

If the listings depends exclusively on editors and they, as volunteers, have all the time in the world to think about the requested changes

Click to expand...

Editors have real lives too and they don't have 'all the time in the world' at all. Instead, they prioritise on the tasks that interest them for the time that they're willing to donate.

Heh heh. I stepped away from this thread and immediately picked up this description update request.

One of xxx's best known furniture stores, selling a wide range of home furniture including sofas, dining room furniture, cabinet and occasional furniture, plus a whole floor of bedroom furniture including bed frames, wardrobes and drawer chests. Located in xxx, our showroom boasts xxx square feet of quality products.

Click to expand...

I declined it, obviously.

Hi jimnoble!
Wow, congratulations for the quick reply!
1. Thanks for the tips, but I do not have any need to keyword stuff or things like that. I'm in the business long enough to fall in that kind of activities.
There is a redirect set from the old domain to the new one and who else, besides the owner, can set the redirect (besides a hacker, of course)?

2. I'll consider the NOODP.

Of course editors do not have "all the time in the world", but, according to Armstrong, there are times when things let us think that way

Ah, about the description update request, I would have rejected it as well!

davx975 said:

even the original domain name is listed with a typing error

Click to expand...

This would be an error which would (normaly) result in a link to a non-existing url. Something our tools would notice. So maybe the "mistyped" link points to an exisiting domain.
If an update request is made to change an url we check if we can find prove. If the "mistyped" domain is still available and doesn't show any evidence of it being moved to a new url the update request will almost always be rejected.

I wrote that the domain name is listed with a typing error, not the link. There is a slight difference between those two terms.
The typing error is in the link's text, e.g. <a href="good_domain.com">mistyped_domain.com</a>.
As I wrote, there IS a 301 redirect set to the old domain pointing to the new domain. As far as I know 301 means "Moved permanently" and even the search engines find no problems at all with this (and we all know they pay much attention to any attempt of suspicious activities). It means only DMOZ has problems with it and needs more proof...

I wrote that the domain name is listed with a typing error, not the link. There is a slight difference between those two terms.

Click to expand...

What you are calling the domain name is what we call the site title. When we refer to the domain name, we're generally talking about some aspect of the actual link.

It means only DMOZ has problems with it and needs more proof...

Click to expand...

No one here has said that a 301 redirect isn't sufficient.

and who else, besides the owner, can set the redirect

Click to expand...

That's exactly why we like to see one .

davx975 said:

I wrote that the domain name is listed with a typing error, not the link. There is a slight difference between those two terms.

Click to expand...

For me domain name is a part of an url
www.domainname.tld
What you are referring to is the title of the listing.

As I wrote, there IS a 301 redirect set to the old domain pointing to the new domain. As far as I know 301 means "Moved permanently" and even the search engines find no problems at all with this (and we all know they pay much attention to any attempt of suspicious activities). It means only DMOZ has problems with it and needs more proof...

Click to expand...

Nope. We do not need more proof.
You said you have made several update requests. Than they must either
- still be waiting for an editor to look at (update requests are looked at faster than new suggestions but they still need an editor to look at them and we can not predict when it will happen)
- have been rejected (reasons for such rejections have been given in this thread)

301 question

I also would like (love) to change the name of my domain in the dmoz. Since I no longer have access to the servers where the old domain is (I switched ISPs) I don't see how I can put a 301 on the old server.

If you'd like to help or point me in the right direction, my old site listing is as davebeckerman.com

The current (actual) domain is <url removed>

Since I do own the name <url removed> I have pointed it to the new name, and eventually that will propogate, but I would very much like to change the name / url in DMOZ so that is is seen properly.

If you search dmoz for <url removed> you'll find me, and can see what I'm talking about.

Best,

Dave Beckerman

Use the update url link in the category to suggest the new url.

The fact that the old site redirects to the new one is sufficient for it to be checked out.

regards