Updating or Removing a Listing

Hello:

DMOZ has one of my websites listed, but with completely wrong and possibly damaging cross information.
I would either like it either corrected or pulled out of the directory entirely.

Unable to find any other corrective measure, I just completed the application to become an editor, but was quickly turned down because I run other sites that might be related to the category so was immediately tried and convicted of "self promotion". I actually run over 70 sites, but do not prefer to have my own sites listed on DMOZ and use the NOODP directive on all my sites.

Please advise on how my listing can be either corrected or removed entirely.
:icon_excl

I would either like it either corrected or pulled out of the directory entirely.

Click to expand...

1) To have an entry changed, use the "update listing" link at the top right of the category the site is listed in. Your request will then be processed by an editoe. Notice that we won't do changes that obviously do not match with the content of the site, or that plainly serve to add keywords.

2) We do not remove listings on request, as long as a site is up and working.

I actually run over 70 sites

Click to expand...

Noted. If you ever apply to become an editor again, please declare them all.

Your request will then be processed by an editoe.]

Click to expand...

What if there is no editor for that category?
I tried this exercise about a year ago and nothing was ever changed.
The mistaken listing in question is quite obvious.

What if there is no editor for that category?

Click to expand...

No category is without an editor. Some 200 of us can edit everywhere - and we do. Update requests show up prominently and quite a few of us give them priority. In the English language categories, they are often processed within hours (I can't speak for other languages).

The usual reason why an update request is declined is that the request is for something which conflicts with our policies.

Bear in mind that if a suggestion is "obviously mistaken" in part, it may well be totally ignored in entirety.

For instance, a suggestion to replace 'Northhampton crafter offering original widget designs' by 'Southhampshire award-winning celebrity widget-designer totally dedicated to bringing the beauties of unique hand-crafted widgets into your home and office at an affordable price; offering free shipping; buy now now now" would probably be deleted immediately; the editor shouldn't be expected to parse a right lot of marketroid babble just to notice that, yes, the city of residence had also changed.

It's always possible to mention, in brackets, the factual reason for the suggestion "[I no longer sell widgets, I focus on gadgets]" or "[I make gadgets also]" or "[I no longer have a storefront/online purchases/original designs/whatever]" That way, even if the editor has to remove some non-conformant verbiage, the site can be specifically reviewed for the actual information, and some standard-conforming change made.

In this case, the listing title is the name of the company who owns the service, not the name of the service itself. The service mark should be the title, not the tiny ownership disclosure at the bottom of the page. Once you put incorrect title with the correct description, the listing is sure to be confusing. If that's how DMOZ works, they they should remove the listing entirely.

The ODP has its own guidelines. For corporate websites, generally the listing title should be the name of the corporated entity. i.e. "Toyota Motor Company" rather than "Best cars ever!!!!"

This isn't negotiable (although special cases may be discussed in the internal forums.)

Using your example, if the site domain was "prius.com" and the site was all about the Toyota Prius, the the title should at least mention the Prius, not simply be "Toyota Motor Company" - way too general. Toyota makes more than one motor car. I think this is why DMOZ is not a popular search engine...killed by their own faulty policy and so quick to try and convict every site owner of self promotion...isn't that the whole purpose of a business anyway to promote themselves? With all due respect, I see too much attitude being reflected in some of these editor responses, and listings that are faulty to the point of sabotaging some businesses with confusing listings.I'll be happy to share the details of my issue with DMOZ, just PM me. It's ridiculous.
I guess I didn't get one of those editors who work quickly...it's been 2 days and no change. I wish they'd just drop my listings altogether, but I'm sure they won't...hence the sabotage comment. I hate to have to waste money on an attorney to have it removed.

At this point the conversation with the volunteers ends. When an attorney is mentioned, we must (no option) direct all further contact solely to AOL and its legal representatives.