Wish I knew about this site before. Should I re-submit??

I submitted to DMOZ myself without doing any research, only reading the guidelines on DMOZ. That was 2 yrs ago and then again last year. Getting listed is very important to our company and I'm not sure how I should proceed, to re-submit a quality listing or just sit back and forget about ever getting listed.

We now sell more models of air purifiers than any other company on the Internet, over 100. All of the top 10 listed companies except for iqair.com "for key word air purifiers" are resellers with only a few products. All are DMOZ listed of course. We also sell our own registered trademarked even patented brand of air purifier wholesale to the general public and a 90 day low price guarantee on the items we re-sell plus give freebies that add up to $40-$140 per order. We have over 10,000 past customers over the last 5 years, have been in business since 2001 (website 2003), and spend $3000 a month on PPC because we only get organic searches from Yahoo and MSN. (they do represent 40% of our traffic however) We'd double or triple our traffic if we were DMOZ listed however. How do I know? We're #1-#4 for a lot of keywords on Yahoo and MSN, #100-200 on google for the same keywords mostly because ... I now know....we're not listed in DMOZ and the google algo favors commercial sites listed in DMOZ.

I'm going to go ahead and pay the $300 for the yahoo listing this week. I wanted to see if I could get any advise on re-submitting to DMOZ as well.

Getting listed in DMOZ would save us around $20,000 a year in PPC ads I've calculated and make us over $300,000 more in sales. We convert a very high percentage of customers into sales because our wholesale air purifier ($20-$30) are such a good bargain and now we also get the high end sales because we can offer a better deal than anyone else. But google users are not finding us, only yahoo and MSN users. By the way, we also have the best negative ion and indoor air quality resource page of any air purifier company and write a weekly RSS syndicated air purifier blog being the owner is a certified former IAQ expert and I'm a former nurse, (I write about health issues such as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, chemicals, etc) Bottom line, we have a great website but we're not listed in the venerable DMOZ directory.

My question is this. Can I now re-submit because we're authorized dealers for all of the top products besides our own line? The editor for air purifier and air cleaners has looked at our submission and back when we only sold our own line of products and obvious rejected us. I thought maybe I submitted to the wrong area so I also submitted to other air purifier related categories. (we're manufacturers for instance of our own line and sell ionizers besides air purifiers) I haven't submitted to the business location area, but since I've already submitted to several relevant categories (manufacturer, ionizers, air purifiers, air cleaners) I won't want to go for another category per the advise I've read. I know you don't give updates. I know I can't contact any of the air purification/ ionizer /air cleaner editors. Any advise would be tremendously appreciated.

Best Regards,

Hiroko

We don't see ourselves as bestowers or withholders of search engine ranking. We're just a bunch of folks categorising what we consider to be worthwhile websites at our own pace. I'm sure you read our submission guidelines which explain that we don't list all websites. Frankly, if your business plan relies upon the actions of a group of volunteers over whom you have no control, then you are a very brave man.

You say you've already suggested your website to several categories and that you wonder whether or not to resubmit. What would be the point? It's unlikely that all of those submissions fell out of the aether; some of them must have reached their destination categories for review. For each of those submissions, one of the following is true.

1. We haven't looked at it yet.
2. We've looked at it and sent it to a better category for review.
3. It's unlistable anywhere.

In none of these circumstances would resubmission expedite a listing. I ask again, what would be the point?

You forgot to mention that it's websites plural. You really ought to read those submission guidelines again.

Thanks Jim for the input. However....

Your advice "what's the point" is duly noted and logged. However...the point is:

1) Not having our highly relevant, 4 yr old company not listed cost us over $300,000 a year (I can prove with stats my accountant pulled from Internet researh companies on how many clicks go to organic vs paid searches and how much we spend on PPC's, how many we convert into sales)


That's a pretty big point, don't you think? I'm a little bit surprised you were not aware of the financial impact non inclusion, especially for companies like ours that are more than worthy of inclusion and have great products and websites (didn't get your websites comment by the way).

Granted, it's not your fault the google algorithm favors websites listed in DMOZ. (light bulb) I studied law many moons ago, heck, google has deep pockets, this would make a GREAT class action case! I'm frankly surprised it's never been litigated, maybe because the right circumstances have never been present. 1) A great company, great website. 2) Spends over $30K a year on adwords because their keywords require DMOZ listing 3) At least 90 inferior companies listed ahead of them, most in the last 2 years, some of which don't even sell air purifiers or air cleaners anymore, lol. 4) Been waiting over 2 years. 5) "Smoking gun" What if one of the editors or the main editor is a competitor and selling air purification services or devices on the world wide web? I could go on. And given the facts of the matter, mainly, not being listed in DMOZ makes it impossible for top 20 google searches for competitive keywords such as "air purifiers" These points beg the question. Should google put so much weight on the DMOZ listing? Shouldn't it be reasonably assumed, given the tens of billion in financial impact non being in DMOZ cost companies, that fraud (sellers becoming editors) is possible if not probable? I think a reasonable person would find in the final analysis that google's algo reliance on DMOZ is negligent and it has created an unfair playing field that has cost countless companies like mine billions in lost sales as well as dependence on the google PPC program. (Billions in google's pocket)

We have enough money to continue to make 1st page on the PPC's and continue to make more money than the top 3 companies listed in google that are nothing but resellers of a few products. I guess my new question is this. Do you also feel as I do that google's algo is flawed to rely on DMOZ editors? Do you feel it is negligent for an editor to omit a highly relevant website if that editor is also a seller? Does DMOZ hire editors that are also sellers on the Internet? What safegaurds are in place to prevent an editor from selling in their catagory or admitting a friend or family members site? (conflict of interest provisions) Do you feel that a damaged company (in the senarios outlined above) have a litigious claim against DMOZ, the editor, or google?

If I were on the jury (I'm very certain this will be litigated someday), what would I consider to be DMOZ's level of responsibility in checking and making certain editors are not sellers as well? A case would bring a full disclosure of ALL editors and further discovery into their tax records would reveal I believe a great number of editors profited from their positions in some capacity or by selling products in their category of expertise or giving listing to family or friends. Ask anyone at google if their algo favors DMOZ listed companies if this is news to you. Being that as it may, non listed, relevant, well established, well optimized, non spammy, worthy websites are being raped each and every day by Google’s pay per click program because they can't be listed in the organic searches because of not DMOZ listings.

By the way, I'm not accusing any editor of any misconduct of course, I'm simply asking "what if" questions here that I believe are very relevant given the amount of money that's at stake here. You say I'm 'brave" to count on a DMOZ listing. All business owners have guts, that's true. And given the unfair playing field that the whole google algo - DMOZ listing thing creates, yes, it's quite annoying and it takes a lot of money off our table and puts it in Google's pocket. But I'm a spiritual gal who believes that in the end, it will all come out in the wash. Karma is a .....tough thing to swallow sometimes. If the big G's business plan is flawed in this regards, then the damaged websites will get paid in the end. Am I on to something here?

Where do people get such information from to get such a distorted view of DMOZ?

Do you not remember what you agreed to when you submitted your site?

To waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of this or any other site in the ODP Directory or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP Directory

Click to expand...

"Where do people get such information from to get such a distorted view of DMOZ?"

Google's latest algorithm patent says, in so many words, that sites listed in DMOZ are given more weight that sites that are not listed in DMOZ. Fun reading, filed with patent office, part of public record.

Q: T or F

Why is that a distored [sic] view of DMOZ?

Q: Yes or No. Would it not be conflict of interest for a seller to also be an editor?

"
To waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of this or any other site in the ODP Directory or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP Directory"

There is a theory of law which states in essence that even though a company posts a disclaimer that you can't sue, if they damage you and are negligent, you can sue them "and win" a judgment and damages. For example, someone with a pool makes neighborhood kids sign a waiver that they're not responsible for accidents that may happen while they're playing with little Johnny. The parents aren't paying attention to the kids and Johnny and the neighborhood kid climb on top of the roof to jump in the pool. Johnny makes it. The neighborhood kid misses and breaks his neck. Johnny parents will still lose their home because they were negligent in their supervision. Same would apply to DMOZ. If the editor doesn't allow a site into the listing say because he's a seller for the product and the site applying for listing is like Walmart, undercutting everyone’s prices by 30-40%. That would mean there was a conflict of interest, the banned seller would have a claim because it he was damaged. Google would be liable because they relied upon too much on a third party opinion in essence to formulate their ranking judgment on the banned site, and the opinion was flawed.

I'm must begging the question here. I'll be honest, I'm not a litigious scum bag, but right is right and wrong is wrong.

Google's latest algorithm patent says, in so many words, that sites listed in DMOZ are given more weight that sites that are not listed in DMOZ.

Click to expand...

And why could someone litigate over that? Could they sue if Google decided to give more wiight to sites with the letter "G" in their URL?

How about if Google decided to give more weight to sites that make good use of the color Orange?

What it appears to this lowly volunteer editor, is that someone is overlooking the fact that Google has the right to do whatever it wishes with its directory.

And, it is not reall your business what they do with our data because when we grant them a license to use our data, we tell them that we put no restrictions upon its use othe than some identification they are required to provide.

All this lawyer talk makes me nervous. It seems to me to be a very childish game played at very high states: if I can't get ODP do do that I want, for my pure benefit, I'll sue everyone in sight and ruin it for everyone.

I really wish people would look upon the ODP in this manner:

We are a collection of occasionally nerdy hobbyists who share a passion for building and maintaining lists of web sites, which we give away for free. We really don't care what others do with the lists we produce, so long as they tell everyone "See that group of occasionally nerdy folks over there? They put together this list."

I keep drawing analogies with the telephone white pages. What I hear is that the phone book publishers should be able to be sued because some people used the information in the phone books in a manner others do not agree with.

Makes no sense to me. None at all.

((I've always wondered, if one's debt exceeds their net worth, they get sued and lose, does the person doing the suing win the person's debt? That would sure put a stop to frivolous law suits.))

Because the google algorithm favors DMOZ sites......

[Threads Merged]

... don't you think that editors of commercial sites should be forced to sign a sworn statement, with severe financial consequences that states:

1) They are not a seller of the product they're editing.
2) They do not have any family members, friends, or associates who sell the product they are listing.

Also, if there are any editors that are sellers, all of their past decisions should be put under scrutiny. If a conflict of interest is found, that site should be removed, the editor forced to pay non accepted, relevant, quality websites damages to compensate for the extra money they spent on PPC and lost revenue.

Google should also be held liable for putting so much weight on an organization that can have such conflicts of interest. We're talking big, big money here folks.

I have a website that ranks #1 - #2 for many keywords in yahoo and MSN but isn't top 80 for google because there are 94 DMOZ listed air purifier companies, some of which no longer sell air purifiers, re-sell only 1 air purifier, or have re-direct sites. We have 5 PR7 pages and a 6 PR6 pages. We have over 500,000 incoming links. We have a popular RSS news feed that's well read. We sell over 100 models of air purifiers including our own registered trademarked products, one of which has a US patent. Our site has over 190 google indexed pages. We have great original content. We don't spam. We're 4 years old. However, we sell our product line wholesale to the general public. $19.99 for an air purifier that re-sellers sell for $49. We give them away to people who buy Austin Air, the NQ Clarifier, Allerair, Nature's air, Biozone, Air Oasis, or Airfree air purifiers. (we're authorized dealers for all of them) We can undercut the competition on price because we're importers, not resellers. That makes us a pariah to our competition quite frankly. Hence, I suspect the editor of air purifiers and air cleaners may also be a seller quite frankly.

Not making it into DMOZ has forced us to spend over $3000 a month on google Adwords. Also, probably over $1 million is sales the last two years (We've had over $500,000 in sales, and organic listings make more money)

It's not the editors fault per se. Of course it's human nature to look out for oneself. I blame DMOZ's negligent policy (If I'm right and they hire sellers or don't force a contract that would impose financial penalties for a seller to become an editor, that to me would just be common sense to percent conflicts of interest) I also blame Google’s algorithm for putting so much weight on the DMOZ listings.

This is going to become a class action in a few months I believe. I just got off the phone with the family attorney a little bit ago who doesn't have experience in this type of litigation but feels I make a strong case and will find me the best lawyer tomorrow to begin pursuing this issue. He said that during discovery, we can get the names of all of the DMOZ editors and their profession, even subpoena their tax returns and hire private investigators to investigate all of the air purification editors. Air purification is a 10 BILLION dollar a year business. Not being listed cost a seller considerable money. If I'm right here, this can open a whole can of worms and being that google has deep pockets, make those who have suffered damages because of their negligent algorithm a lot of money. I'd like to hear from editors here is you believe I'm right. And I don't want to hear "you signed you couldn't sue us when you submitted". There is a principle of law that says you can sue someone even if you give up that right in writing IF they are negligent and if their negligence damages you. Confirmed that tonight. My question is this:

1) Does the google algorithm favor DMOZ listed sites?
2) Can editors also be sellers? If so, isn't that a conflict of interest?
3) What does DMOZ do to prevent such conflicts of interest for instance in the 10 billion dollar a year air purification industry? (and growing every year)

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the input. All input is appreciated.

You state: "Could they sue if Google decided to give more wiight [sic] to sites with the letter "G" in their URL?

How about if Google decided to give more weight to sites that make good use of the color Orange?"

We live in America. If you have a business and someone cost you a lot of money, in my case, probably a million dollars over the last two years, what do you do, cry about it or hire a shark to rip the bastards hearts out and piss on their grave of everyone who wronged you? For prin-ci-ple. Forgiveness goes to people who offend me, not people who take bread off my table. In your example, if Google used a biased system to favor certain sites, at least everyone could flock towards that bias. However in this case, webmasters have no say or no control in DMOZ editors decision making. And IF that decision making ends up having a conflict of interest factory, then companies have been damaged.

We sell products wholesale to the general public. Our competitors hate us but we sell more brands of air purifiers and have one of the best air purifier websites in the world. Very informative. A ton of original content. All white hat SEO. No spam. We don't even e-mail our 10,000 past customers with sales pitches. Air purification is a 10 billion dollar a year business. The editors are censoring our site for personal reasons, I'm willing to bet and it's because they're also air purifier sellers. If I'm wrong and no air purifier editor has been involved in online selling of air purifiers over the last 3 years, I'll pay the court and discovery fees happily. But I'm dying to know if that's the case. If it is, then we're going to open a whole can of worms and go class action and audit all editors, all categories, and make google pay damages to all of the websites that were negatively impacted because of google and DMOZ. Don't worry, google has the deep pockets, not editors, so no lawyer wants to sue editors....unless of course the editor profited from their position by banning competitive sites from entry and inclusion of his own sites or family-associate sites or selling online in their category. That alone is an obvious conflict of interest.

My husband is yelling at me to get off the computer. I should shut up on this subject already, one of my problems is that I talk (and type) too much. One last thought. In this life, and especially in America, you can't wrong anyone without it coming back around to bite you in the behind. That's a true principle my friends.

Best Regards,

Hiroko

spectregunner said:

And why could someone litigate over that? Could they sue if Google decided to give more wiight to sites with the letter "G" in their URL?

How about if Google decided to give more weight to sites that make good use of the color Orange?

What it appears to this lowly volunteer editor, is that someone is overlooking the fact that Google has the right to do whatever it wishes with its directory.

And, it is not reall your business what they do with our data because when we grant them a license to use our data, we tell them that we put no restrictions upon its use othe than some identification they are required to provide.

All this lawyer talk makes me nervous. It seems to me to be a very childish game played at very high states: if I can't get ODP do do that I want, for my pure benefit, I'll sue everyone in sight and ruin it for everyone.

I really wish people would look upon the ODP in this manner:

We are a collection of occasionally nerdy hobbyists who share a passion for building and maintaining lists of web sites, which we give away for free. We really don't care what others do with the lists we produce, so long as they tell everyone "See that group of occasionally nerdy folks over there? They put together this list."

I keep drawing analogies with the telephone white pages. What I hear is that the phone book publishers should be able to be sued because some people used the information in the phone books in a manner others do not agree with.

Makes no sense to me. None at all.

((I've always wondered, if one's debt exceeds their net worth, they get sued and lose, does the person doing the suing win the person's debt? That would sure put a stop to frivolous law suits.))

Click to expand...

A few things to sum up this thread which is really beyond the scope of this forum:

(1)If you have submitted your site, then you have done everything you need to do with regard to DMOZ.

(2)If you suspect an editor is abusing their position, then please file an abuse report using http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

(3)Questions about Google's algorithm should be directed toward Google.

(4)Conflicts of interest are explained in the guidelines: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

(5)If editors are caught abusing their position (for example deleting competitors sites to gain some kind of advantage) then suitable actions are taken. This can include removing the guilty party from the project.

(6)AOL/Netscape staff members deal with legal issues, not the volunteer editors.

I'm going to add one more:

(7) We have a policy whereby, once threats of legal action (such as your above posted "I just got off the phone with the family attorney a little bit ago who doesn't have experience in this type of litigation but feels I make a strong case and will find me the best lawyer tomorrow to begin pursuing this issue.") have occurred, editors are not permitted to touch your site until the AOL legal department gives the OK.

(and, by the way, we don't all "live in America" )