directory.google.com

[rjv]

I have a site in dmoz that got 302 hijacked last year and I think it got my site banned in google. At first I emailed them the site got stolen and filed a DMCA with them, and they complied and deleted that redirect from the db. But my site never regained from it and is obviously being filtered for some reason. So I kept writing them... and pointed out that when I go to my cat page in their directory, my site is listed at the bottom of the page with a white bar.

 

...now, most of you are sitting there saying, "...and? what do you want us to do about it?", right? Well, I got the strangest email back from them finally that basically just makes no sense to me and I'm hoping anyone there can confirm any of this one way or the other...

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Hi Rob,

 

Thank you for your reply. Please be assured that your site is not

currently banned or penalized by Google.

 

That said, we are aware of the problem that you are reporting. As you

may

know, the Google Directory is built on work done by the Open Directory

Project, a network of thousands of volunteers managed by Netscape.

Please

be assured that we are actively working with the ODP to find a

solution.

 

You may be interested to know that the Google Toolbar features an

integrated PageRank tool. This tool will allow you to see the PageRank

of

any site in the Google index.

 

You can learn more about the Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer at

http://toolbar.google.com/index_2, or the Google Toolbar for Firefox at

http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/index.html

 

We appreciate your interest in Google, and thank you for taking the

time

to contact us.

 

Regards,

The Google Team"

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

...what do you all make of that? I mean that isn't your standard protocol reply. I mean, it just doesnt make any sense. Why would dmoz have anything to do with their directory.... you all just provide the data, THEY are the ones that arrange it in terms of PR. Why would they even SAY they they are going to contact you?

[windharp]

...what do you all make of that? I mean that isn't your standard protocol reply.

 

On the one hand that does not look like a standard reply. On the other hand, it could be some kind of keyword driven mixture of several standard templates.

 

As you have already said - the ODP does not supply anything else but category structure + entries to Google. The PR is something that Google calculates, not something we supply. So a discussion ODP <-> Google about page rank issues would not make much sense...

 

The only idea I have, based on a similiar thread I read some weeks ago, is that the people answering feedback at Google don't really know what they are talking about.

 

And, looking from another way: Even if we could ive them a list of sites to blacklist (which is something we can't, simply because we don't have a list like that), those wouldn't be sites listed in the directory. Wouldn't make much sense to have a site penalized when it is good enough to be listed...

[rjv]

>the people answering feedback at Google don't really know what they are talking about.

 

well, I kinda got the same feeling, but I wanted to see if any in here was "aware of the problem", or aware of being contacted by google about such a problem.

 

" As you

may

know, the Google Directory is built on work done by the Open Directory

Project..."

 

...what a strange statement to make. Sounds like they are inferring the problem lies with you all, doesn't it? Just doesn't seem like something they would normally pull, when they could reply on the usual canned responses that don't put the blame on third parties, or are are at least factually correct.

[brmehlman]

I suspect what happened here is that your mention of "directory" in your mail to them triggered the template reply about their directory being based on dmoz.

[bobrat]

I've seen them send replies like that, when in fact RDF files [that's a copy of the DMOZ data] were available for them to upload, and they had not got around to processing them. I think it's part of a canned answer sent out when they don't know what else to say.

[hutcheson]

The reply makes sense to me. The Google directory IS built on the ODP data, and there IS a merge process to add pagerank, and there HAS BEEN at least one, um, "issue" in the way that merge has been done.

 

As for whether the site is banned, I'd take their word for it. (No point in asking someone a question and then not believing what they say -- it's the sort of thing that keeps one out of the vertebrata for the next umpteen incarnations, if you're Karmically inclined.)

 

So, what else would you expect them to say?

[rjv]

>So, what else would you expect them to say?

 

well, I really think that something bad happened to that site because it doesn't behave the way it should when being searched. For example, the category page is quite small, maybe 20 listings... I can do a 3 word search in just that category (on the title of the listing) and the site comes up last in the list of seven results, most of which only have one of the three words in the listing.

 

Essentially, the site is buried in the directory and in real search there. I've gone through the site with a fine tooth comb and it is totally on the level and good site, with unique content. This white bar is the only thing that is obviously wrong. So I have to ask if I'm in trouble because its the most logical and once we rule that out maybe we can get it sent to tech?

 

So if I'm not in trouble, how can I fix what ever happened to me? Is there anywhere I can petition here to see if anything can be done to at least see if I'm just caught in an unfortunate mistake?

[Alucard]

See, the problem is that the ODP has absolutely nothing to do with calculation of any Google ratings. As far as a listing in the directory is concerned, what you see in the ODP listing is what Google gets - nothing more.

 

So if the listing is in the ODP, and it is in the Google Directory in some form or another, that is about as far as anyone in the ODP can help you - the rest is 100% up to Google and their algos, which we are not privvy to.

[rjv]

right on, just wanted to make sure I really knew what I was talking about; this has nothing to do with odp, unless hutcheson knows something different. If so, maybe he has suggestions on where I can reach the right people to contact, or his suggestions... (?)

[rjv]

what does this mean:

 

"The Google directory IS built on the ODP data, and there IS a merge process to add pagerank, and there HAS BEEN at least one, um, "issue" in the way that merge has been done."

 

... sounds like a penalty to me

[hutcheson]

The issue that I know of has nothing whatsoever to do with any "penalty". It is merely the standardization of the process of canonicalizing URLs. We do it our way for our convenience; Google does it their way, which is not our way, and since I don't know what possible motive they could have, I'll naturally assume the entire company got together to design a canonicalization routine for the sole purpose of inconveniencing your marketing program.

 

Not.

 

Of course, there is no reason to suppose that there's only one issue with the merge; there could be others. Perhaps Google felt that, on the one hand, you were such a threat that they'd need multiple fail-safe approaches to blocking your site; and on the other hand, a display of an internal datum on a fairly-rarely-used directory page was an adequate defense against whatever nefarious schemes they thought you may have had for world domination.

 

But I personally find that scenario implausible. I doubt that of the 600,000 ODP categories, any Google employee actually looked at that one. I doubt that of the 4 BILLION pages with page rank, any Google employee has ever looked at any of yours, and would never have heard of your site if you hadn't written to them, and would be happy if they'd still never heard of it. For at least 3.9 billion of those pages, that is certainly the truth, and I can't imagine why you'd think your site was that different from those others.

 

(*) If what I thought of Google's motive for their canonicalization procedure mattered, which it doesn't, I'd probably think they chose to follow the redirection chain to the very end, to cut down on the number of PAGE aliases. And obviously the ODP strongly prefers to list a bare domain name followed by a slash, which is always one redirection away from the end, and sometimes multiple redirections -- but which buts down on the number of SITE aliases, thus simplifying OUR directory and site maintenance. Because, DUH, Google lists sites and we list pages. There's no evidence of a nefarious plot in either case -- even when (as in BOTH cases), specific URLs cause trouble for the algorithms or people involved.

[rjv]

ehehehehhhe you haven't changed a bit since jimworld:)

 

anyway, I'll reference this post in my response to them. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this if they look internally.

 

thanks

[giz]

>> The only idea I have, based on a similiar thread I read some weeks ago, is that the people answering feedback at Google don't really know what they are talking about.

 

I can quote a high rate of being sent the wrong canned answer in response to an enquiry.

 

For an oddity that affected the listing of the sites belonging to four friends earlier this year in the Google search, I got them to all write the same question (in fact they used almost identical words) to Google, all on the very same day. The responses were: "definately yes", "yes", "probably not", and "definately not" and were all received within a 24-hour timespan.