why can't I get listed in DMOZ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Search Engine Optimization and Web Business



Message

nashville1012 -> why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/12/2006 22:18:01)

Can anyone tell me why I cannot get my site listed in DMOZ.

I've submitted it several times (maybe 10 in the last 24 months), but nothing.

I'm sure I'm submitting it in the right category and my site is definitely worthy of inclusion (as judged by other sites in the category)

thanks,



dpf -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/12/2006 22:18:51)

quote:

as judged by other sites in the category)
you mean those sites judged yours as worthy?



nashville1012 -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/12/2006 22:21:18)

sorry, no, I mean that my site is definitely comparable to other sites that are listed in dmoz in my category.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/13/2006 1:14:18)

Search Google for Corrupt DMOZ... there are more complaint than you can shake a stick at....

Or, just visit -
How to Bribe a DMOZ Editor
Sabotage a Competitors DMOZ Listing
Getting into DMOZ in a few days

Just to keep it fair:
Whiney Submitters & Dmoz Editor Mobs

That said, why make such a fuss? Just fill out the DMOZ form > submit once > forget about it. If you get in great, if you don't - great. You don't need a DMOZ backlink to rank well.



Reflect -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/17/2006 9:07:41)

Again, I think you are off on your statement on METAs...

http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-319587/tm.htm#321413

Take care,

Brian



Ken of Kentropolis -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 13:14:12)

O

M

G

I had no idea DMOZ was that unstable and potentially biased. And I had no idea AOL/Time-Warner owned it. And most of all, I can't believe how non-chalant some people are about clearly unfair busienss practices, as if there was no such thing. What ignorant, evil people.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 13:32:30)

I was speaking with a well known Internet Marketer/SEO and he told me that he once sent a check for $1000 to a category editor thanking the editor for 'considering' his sites for inclusion. Prior to that check he couldn't get in - after the check he was included within a week.



Ken of Kentropolis -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 14:17:28)

What we need is a little transparency, i.e. people tattle-taling on both bribers and bribees. Once that precedent would be set on public forums, etc., the problem would dwindle drastically.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 15:28:19)

quote:

the problem would dwindle drastically


Only for non-creative people. What we need is no DMOZ. Who actually searches DMOZ for any reason other than looking for their sites or competitive sites?



Ken of Kentropolis -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 15:52:40)

You don't know?

DMOZ is a major contributor to listing in all the major and minor search engines. It doesn't matter if anyone uses it directly.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 16:05:23)

quote:

You don't know?


Ahem... yes, I do know, but my question was partly rhetorical. While many search engines use the results of DMOZ in some manner - Your site doesn't need to be listed in DMOZ to rank at the top of the big 3 search engines. Certainly, it can't hurt, but I haven't seen a situation where it couldn't be overcome.



Ken of Kentropolis -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 16:14:59)

I agree.

But from experience, when I used to submit sites to many lesser engines, they would just send me to what looked like an interactive form for DMOZ masked as part of their own system.

If I am correct, if you DO submit to DMOZ, when (if) you get listed, it saves you the time of submitting to many smaller engines individually. It's a lot of bases covered.

But of course, I submit separately to Google and a few others.



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 16:33:08)

Ahhh dear DMOZ. Mmmmmm well, I used to be an editor on there. I can safely say nobody offered me a bribe. Must've been doing something wrong. [&:] I'm sure there are some corrupt editors on there but I don't think that's your problem.

There are thousands of DMOZ Categories, sub cats and sub sub cats. Each one is supposed to have its own editor and each of those are managed by a senior editor (meta).

There just aren't enough editors.

Go to a DMOZ cat page and look at the bottom. If it says "volunteer to be an editor" then it means there isn't one. If you submit to that cat then the submission can be there for a very long time until a meta or a temporary cat editor comes along. If it's not one of the sexy subjects then that isn't going to happen.

Yes it's handy to get your site listed on DMOZ and it can be done but don't hold your breath. What worked for me was, having submitted the site three times in 6 months and each time getting just an error page, I emailed them and complained.

Why am I not an editor any more? Well I edited 3 pretty quiet cats. You have to log in every so many days to check for new submissions. I went off on holiday and came back one day too late. I'd been locked out. I mailed them but never received a reply and never got back in.

Given they're so short of people seems a rather odd thing to do but well, maybe that's why they lose so many. No skin off my nose. We didn't get paid, (or at least I didn't [8|] ), couldn't submit our own sites, had to declare affiliations to any sites as well as follow a host of other rules. I have other things to do with my time and other ways of getting my sites listed.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 16:51:44)

I never submit to any search engines. It's much faster to use backlinks to get indexed.

I also don't bother submitting to the smaller directories. If your site is of value they will eventually find you, but to go from nowhere to everywhere in a short time span that is an indicator of someone actively gaming their site.

quote:

you have to be very careful and really look into what directories you're putting your sites into

- Dave Naylor http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/

Here is a VERY GOOD Podcast Video from ShoeMoney
http://www.shoemoney.com/blogcast/Blogcast-3-27-2006.mov

I think verticle directories are good, but most of the small directories are useless even though the backlink count may help in MSN or Yahoo - for now. It's pretty easy for search engines to turn up or down the value of backlinks from directories. There are many leading SEOs who feel directory links are close to useless - UNLESS you are receiving quality traffic from the links.

quote:

If you're going to go directory submitting you need to do your due diligence and make sure you're in the right places

-- Oilman - http://www.oilman.ca/

Blasting a site to 1000 spammy directories isn't exercising due diligence.

quote:

That's the Golden Rule - If you're going to get clicks from the link in the directory - Do it. If you're doing it solely for link popularity in Google you'll find that site will get killed after a while.

-- Dave Naylor

Too many of the small directories are just garbage and the search engines know it. Even though I tend to take links from anywhere I can get them - I avoid most directory links.

Directories I try to be in:

Yahoo - It's worth the cost of admission
DMOZ - Fill out the application once and forget about it for a year
Business.com - Pay up.
sbd.bcentral.com - For $49 you can't go wrong

40 Top Directories Rated



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 17:14:35)

Oooh yes and one other thing. A lot of the editors on there are not exactly what you might call intelligent. There is a rule that a site can only be listed once and sites are considered to be spamming if they try to submit more than once. Now if you have someone with half a brain, they'll see you've submitted several times but are not yet listed so list one and kill the rest but if Gordon Jobsworth finds you then he'll just chuck you out and NO they don't have to contact you to tell you. I did as a courtesy to confused owners but there's no rule about it.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (4/19/2006 17:16:30)

quote:

but if Gordon Jobsworth finds you then he'll just chuck you out and NO they don't have to contact you to tell you.


Just another way to sabotage the competition.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/24/2006 10:13:26)

Hmm. This is so interesting that I had to reply. First, two questions for you, jaybee.

1. About how long has it been since you were last an editor?

2. For how long were you an editor?

The reason I ask these questions is because your information about Dmoz is completely wrong. I don't know if it's just outdated (i.e. you were an editor back in 2002 and your information is obsolete), or if you are/were misinformed about Dmoz.

Firstly, there are approximately 700,000 categories in Dmoz and about 8,000 active editors. There is a common myth (actually, there are several common myths, some of which are spread on this thread) on SEO forums that if a category doesn't have a listed editor then the category has no editor. That's not true. Every category has several editors. There are over 100 editors who can edit in every single category in the directory, plus listed editors higher in the category's tree can edit in every single category below them. So, no editor owns a category, no editor is assigned to a category, and no category is ever without an editor. As far as how each category is supposed to have its own editor, again wrong. Editors who might take an interest in a category's topic can also apply via the "volunteer" link, as well as non-editors, assuming the category isn't too large for a beginner. Also, there is no rule that says each category is supposed to be managed by a meta editor. Meta editors, just like regular editors, aren't assigned to manage a category or section of the directory. They and editalls have directory-wide permissions (excluding kids and teens which follows a different directory policy) to edit anywhere in the directory and look over anyone's category/edits and correct mistakes.

Again, there is no category without an editor. So, if you suggest your site to a category that doesn't have a listed editor then it means that someone from higher up the category tree will have to take an interest in editing sites in the category, or you'll wait for someone with directory wide permissions to come along and take an interest. Then, even if the category had a listed editor that in no way means a speedy review, because the listed editor may not be a very active editor, or he/she may have several categories they can edit in and choose to focus their time elsewhere. There are no "temporary category editors."

Secondly, editors don't have to log in "every so many days." (By the way it's not logging in, it's making an actual edit.) We are after all volunteers whose main lives (family, work, other hobbies) take precedence over editing. The minimum requirement for editors to stay active is 4 months; if an editor doesn't make one edit within a 4 month period then their account is automatically deactivated and they'll have to fill out a re-instatement form if they want to be an editor again.

Regarding the last paragraph of your first post, everyone isn't accepted as an editor for a variety of reasons. Some outright lie on their applications, don't declare all their affiliates, then they go to resource-zone and lie about it, or they show on their application that they aren't able to understand the kind of sites that should go into the category they applied to. Lets be honest, everyone isn't cut out to be an editor. You can also be dismissed as an editor if you're proven to do more harm than good; no one wants to go behind someone and have to clean up their mess. So, if anyone wants to become and editor for malicious reasons then their application will be rejected, but sometimes it's hard to spot the people that will be corrupt editors; sometimes they slip by.

Um, yes you can add your own site to the directory, assuming you have permissions to edit in that category. There is nothing in Dmoz editor policy that states editors can't add their own sites, in fact, it states the exact opposite. Also, when you're applying to become an editor 1 of the 3 sample sites you have to supply can be your own site, as long as you declare it as an affiliate. I know editors who became editors of a category and listed their site. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, there is something wrong if you begin screwing with your competitor's site or treating other sites unfairly; that alone (depending on what you're doing) could get your editing privileges revoked or get you a friendly reminder from a meta editor.

I read a thread on another website by an ex-editor who for the life of him (or so he claimed) couldn't figure out why he was locked out of his editor account. According to him he didn't do anything wrong to have his editor account revoked. Well, after listening to his BS a Dmoz admin. finally replied to the thread and said that editor accounts are not revoked without a good reason and proof and without meta consensus overseen by Dmoz admin. and it's usually because they're doing something they shouldn't be doing. Well, the ex-editor finally admits pages later that he probably listed a site or two that he didn't declare as an affiliate, but that he had "forgotten" about them because he's worked on a whole lot of sites (lol). What's to keep an editor from listing sites that shouldn't be listed, deeplink sites that shouldn't be deeplinked, or adding keywords to descriptions to give their sites a leg up on the competition, especially if no one knows you're affiliated with those sites? It will be easier for you to become a corrupt editor simply by listing sites that shouldn't be listed and in categories the site has no place being. Editor integrity is very important and if you lie on your application by not declaring you're affiliations, then expect it to be rejected. Do some people apply with the intentions of listing their own sites and keeping their competitors out? Yes, and sometimes they slip through the cracks, but most of the time they're caught before they're allowed to be an editor. Really, go to resource-zone and you'll see a few threads where people have said their application was rejected with a message to the effect of "you didn't declare all your affiliations, please don't apply again." Then they lie about it and claim to have declared them all. Believe me, Meta have ways of finding out which sites you own or have contributed to.

Here's a good example I saw at resoure-zone. A guy angrily started a thread at R-Z saying his application was rejected and couldn't understand why since he submitted the perfect application and has the professional qualities to edit the category. He then went on an tirade about how Dmoz doesn't really want editors who are competent enough to edit categories and blah, blah, blah, and that his application was perfect and how it's Dmoz's loss. Well, a meta editor finally had had enough of his outright lying on the thread and asked him 3 simple questions, one of which was "The category you applied to, is it the same category you submitted your site to but forgot to declare it as an affiliate on your editor application?" In other words, the guy hadn't declared all his affiliates on his application and was apparently applying to the category to get his site listed. Well, that meta's post was deleted by another meta because I assume it had too much information. It's always best to not let the liars know that you're on to their games. Apparently, this guy didn't see the meta's questions because he continued to post in the thread claiming to have his application for editor rejected without reason. One thing I've learned from visiting many SEO/webmaster forums is that people will lie to your face then claim ignorance when they're caught. I've only come across 2 ex-editors who have had the balls to admit that they were justly dismissed as editors for being corrupt. The rest will lie and claim they've never done anything wrong.

Those hosts of rules are in place to keep the integrity of the directory and its editors. Do those corrupt editors get accepted into the directory? Yes, they sometimes do a good job of fooling the meta who approved their editor application, but as soon as they're found out then their account is closed.

Regarding you're "mailing" them about having your editor account auto deactivated. I assume you mean e-mail them at staff@dmoz.org? Well, I guess you can imagine how much e-mail they get a day, and most likely they aren't going to respond simply because it opens them up to harassment. Ex-editors who want to resume editing have to fill out the editor re-instatement form. If you don't hear anything from them within 14 days then you can go to www.resource-zone.com and ask for an application status check. I don't know the link to the editor re-instatement form, but you can find it at Resource-zone.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/24/2006 11:23:46)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

Oooh yes and one other thing. A lot of the editors on there are not exactly what you might call intelligent.


Is that so? Hmm, I've seen nothing but intelligent conversation about ontology, where site should be listed, how to spot affiliates and the other types of sites that aren't listable, as well as intelligent conversation about other issues. So, I'm sure we're not talking about the same group of editors. Or did you even bother to visit the internal forums while you where an editor? You know, if there is something about Dmoz policy that one doesn't get then there is always an abundance of help through the internal forums, e-mails to specific editors, or using the mentor tool.

quote:



There is a rule that a site can only be listed once and sites are considered to be spamming if they try to submit more than once.


Wrong again. There is no rule that states sites can only be listed once. In fact, a lot of the bigger, more comprehensive sites are listed 1,000s of times. Search for "cnn.com" using the Dmoz search tool for just one example. The difference between sites that are substantially deeplinked and the average site is that deeplinked sites offer substantial information on more than one topic, so much so that different pages of that site can be listed in other more specific categories. For example IMDB.com has a lot of relevant, unique information on 1000s of TV shows, actors, producers, etc, that it can literally be deeplinked in categories 1000s of times for each actor and TV show. The reality is that most sites generally won't be deeplinked (listed more than once) because they don't offer enough unique content on different subjects. And, not to mention that sites that are written in more than one language (for instance, if a site has a version in English and German) then it can be submitted to the main directory, and to every part of the World/ category for which there is a language version for the site. And, businesses that have a physical address listed on their site can be listed twice in the directory. Once in a topical category like Shopping/ or Business/ and another link in a regional category under the locality (city/town) where the business is physically located. Those types of deeplinks are very common. I'm surprised you didn't know that or decided not to mention it in your post. [sm=rolleyes.gif]

Also, editors know that a person suggesting his/her site only a few times does not constitute it as spam (some editors without much editing experience will learn as they go). I dont know if you honestly don't know this or if you're exaggering some things. Editors know how many times a site has to be suggested in order for it to be labeled as spam. And, the only people who can technically label a site as spam are editalls, admin, and meta editors. Gordon Jobsworth can request a site be labeled as spam, but that's about all he can do. If Gordon is an edtall or higher then he can label it as spam but he can be overruled if many editors disagree with his decision. Plus, controversial issues are usally brought up on the internal forums so everyone can have a say on it. But, since you were an editor you should know all of this. Editors usually tell people to submit once and forget about it or *risk* being labeled as spam. There's nothing false about that statement. Multiple suggestions to many categories is spam, now how many times you have to suggest it is something editors don't readily tell people because the only ones who'll benefit from that information are the spammers.

quote:


Now if you have someone with half a brain, they'll see you've submitted several times but are not yet listed so list one and kill the rest but if Gordon Jobsworth finds you then he'll just chuck you out and NO they don't have to contact you to tell you. I did as a courtesy to confused owners but there's no rule about it.


Well, here's were the problem lies, as you've mentioned, you' were only the listed editor of 2-3 "small" categories. Would I be wrong to guess they weren't in some of the spammiest parts of the directory?

Firstly, it takes time to review a site. Every time a person resubmits his site then he automatically overwrites the date from the previous suggestion. That's a bad thing. If the editor is reviewing sites by date and you first suggested over a year ago, then suggested again, say, 3 months ago, well you're site will be at the end of the review pile instead of bunched in with the sites that were suggested over 1 year ago.

A guy who's ignorantly suggesting his site 6 or seven times isn't going to get priority over the people who followed Dmoz guidelines of submitting only once (yes, submit once and only once is part of Dmoz's submittal guidelines). But, why should he get priority? His site will be reviewed whenever an editor who's interested in the category comes along and review the sites. Not submitting multiple times to a category is a no-brainer to me. Submit once, maybe twice, then forget about it. You're site will be reviewed eventually. And, a site review does not mean it'll be listed (which is what you're implying when you say just review the site and list it). Also, some editors make a habit of going through unreviewed and removing the spam, duplicates, and affiliates. But, just because someone's duplicate suggestion was removed doesn't mean they're going to get a review, it just means their duplicates are being removed. Again, with you being a former editor and all you should know this.

Another reason why your *it's a no-brainer that if someone's suggested their site several times to go ahead and review it and list it* isn't going to work is due to one word and one word only "spam." Spam is suggesting a site several times to several categories. Why should someone review obvious spam? It's a waste of time, especially since the majority of it isn't listable anyway. It takes time to go through a category in shopping, business, and real estate to remove all the spam, masked affiliates, doorways, mirrors, drop-shippers, etc. Just curious, but do you know what affiliates, doorways, mirrors, and drop-shippers are as it pertains to Dmoz? Some of those sites are cleverly disguised to fool editors, so that's why it takes extra care and time to review a site in a spam ridden category. But, some editors don't look at the unreviewed because it's easier to look for sites on their own using search engines, message boards, and where ever else they might be listed. But, then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand unless you've ever edited in a spammy part of the directory, then and only then will you see that someone suggesting *it's a no-brainer that if someone submits their site several times to just review it and list it,* IMO doesn't really know what they're talking about, and it's not gonna happen. Also, you're assuming the site's listable, and you're assuming that the person going through the category doing quality control would be interested enough in the topic to review sites. Most likely it doesn't turn out that way, and I know from personal experience.

You're right. Editors don't have to tell anyone that their site was declined. In fact, it's encouraged by senior editors (editors who have been with Dmoz for a long time) not to respond to questions from submitters. In the past editors have been harassed through e-mail, called at work, threatened with physical violence all by angry webmasters. So, why would it be beneficial for editors to respond to e-mail? It's not. You can always send an editor feedback through their profile, but most likely they're not going to answer, although some editors don't mind answering, while others do. Dmoz does not send out rejection or acceptance e-mail to site suggesters. Also, you don't have to be the owner of a site to suggest it to Dmoz anyway. Then again, you don't even have to suggest your site in order for it to be listed. :D
[sm=rolleyes.gif] [sm=rolleyes.gif] [sm=rolleyes.gif]



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/24/2006 11:38:36)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashville1012

Can anyone tell me why I cannot get my site listed in DMOZ.

I've submitted it several times (maybe 10 in the last 24 months), but nothing.

I'm sure I'm submitting it in the right category and my site is definitely worthy of inclusion (as judged by other sites in the category)

thanks,


Hahah, here's a short answer for me. :-D

The most common reason a listable site isn't listed yet is because it hasn't been reviewed. Also, it depends on the category you suggested your site to. Spammy categories like those in shopping, business, and real estate could take much, much longer to be reviewed. Most likely reason is that editors don't like reviewing sites in spammy categories so they go out and find sites to add on their own. Then, maybe your site isn't listable and you don't know it. Sites that contain mostly affiliate links with very little original content aren't listable. If the content of your site can also be found elsewhere then you're site isn't listable. If you sell products that are sold on other sites across the net then you're site isn't listable. If you don't have a lot of content on your site then it's also not listable (insufficient content). I've had to reject a few sites for not having enough information. Also, keep in mind that if your site is hard to navigate, hard to read, has too many broken links and images then it's not listable. If an editor visits your site and your site is unavailable then they have a choice to delete it or leave it in unreviewed to check some time later (could be years). If the editor goes to your site and it keeps crashing their browser then it's not going to get reviewed. It'll get deleted if you're trying install some malicious virus or if your site alerts their virus softwars. I've run into all of the above while editing.

Another thing that might prevent your site from being listed is if it's a very large category then you're chances of being listed (even if your site is listable) will decrease. Your site will have to offer something unique that the other 200+ already listed sites don't offer.



thatguy -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/26/2006 16:27:31)

The biggest problem with DMOZ is that you cannot get any feedback. I did my best with one site to follow their guidelines (sumit once and forget about it). It is now two years later and I am still not listed. Luckily, back then you could still do site status checks so I know for sure that it was received but was not yet reviewed as of last year.

Now if it was reviewed since then and just not listable my only guess is that is wasn't enough content (not in my opinion but the only thing that I could even imagine would be possible). Recently I added some more content to my website. So then my question is: do I resubmit?

If I resubmit and it just wasn't reviewed, then I hurt myself by overwriting the date (cupcake said that was a "bad thing"). If my site was reviewed and previously rejected then I do want to resubmit now because I have new content added to my site that might convince the editor that it is now listable.

So now I need to know if the site was reviewed to know what my best option is in this case. And the way to acomplish that is to...um...ah...I...um... Well, I can't do site status checks. I can send something through their profile but I won't hear back. And I shouldn't try to contact them in any other way. So that leaves me with mind reading I suppose.

Can't there be any exceptions to the no communication rule? How about if a site is only submitted once and it has been a certain amount of time, then you can respond to reasonable sounding posts that are checking the status in the message board. Oh wait, that would be a site status check and that isn't done anymore.



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/26/2006 18:47:38)

[:)]

DMOZ doesn't drive traffic and you don't need it to rank highly for competitive terms...

They made themselves so elite that they no longer matter.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/26/2006 19:32:09)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mojo

[:)]

DMOZ doesn't drive traffic and you don't need it to rank highly for competitive terms...

They made themselves so elite that they no longer matter.


The perception of Dmoz is in the eye of the beholder. Dmoz in no way promotes iteself as bigger than the Internet. In fact, editors have been saying for forever that Dmoz is not that important and you don't need a Dmoz listing to get crawled by google or to get a high page rank. You don't need it. But, no matter how many times editors say it people still refuse to believe it and they themselves put Dmoz on a high stool. And, if you still go to SEO forums you'll see people talking about how you need to get your site listed with Dmoz in order for it to do well. That's not true. That perception is something Dmoz has no control over. So, editors didn't make Dmoz out to be this superior directory, it's the myths people spread about it on other forums.

BTW, speaking about traffic. It probably depends on which part of the directoy that your site is listed in. Some guy posted a screen shot (yeah, no one believed him until then, lol) of his monthly statistics where he's getting a lot of referals a month from Dmoz. I can't remember the exact number but it was a whole lot. His site is a non-commercial site listed in the video games section of the directory where he offers cheats and hits and all that good stuff.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/26/2006 19:42:34)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thatguy

The biggest problem with DMOZ is that you cannot get any feedback. I did my best with one site to follow their guidelines (submit once and forget about it). It is now two years later and I am still not listed. Luckily, back then you could still do site status checks so I know for sure that it was received but was not yet reviewed as of last year.

Now if it was reviewed since then and just not listable my only guess is that is wasn't enough content (not in my opinion but the only thing that I could even imagine would be possible). Recently I added some more content to my website. So then my question is: do I resubmit?

If I resubmit and it just wasn't reviewed, then I hurt myself by overwriting the date (cupcake said that was a "bad thing"). If my site was reviewed and previously rejected then I do want to resubmit now because I have new content added to my site that might convince the editor that it is now listable.

So now I need to know if the site was reviewed to know what my best option is in this case. And the way to accomplish that is to...um...ah...I...um... Well, I can't do site status checks. I can send something through their profile but I won't hear back. And I shouldn't try to contact them in any other way. So that leaves me with mind reading I suppose.

Can't there be any exceptions to the no communication rule? How about if a site is only submitted once and it has been a certain amount of time, then you can respond to reasonable sounding posts that are checking the status in the message board. Oh wait, that would be a site status check and that isn't done anymore.


thatguy, really it's not that important. That's why "submit and forget" is the unofficial motto. But, R-Z doesn't do site status checks anymore, but that doesn't mean editors are forbidden from giving them on other forums. In fact, it's virtually impossible for Dmoz to stop them. It can take over 2 years for a review. I've reviewed sites that were in unreviewed for 4 years (rare), and some will still sit in unreviewed because I chose not to list them for one reason or another unless another editor wants to list them.

Okay, technically there isn't a no-communication rule. Editors are encouraged from communicating with submitters, but if they want to then there's nothing to stop them. In fact, some editors do reply to e-mail. It's just that most won't. Read their profile, and if they say that they don't respond to e-mail then you can pretty much guess that you won't get a response. Personally, I don't mind respond to e-mail, but it depends on the tone of the e-mail. I've also sent e-mail to webmasters saying how they can improve their site to get a listing - it has nothing to do with changing the content, but more like clearing up dead links, graphics, making it more readable, etc. And all those things can get your site rejected.



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 7:47:39)

I could answer you point by point but I have paid work to do.

I can't remember when I signed up with them, it was a while ago. I was there before they brought in the affiliation requirement and got dropped about 6 months after that came in.

If there's one thing people that know me will tell you, I'm honest (too honest at times) and I play by the rules. Consequently as DMOZ editor I did what I was told to do, rigorously.

Yes, I went in the forums, yes I emailed webmasters to help them out, yes I put ALL my sites in the affiliates section, no I didn't drop sites of people I didn't like. No, I didn't disappear for over 4 months without editing. Yes I couldn't log in, yes I filled out the form, and emailed and never had the courtesy of a reply.

I understand why you're sticking up for DMOZ, I used to do it myself but the reality is that it's too big for the number of people who look after it. Submitters get riled because one site gets picked up quickly, others don't and no matter what you said in your first post about overseers for every category, you then confirmed my statement by saying that it can take years for people to get round to it or, if it's a spammy cat they may ignore it completely.

Basically it's luck of the draw and if it's a sexy cat then you're in if you follow the rules, otherwise don't hold your breath.

I like DMOZ. I like the idea, I like the controls (when they work), I still submit to it but they need to allocate the load better and not lose editors for stupid reasons as they did me.



Reflect -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 9:01:11)

quote:

It can take over 2 years for a review. I've reviewed sites that were in unreviewed for 4 years (rare), and some will still sit in unreviewed because I chose not to list them for one reason or another unless another editor wants to list them.


That says it all to me.

This is only my humble opinion but it states that the model is broke loud and clear. What's better is it's been this way. I know you folks volunteer, but even non-profit volunteer agencies have better communication guide lines and mandate work not to slide to this degree.

As was said above I submit once to the appropriate directory and forget about them. I will not stress over disorginization. By the way my wife does volunteer work and so do I for local charities, never volunteered for one that was managed in the above fashion.

This post most likely sounds like a slam but alas it is not. I am accepting the situation and choose not to stress that which will not get better.

Choose to pick through this post if you want. However it is only this persons opinion, being mine. I will NOT respond.

Take care,

Brian



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 13:49:45)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflect

That says it all to me.

This is only my humble opinion but it states that the model is broke loud and clear. What's better is it's been this way. I know you folks volunteer, but even non-profit volunteer agencies have better communication guide lines and mandate work not to slide to this degree.


My "work" as a Dmoz editor is to find quality sites to list, not go through the unreviewed pool. Suggested sites are only *one* way for editors to find sites, and we can choose to ignore the suggested sites if want and look for sites elsewhere. Reviewing suggested sites is not a Dmoz priority. Dmoz has no obligation to site suggesters, and it guarantees not time frame for reviewing sites. The communication guidelines are set in place, but if you're talking about communication guidelines for communicating with webmasters then Dmoz doesn't offer any and has not plans of offering any. In fact, this has been brought up a lot of times at R-Z and also on the internal forums, and it was decided that those skills are best left for other priorities, so that issue isn't going to be taken up again time soon. But, if you have a complaint as a *user* of the directory then go to R-Z and voice it. The editor will take your complaint seriously and consider if it's feasible for the directory or not. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. A woman asked at R-Z about creating a sub category for a certain medical condition. She was looking for sites about it and saw that it didn't have a category of its own. Some editors that edit in the health section of the directory responded and said they would look into and after a quick discussion of it on the internal forums they decided that a sub category for this medical condition was neccessary and even encouraged the woman to apply to edit the category for which she was accepted.

Now, if you have a complaint about the directory from a webmaster's perspective, then, yeah, you're not going to get the response you want to hear. Editors make no bones about not catering to webmasters. In fact, it's been said many times that webmasters are not a priority of Dmoz. Editors aren't obligated to communicate with people suggesting sites. Dmoz don't offer a service to webmasters, it only offers a "service" to people who use the directory and they are, and should be, Dmoz's only concern. Yes, Dmoz could easily send out automatic accept or reject e-mails, but instead they choose to focus those programming skills to make editing tools that will benefit the users of the directory (also, it's the editors that create some of those tools without getting paid). The directory *user* is Dmoz's number one priority. That's why quality control concerns are handled at a faster rate than suggestions. Editors can shout that point until they're blue in the face and some webmasters still won't understand. If what you mean by "broken" to be not offering priority, service, or having an obligation to webmasters then yes Dmoz would be broken, but Dmoz doesn't offer anything to webmasters. But, when it comes to Dmoz's user base, then it does what it does very well. The complaints about the directory being broken or whatever are webmaster-based complaints; Dmoz only cares about user-based complaints. Just think of it this way, when you suggest a site (could be yours or someone else's) you are, in effect, saying to Dmoz "here is a site that I think would be a good addition to your directory." That's all you're saying when you suggest a site, because Dmoz has no obligation to list sites, and it has no guaranteed time-frame for reviewing sites, although all sites will be reviewed - eventually. And, this is very important, editors don’t have to review sites, we can find sites on our own, through message boards, chat rooms, newspaper ads, TV commercials, search engines, etc. I hate to be redundant, but editors don’t have to look through unreviewed and sites in a spammy category can take much, much longer to review because no editor wants to spend time reviewing 100 sites if only 1 is listable; it’s easier to find sites for those categories through other means. That's why "mandate work" really doesn't apply in this way, especially since we don't have to look at the unreviewed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflect
As was said above I submit once to the appropriate directory and forget about them. I will not stress over disorginization. By the way my wife does volunteer work and so do I for local charities, never volunteered for one that was managed in the above fashion.


What works for one organization doesn't work for another, and that's why different organizations have different business models. I also volunteer my time offline, and instead of requiring at least 1 edit every 4 months the non-profit organization requires a minimum of 2 hours a week. What Dmoz does and requires of its editors works for Dmoz and Dmoz alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflect
This post most likely sounds like a slam but alas it is not. I am accepting the situation and choose not to stress that which will not get better.

Choose to pick through this post if you want. However it is only this persons opinion, being mine. I will NOT respond.

Take care,

Brian


Not taking it as a slam at all. When people (namely webmasters and SEO-types) complain that Dmoz is somehow broken they have this idea that Dmoz offers something it doesn't or is supposed to do something that it doesn't, and because it doens't do those things doesn't mean it's broken. If webmasters want a directory that would be obligated to them and offer them what they want then there are several directories where you can pay to have your site reviewed and/or listed, and Yahoo! is one them while Dmoz is not.



rdouglass -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 15:05:02)

cupcake,

You do seem to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to the editors. You can argue all you want about how 'right' all this stuff is but most of these posts regarding DMOZ and their attitudes and practices *do* have merit.

Your perspective seems to be full of perceptions of an 'insider' whereas all 'outsiders' are wrong since "we know what were doing and the rest of you folks do not." And you're spending a lot of effort justifying the DMOZ position.

Well, that's what happened to the Roman Empire when it became too complacent. Sometimes you folks have to step back down to earth and not take yourself so seriously or so righteously. You guys are human and hence are suceptible to human eror and mistakes just like everyone else. But then again, maybe the Emperor *does* have new clothes. [;)]

But I probably am too ignorant to be considered for an editor anyways so my viewpoints aren't valid. Oh well, on to bigger and better. [8|]

</$.02>



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 15:59:07)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

I could answer you point by point but I have paid work to do.


How nice. Well, besides my paying job, it just so happens that I've *chosen* to spend some of my free time editing for Dmoz.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
I can't remember when I signed up with them, it was a while ago. I was there before they brought in the affiliation requirement and got dropped about 6 months after that came in.

If there's one thing people that know me will tell you, I'm honest (too honest at times) and I play by the rules. Consequently as DMOZ editor I did what I was told to do, rigorously.


I never questioned your integrity, but I did question whether your information about Dmoz was up-to-date. I, too, do what I'm told to do as a Dmoz editor, assuming by "did what I was told to do" meaning you followed Dmoz listing guidelines, communication protocol and guidelines, etc. Other than that you pretty much have autonomy to work on your own and at your own pace, at in the categories in which you have priviliges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
Yes, I went in the forums, yes I emailed webmasters to help them out, yes I put ALL my sites in the affiliates section, no I didn't drop sites of people I didn't like.


Well, you've went above and beyound the call of duty, lol. But, so do a lot of editors. Again, it's up to the individual editor on whether they want to respond to submitters or not. And you know what? I've also listed sites from people who have respectfully inquired on other forums about why their site hasn't been listed. So have other editors. I can give several examples of this. I've seen where editors have added and/or deep linked sites from people who inquired about thier site's status. One guy got compliments about his site from several different editors and his site was quickly added to the directory and deep linked. But, usually those sites are very exeptional in the editor's eyes. Also, editors have given people reviews and told them why their site won't be added to the directory (again, this doesn't happen at R-Z). But, there's also a down side to complaining about your site not being listed. I can find several examples at R-Z alone where people have complained and have had their site removed from the directory. An example, a woman went to R-Z to complain to about how she didn't like the title that was given to her site. Usually, editors don't look at people's sites when they complain at R-Z because we don't want to give them preferential treatment that if they complain at R-Z then they'll get a speedy review. Well, this woman complain so much that a few editors did take the time to look at her site. Guess what? They found that her site wasn't even listable because her content wasn't unique; Her site's content was copied from other sites, so her site was promptly removed. Then, she sent a few editors some e-mail complaining about how they have ruined her life, in so many words.


But, hopefully, you can understand why editors who can edit in the spammy categories will choose not communicate with webmasters. Threats and harassement are real. Editors have been called on their home and work phones and harassed by e-mail from angry webmasters, and some have been threatened with physical violence. Not to mention that editors are harassed by other editors (very, very rare) whose editing priviliges are then revoked for breaking the communication guidelines. Oh, I can think of a very good example of editor-to-editor harassement (can't relate much information about it because of editor communication guidelines), and it was all because one editor's site was removed from the directory by another editor. But, those are very good reasons why editors are discouraged from communicating with webmasters, especially in the commercial categories. Also, editors aren't supposed to delete sites because they don't like them. IMO, this is more of a problem with the new editors who aren't aquainted with the Dmoz guidelines. And, contrary to popular SEO-type opinions editors *are* told that if a site is listable then they should list it whether or not they think it's a scam, badly designed, or whatever; it comes up way to many times on the internal forums.

A lot of editors list sites they don't like. I've listed sites that I didn't like and will never visit again unless it's time to rereview them. I've seen some of the uglist sites, but I've listed them because they were listable. I've listed sites whose content I've disagreed with. Editors aren't supposed to "drop sites they disagree with," either. IMO, this is mostly a problem with new editors who haven't gotten aquainted with editor guidelines. Editors are quickly told that just because they don't like a site doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed; if it's listable then list it. It comes up a lot on the internal forums where an editor will ask whether or not they should list a site because it has incorrect information about the subject, or because they think it's a scam, and those editors will quickly be told that Dmoz is not the Internet police and if those sites are listable according to Dmoz guidelines then they should be listed, regardless of the editor's opinion of them. It happens all the time, but mistakes are made. When I was a new editor I listed sites that shouldn't have been listed and I deleted sites that shouldn't have been deleted, but there was always an editor who corrected my mistakes. As you know, editors can see each others edits and it doesn't matter if you're a new editor or a meta editor.

quote:


No, I didn't disappear for over 4 months without editing. Yes I couldn't log in, yes I filled out the form, and emailed and never had the courtesy of a reply.


So, are you saying that you were removed as editor, or did you just time out? From your first post I assumed that you timed out, which is what happens automatically when an editor doesn't edit within a 4 month time frame. I'm very familiar with people being locked out of their accounts when their editing priviliges are revoked, that's done with meta consensus, and, according to them, not without reason. I agree with you that they should at least send you the courtesy of a rejection e-mail. As I understand it they only send rejection mail to people who apply as a new editor, and not for re-instatement. I've seen a few posts recently at R-Z where to former editors asked for an application status check and were told it was declined and that there is no appeals process in place because the decision is final. And, they don't tell people why they were removed as editor either. And, meta have caught ex-editors trying to scam their way back into the directory after they were dismissed. But, keep in mind that your editing priviliges can be revoked for a number of reasons, and not just for wrong doing. If you break editor communication guidelines, having two editor accounts, being disrespectful to meta, admin, and other editors, and being an overall bad editor. I'm sure there are more. I once took over a category where I had to go through all the listed sites and rewrite the descriptions and titles. Not one single site listed in this category was described according to Dmoz guidelines. Well, I looked at the editing history of the category and saw the the previous editor got his account revoked, and I also looked at some of his edits and saw that he was a completely terrible editor, lol. Now, I can only surmise that he got locked out of his account for bad editing (doing more harm than good), but since I'm not a meta I'm not privy to their private forums where they discuss such matters, and he could have been locked out for not declaring all his affiliations or for tampering with competitors sites.

And, to just give an example of how seriously Dmoz take complaints of editor abuse, I recently visited a forum where an ex-editor complained about having her account revoked and how she really did nothing wrong. She edited in a commercial category and she said that one webmasters kept harassing her about his site (I think she deleted it or something). She said she responded politely to his e-mail about why his site was deleted. She also had a site of her own listed in the category. The guy filled out an abuse report against the editor (http://abuse-report.dmoz.org) and the editor stated that a few weeks after she deleted his site she began getting hits to her site from the meta editors forums and shortly after that she was locked out of her account without a reason. And, to make matters worse, she looked in the category a short time later and saw that they guy's site was listed. She then used the update URL link to report his site as not being listable, and his site was removed for a second time shortly after that. So maybe she did have a good reason for deleting site, or maybe not. Either way, this is just one example of many of editors being held accountable for their actions. But, most of the time when someone files an abuse report against an editor it turns out that nothing is happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
Submitters get riled because one site gets picked up quickly, others don't and no matter what you said in your first post about overseers for every category, you then confirmed my statement by saying that it can take years for people to get round to it or, if it's a spammy cat they may ignore it completely.



How did I confirm your statement? You stated it as a fact that editors are assigned to categories, or that every category should have a listed editors or something. I'm just saying that that's not true. People in a higher category tree can edit every category below so no category is ever without an editor. BTW, editors aren't assigned to categories they volunteer for cats that interest them. To say that editors are assigned to categories is like a Dmoz meta or admin telling me that I have to edit in a certain part of the directory/category even if I don't want to. Again, suggestions are only one way to find listable sites. Editors Do Not have to look through unreviewed. Some people may not like that, but mostly those are webmaster-based complaints and not user-based complaints.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
Basically it's luck of the draw and if it's a sexy cat then you're in if you follow the rules, otherwise don't hold your breath.

I like DMOZ. I like the idea, I like the controls (when they work), I still submit to it but they need to allocate the load better and not lose editors for stupid reasons as they did me.


You're right, getting a site reviewed is completely random. It depends on if an editor takes a liking to that category, whether they choose to look through the unreviewed pool, and if they do, what order they decided to review sites in (by date or whatever).

Again, with the allocation. That's going back to the points I've already made. Editors aren't assigned categories and reviewing sites isn't a priority, therefor there is not "backlog" of sites waiting to be reviewed, because that's working under the false assumption that editors have to review suggested sites. I know I've used suggested and submitted interchangably, but there is a small difference technically, and I understand Dmoz is working on it the wording of some of it's documents. Suggest a site is just that. You're suggesting a site to the directory and hoping that editors find it as worthy of an addition as you. While submitting implies some kind of requirement.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 16:21:43)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass

cupcake,

You do seem to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to the editors. You can argue all you want about how 'right' all this stuff is but most of these posts regarding DMOZ and their attitudes and practices *do* have merit.

Your perspective seems to be full of perceptions of an 'insider' whereas all 'outsiders' are wrong since "we know what were doing and the rest of you folks do not." And you're spending a lot of effort justifying the DMOZ position.

Well, that's what happened to the Roman Empire when it became too complacent. Sometimes you folks have to step back down to earth and not take yourself so seriously or so righteously. You guys are human and hence are suceptible to human eror and mistakes just like everyone else. But then again, maybe the Emperor *does* have new clothes. [;)]

But I probably am too ignorant to be considered for an editor anyways so my viewpoints aren't valid. Oh well, on to bigger and better. [8|]

</$.02>


Well, that's arrogant to suggest that editors think lowly of webmasters, lol. What has merit? That fact that webmasters want Dmoz to do things that it doesn't do and have no plans of doing. I agree. Those webmaster complaints do have merit. I'm not going to lie. They want Dmoz to review sites in a speedy manner and make suggestions a priority. And you know what? Dmoz, doesn't do those things. Some even want Dmoz to start a paid directory. That's not going to happen either. Their complaints are valid, but also insignificant. You can complain alot about a directory that doesn't offer you the service that you think it should offer. I'll say it ever so bluntly, Dmoz doesn't give a hoot about webmaster's concerns.

Please enlighten me about how I'm the exeption rather than the norm. The good thing is that I do communicate with editors on a weekly basis. I do see the internal workings of the ODP, that's what puts me in a position to say "you're wrong," and because I *really* do know. There are so many fallacies going around about Dmoz on other forums and you know what? Most of those people have one thing in common: they're webmasters, and you know what else? They're not Dmoz number one priority. You have a group of people complaining because Dmoz doen't offer them what they want it to offer. Also, it's very hard to an editor to keep a competitor's site out of the directory, simply because no one editor owns a category. Any editor with directory-wide priviliges, or listed editors in higher categories, can add a site to that category. I have a lot of categories where other editors will add sites to it, delete sites, move sites to other categories - even though I'm the listed editor and they're not.

Agian, Dmoz editors do not take themselves too seriously. It's the webmasters who take the directory too seriously. How people percieve Dmoz is their responsibility and has nothing to do with Dmoz pretending to be bigger than it actually is. The only point of concern for Dmoz would be if user of the directory started to complain, then that would be something to take seriously.

Also, yes, I'm enjoying spending my time at this thread on this website and talking about a topic I like talking about. That's what I want and chose to do with my free time. Tomorrow I might play a little solitar with others over the Internet, and after that I might work on my website. Oh, which brings me to another point I am able to see Dmoz from a webmaster and editor point-of-view (insiders/outsiders comment). So, I can see both sides of the issue, but the difference is that I know that as a webmaster Dmoz doesn't have to cater to me and offer my site a speedy review. In fact, my site has been waiting for years to be included in the directory, but I haven't worried about it in a very long time, especially since I know where Dmoz stands as it pertains to webmasters. In other words, submitters complaints about Dmoz would be with merit if Dmoz's number one priority was catering to webmasters. I would take what I read in a webmaster forum with a grain of salt as a lot of myths about Dmoz float around in those areas - mostly from upset webmasters who can't get thier site listed quickly enough.

But, if the corruption factor has merit then why is it that most complaints about editor abuse is found to not be true (it's taken very seriously whether you chose to believe it or not)? Mostly it's people who don't understand the reasons why their site isn't listed who can only think of one reason why that's so and not all the other reasons why. Which, as editors, we can name you a handful of reason why, most notably because it hasn't been reviewed. But, I have met very few webmasters who complain about editor abuse and who actually prove it.

Also, how haughty to compare Dmoz to the Roman Empire, lol. Again, perception is in the eye of the beholder.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 16:27:13)

My, what long posts I have. Maybe I should apply for most long-winded ODP editor when the next mozzies come around. ;)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.171875