| 4:12 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
LOL I'm sorry I started this as it was a nasty dig at NeoSys that I should probably apologise for, but Iroquois is correct as it is French usage and, as with most tribal names, a phonetic rendering of the name the tribe called itself. You can verify this quite easily.
I'll stop now....sorry.
| 4:32 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
where can i check my listing's status on odp?
(after reading this whole topic im starting to feel i will never get listed)
| 5:17 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You're not trying to squeeze all the text and graphics from your site into that little submission form, are you? ;)
Uh..... :o No, no, no! I'm not that stoopid!
Ah, so that's why I never got listed... ;)
| 6:32 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This all just reinforces my opinion that ODP hasn't been relevant without Google for a couple years. Once Google realizes how corrupt and useless it is becoming, it will fade off and be eaten by the chaos that surrounds it now. Most categories I deal with are terrible with mis-information, old non-maintained sites, broken or redirecting links. Many sites included are owned by the editors and they keep any real competition out, at least in two cases I know of anyway.
This all would be fine if we were dealing with a junior high after school club, but too much still relies on this broken wheel with a great hub that can't hold onto the spokes anymore.
We need it on the net. I'm an ex-editor myself so it's sad but I can see the truth when I see it. I tried to help again and become an editor but was rejected with no reason given. At least let someone help with a small category and prove they are inept first. They can be ejected. Instead a corrupt base keeps most all applicants out while not getting the job done. It's like letting the kids starve without seeing who can use the can opener first. Doesn't do anyone of us any good in the long run. The same ones who keep others out of categories are burying themselves in a future of irrelevancy when the floor caves in below them.
| 8:11 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
where can i check my listing's status on odp?
I think the only way is to ask.
and ask in the Submissions forum
| 8:27 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've been a bit disappointed with DMOZ. They list a few of my minor sites. But then they have neglected my latest major one. Perhaps there is a good reason but I'd never know since they never respond to my emails. It's like a black hole.
Word of mouth from other developers I talk to has not been good either so the reaction in this thread doesn't surprise me.
A tip for DMOZ "senior editors": respond to submission-related emails or DMOZ reputation suffers.
| 10:21 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|If you take what serves and leave the rest, then you are only choosing what you want to hear. If we pick and choose our truth, then do we really know the Truth? |
Discernment and selective hearing are not one and the same.
As for Truth...
|"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes". - Mark Twain |
"The only Truth inherent in words spoken, merely by the saying of them, is that they've been said". - Dante
Truth is a fascinating subject, and while I would like to consider myself a sincere seeker of it, I would also consider that this is neither the forum, nor thread for it. ;)
Rather than furthering such abstract meanderings I'll return to the statement that prompted my mention of discernment in the first place...
|His comments have forever had a profound effect on my view toward ODP. |
NeoSys shared some strongly stated views.
No less than a half dozen other ODP editors have chimed in with significantly different perspectives.
Your view of a community numbering in the thousands has been profoundly altered by the anonymous posting by a solitary individual?
It seems the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. :)
As I stated before... you're free to make that choice.
I also admit that countless others make that same tyype of choice, based on the same limited criteria, each and every day.
In such situations I prefer to keep in mind that it's an individual moving the pen, not the entire community, of which they are but a part.
| 12:48 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I'm an ex-editor myself so it's sad but I can see the truth when I see it. I tried to help again and become an editor but was rejected with no reason given. At least let someone help with a small category and prove they are inept first. |
[This is strictly a general observation and not a comment on any specific ex-editor] An ex-editor who has been removed has already proven himself/herself unable to edit according to the guidelines. Such an ex-editor would not be given a second chance to cause more damage.
| 12:55 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
motsa: maybe he just stoped being editor due to personal reason (familly,baby, no time at that time etc).
| 1:01 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Very true. But reinstatement requests of that nature (timeouts, editors who quit due to Real Life issues, etc.) are usually accepted.
| 1:24 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
odp is far from dead - its very useful
anyone dropping in to this thread looking for guidance may also find these links useful...
guide to submitting to odp [laisha.com]
why is odp important [webmasterworld.com]
| 2:18 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
After reading this post yesterday I decided to apply to edit at DMOZ. I was rejected just a few minutes ago. Boy -that was quick.
I am absolutely qualified to edit for the category I requested. I guess they already have too many editors for this category!
| 2:39 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Try here to get in the door. [dmoz.org]
| 3:17 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
at least 5% of sites don't even exist any more, broken links everywhere
A lot of catergories don't even have editors and i know people apply
I've seen the exact same site listed twice with just different domains.
I've seen the sites listed in my own category and they are not that great. I can admit mine isn't the best yet in my category and i know other sites that are much better than those listed, some of my competitors sites.
In my opinion most editors are just editors to get their own sites in and sites of their friends. Somebody give me a percentage of editors who don't have their own sites listed. Because of this the directory is flawed. I'm all for a human directory but a fair one and one where it actually gets updated every once and awhile. Sites listed that don't exist, broken links everywhere, and categories without editors. Broken
| 4:25 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>7)If the site's not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editor's a good editor, he or she would thank you.
Question: Who would you send an email to if there is no editor for that category?
Also, the following is from the Public Forum by an ODP Editor. Please commit NeoSys
I have a site that is sitting in the queue and was told at the Public Forum by an ODP Editor that I am the only site awaiting review in that category and not to resubmit and if the site hasn't been listed in about a months time go back to thread and ask for status update.
PS... I think your post was awesome.
| 4:57 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks...I'm glad you thought the suggestions were useful.
About your question, just follow the level up. For example, if you're interested in this category that has no editor:
Then go up to this level:
Most likely, there will be an editor there. If not go another level up. Scroll down the page to view who the editors are.
| 5:02 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
About your second question, I don't know how other editors' turnaround time is like, but mines is two weeks. I think waiting a month is too long, much less months. Even if I operate on a monthly update, I surely wouldn't mind an email from a submitter.
| 6:01 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Good advice. However, you left out the part where I said it has only reinforced my views which began with other editors.
And about the whole truth point, I also wrote:
"If that is what you meant."
Nice message tho.
| 6:23 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This may be slightly off topic, but does anyone know where the red "affiliate of ..." boxes come from? Is that only available to super-editors or something?
| 6:30 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just wanted to point out from an ex-editor that telling people about the red highlights, and other insider info is grounds for removal. I understand you are trying to help people get listed, and I am all for that, but be careful not to accidentally leek inside info because you can wake up removed....trust me, this happens!
| 6:42 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Slud, you will find your answer at [webmasterworld.com...] (you may find the whole thread informative).
| 8:25 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"....But reinstatement requests of that nature (timeouts, editors who quit due to Real Life issues, etc.) are usually accepted......"
Just to clarify my own situation, I was an ODP editor of three categories from early 1997- through 1999. I believe I did well, enjoyed it and worked on it daily as it was a keen hobby interest. No money earning from it for me. I was even used as a knowledge source for CNN, RollingStone, Yahoo News and AOL. ODP probably couldn't have had any better person for it if I must say so.
Then I could no longer spend the time to do it properly so voluntarily resigned. You'd think that would be a good thing on the record rather than let it go and do one thing every few months like so many do today. I tried to come back to a couple of the same categories (no current editor) that I practically grew myself and was declined. The only changes in the categories in 2.5 years of my absence were several dead sites, two that don't belong there whatsoever and many great ones not added. I don't think this ghost editor is doing any better than I did when I had it.
| 9:34 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I believe ODP (i.e. Gnuhoo) accepted its first volunteer editors in June of 1998.
Reinstatements to specific categories are commensurate with the editor's qualifications to edit the category under present-day circumstances, not on the category's situation at the time of inactivity or voluntary resignation.
That is, someone who might have been granted, say, the Catholicism category in January of 1999 would scarcely be expected to understand all the changes, standards, or guidelines adopted in the making of the current Catholicism category -- not to mention about a tenfold increase in the number of sites listed. Someone requesting such a reinstatement would be advised to start first in an area of more limited scope.
After all, someone who was a departmental director at Quantum Computer Services wouldn't necessarily be qualified for a departmental director position at AOL Time Warner :).
Someone who might have accumulated an abusive record but was not discovered and expelled similarly would not be reinstated if s/he timed out. Some accommodation is made for rules made after the fact (for example, a longtime editor of MLM Independent Representatives categories could scarcely be criticized because the directory decided to ban them), but logs of self-interested edits to the exclusion of any other suggest a course the reinstated editor might take-- one no meta will chance to allow.
| 10:35 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed that many of you are complaining about the editors in some of the categories you are submitting your site to. I have also had this problem. I actually know the editor that controls most of the categories I submit my sites to. I have met this individual on more than one occasion and actually used to do business with him.
I am currently trying to gather information regarding this issue of DMOZ editors. If you ask any editor at DMOZ, they will tell you this problem is the exception that proves the rule. Well, I would like to prove to them that this is not an exception, it is actually more prevelant than they are willing to admit.
<snip>Not here, thanks</snip>
I'm willing to guess that about 15% of the categories have been accused of this problem. That sounds like more than an exception to me.
I dont care to post my story on this forum for fear of retaliation by DMOZ. But if you would like to hear mine, feel free to contact me directly.
[edited by: NFFC at 11:23 pm (utc) on Dec. 2, 2002]
[edit reason] As per charter [/edit]
| 11:40 pm on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I am currently trying to gather information regarding this issue of DMOZ editors. If you ask any editor at DMOZ, they will tell you this problem is the exception that proves the rule. Well, I would like to prove to them that this is not an exception, it is actually more prevelant than they are willing to admit. |
Your meaning seems to be (and motive) to prove others wrong - that a portion of DMOZ is corrupt rather than actually assisting DMOZ to get rid of bad apples by reporting.
|choster posted that: If you have experienced a competitor that has decided to delete, remove or simply deny your submission, please let me know. If you could also provide the category you are/have had a problem with, that would be very helpful. |
|I'm willing to guess that about 15% of the categories have been accused of this problem. That sounds like more than an exception to me. |
Don't guess at this - report such occurences - all guessing does is make a bad situation worst.
Incidentally, I personally have submitted listings to 368 categories for clients since April this year (and I am not an editor) 355 have been accepted, 6 were declined, 7 outstanding and probably sitting in the backlog... seem to me most of DMOZ is quite credible.
Although I will submit that this is a rather small sampling - but it sure beats "I'm willing to guess"
Adding my own personal view - if you are willing to complain (generalize) in open forum, back it up with private complaints to the people who can actually do something about this.
Short of doing this... we really have no complaints, since generalizing in a forum isn't going to make it go away.
|choster wrote: As to the charge that editors are deliberately deleting valid submissions, manipulating their or their competitor's listings, or engaging in some other scurrilous practice, I can only request that these situations be brought to the attention of a meta-editor or category moderator, those editors who have the "meta" flag but not the "root" flag on [dmoz.org...] |
This seems to me that DMOZ reps are making strides to remove this but they obviously can't do it without us.
[edited by: Laisha at 4:20 am (utc) on Dec. 3, 2002]
[edit reason] Per NFFC's note in the post above [/edit]
| 12:19 am on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for this information, Fathom.
I have actually done the exact thing you are asking. I contacted meta editors and provided them with my situation. I received no response, none. Finally, I followed up with one of the editors that just happens to be an editor that posted in this thread. Here is the response I received:
I passed along your note, but there really is nothing new to add or act upon.
The only thing this tells me is that my complaint was passed on to the editor that I was reporting. The question is, what do I do next? What I would like to do is gather information from other webmasters to share with DMOZ and have them actually admit to themselves and us that there is a flaw in their model. Dont get me wrong, I would much rather help DMOZ address this situation rather than simply point out flaws, but if I cant do that I may just try to open my own opinionated directory project.
| 12:46 am on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry to hear that kingarthur. Your original post seem to reflect a rather large conspiracy of editors promoting ill will.
If this however, is just one simply not listing your site, you may want to seek an outside unbiased opinion of your web site.
Adding... a while back there was a thread started by a member on this same topic. Many members offered advice, suggestions, and so on.
60 posts later - it was identified by a helpful editor that the site in question was an afiliate site for another site already listed in the DMOZ category.
The editor of category was not in the wrong -- the site listed was the site that should be listed, and the guidelines clearly state this fact.
The affiliate site could not receive a topical listing for "whatever", at best only an affilate listing (whether these are still available I do not know).
I have no idea of the actual circumstances behind your particular case... but in my experience for every unethical DMOZ editor there is, 10's of millions of web site owners are just as unethical.
If you are correct, be patient and persistent... and you will prevail.
| 1:09 am on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I for one am glad of this thread. It shows Dmoz is very much a crucial part of the SEO mindset, second only to Google, and there are are decent editors/metas here trying their best.
It also shows many people don't read the guidelines and I would suggest they do.
I have seen the amazing dedication of some of the dmoz metas. They have changed some of my cats listings and even removed one of my main sites.
I may not have always agreed but I can see why they did it. What other Dir or SE can you say this about?
| 5:29 am on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your concern, but it's really not necessary. Now, if I only understand the question regarding the red highlights, I'd answer it. :P What else would you expect from a guy who started it all with the 11 helpful (but perhaps taboo) tips?
| 3:45 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually I think *both* NeoSys and Kctipton are right, but for different reasons. I think NeoSys's list is the "worst case" list, and Keith's is the "ideal" list. As a *submitter* you should probably assume the worst, and as an editor you should aim towards the ideal.
Since everyone else is deconstructing NeoSys's list I think I will do too..
|1)No or little content = no addition. |
I'd add that you want to have UNIQUE content. Just copying or syndicating stuff won't fool anyone other than a newbie editor.
|2)The more subject specific the web site or page, the better. |
If you site covers multiple topics you might find it better to deeplink to the appropriate sections. (See WBW threads passim).
|3)I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, itíll show on the page. I reject such sites. |
Well.. a cobbled together site full of affiliate links will probably get rejected by any experienced editor. There are some cats which are primarily commercial, some which are informational. Choose carefully.
|4)Geocities sites are highlighted by DMOZ for regular review, probably because they tend to disappear. If you have a Geocities site, make sure itís updated regularly. |
Although I'd suggest that Geocities is amongst the least bad of the free website providers in terms of popups etc.
|5)Do not submit more than two times for the same domain. |
The more you submit, the less likely it is you'll get approved. If you've improved your site it's vitally important to say so when you resubmit it, else it might end up being considered spam in the worst case scenario.
|6)Long descriptions get chopped, always. The shorter the description, the better chance itíll be used as is. |
A good description is the SECOND most important element in your submission. Spend some serious time writing a good description that matches the guidelines, else a rushed editor may not put what you'd like.
|7)If the siteís not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editorís a good editor, he or she would thank you. |
If there's a LISTED editor I'd suggest an email after a few weeks, it not, then maybe try over at the ODP Public Forum.
|8)Submit to the right category, or itíll be passed around like a burning coal until itís deleted by some careless editor. |
This is the FIRST most important thing. I've seen submissions that are three and a half years old because they were submitted to the wrong category and sometimes over a year has passed between editors looking at them. It's really, really important to spend a LOT of time looking through the directory to find the correct category.
|9)Sites with its own domain are less likely to be rejected. |
Sad, but true. It's basically a psychology thing.. the first impression the editor will get will be your domain name. If the site is marginal for inclusion it may swing it in your favour, because it shows a commitment on your part to register a name and get proper hosting. More importantly, if your site is under construction or down for any reason the editor is less likely to assume that it's dead.
|10)If youíve been deleted from the list, kindly ask the editor why. Perhaps the site was down when the links were reviewed. |
I've been emailed in the past with the question "why did you delete my site" only to find that I hadn't and it had been swallowed up by a bug, so it was very worthwhile. If there's a listed editor then for heavens sake email them if you need to.
|11)Donít bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted. |
Errrmmm I would hope not, but you really need to get a good description in when you submit the site and then you won't have too worry about it.
My basic suggestion for site submitters is this -
- Take the time to submit to the correct category with a good description.
- Make sure your site is properly up and works properly, with all images and front page links working. Use a service like Megaproxy or Link Valet to be sure.
- Never submit a site "under construction". An editor might review and reject your site the next day - submissions are not "queued".
- Don't try to abuse the system because eventually you will be found out.
- Getting a domain and decent hosting will make a good impression to both editors and visitors. Don't try to use domain forwarding to a free host because that will get "stripped off" for technical reasons.
- Understand that there is a World category for non-English sites and an Adult category for sites with adult content.
- If you can PROVE editor abuse then REPORT it, else quit griping.
- Don't forget that the ODP Public Forum is the place to get SPECIFIC answers from editors and metas.
| 4:13 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|[RE: sites with their own domains] Sad, but true. It's basically a psychology thing.. the first impression the editor will get will be your domain name. If the site is marginal for inclusion it may swing it in your favour, because it shows a commitment on your part to register a name and get proper hosting. |
Personally, I would disagree with that statement. In this day and age of bulk registering where every Joe Blow can have a dozen hosted domains at rock bottom prices, the fact that a web site has (or doesn't have) its own domain means nothing (to me, anyway) in terms of commitment. I can't think of a single experience in my 2 1/2 years with the ODP where a marginal site has appeared better in my eyes because it had its own domain.
| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |