| 9:49 pm on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Become an editor. Apply to become an editor. Think about what they want to see while submitting.
| 10:45 pm on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Why does anyone even bother with DMOZ anymore? |
Lots of people probably just submit, forget about it and maybe resubmit or check on the site 3-4 months later. There are more productive things to do than sweat out a dmoz listing.
| 10:51 pm on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Become an editor. Apply to become an editor.<<
People that have their own businesses may not have time to be an editor. They maybe spending time creating their own quality content to bypass the need for a DMOZ listing by getting links from people that have many listings in DMOZ already.
It's funny that NASA, 2 large Universities, 2 state web sites and 3 major mags. in my subject area put links to my page without me asking, but in 1 1/2 years, I can't get a 'deep' listing in DMOZ. Duh!
| 10:55 pm on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hang in there. I was pleasantly surprised last night to see a referral from a dmoz clone to my new website. I checked in dmoz and sure enough, it was a keyword rich deep link to one of my pages.
| 11:01 pm on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Think about what they want to see while submitting.
I just got a new site listed in a few days. It's non-commercial and I did it all in shades of DMOZ green. ;)
Hint: A while back, I had another new site listed in DMOZ w/o submitting; it was in my WW profile. :)
| 6:24 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Only 4 months? There are a lot of sites been waiting up to a year. A lot of sites get listed in day. 2000-4000 sites get listed every day.
Asking at resource zone will not speed it up.
Don't forget its a free listing.
| 7:25 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|People that have their own businesses may not have time to be an editor. |
If you are not an editor, then you are passively dependent on other people -- volunteers -- to create and maintain the categories you are interested in.
It seems silly not to be an editor.
It seems even sillier to grumble (and I know you didn't jim_w, so this isn't aimed at you) that the people who are volunteering don't share your priorities and won't work for you for free.
| 11:10 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A year, is that all? Try two years and counting! And, it's not a cat that would be prone to spam either. Very disappointing, but life goes on.
| 8:51 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If you are not an editor, then you are passively dependent on other people -- volunteers -- to create and maintain the categories you are interested in. |
It seems silly not to be an editor.
Gee, victor, you're really asking for a talking-to from the DMOZ metas for that. Suggesting that people should become editors to get their sites into the directory?
| 9:08 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think so! "to create and maintain the categories you are interested in." is what any editor does.
Anyone with any marketing sense wants as many good sites in DMOZ for their categories of commercial interest as possible. It's called growing the market.
The idea that if DMOZ doesn't list site X and Y that is somehow better for site Z is just plain silly. No one would willingly use a supermarket that sold only one type of bread, just as no one would use a directory that listed only one site.
The bigger DMOZ is, and the higher quality it is, the better for everyone. That's simple commercial sense -- and it's what editors want too.
Most website owners do close to zero effective marketing -- they are too closely focused on fighting each other for the same customers. It's like a casino where the croupiers hussle for business at their table from the punters that come through the door without ever realising that 99% of the population never even enter the building.
That's why we get long discussions about whether it is worth supporting non-IE browsers when 95% of site visitors use IE. It's a pointless argument while (for most sites) 99.999% of potential customers never even click near the site.
Effective marketing includes collaberative exercises to grow the whole market.
If you are in anyway associated with wanting to make the Internet a better place to find information or to do business, then it is silly not to be a DMOZ editor.
There! I said it again.
| 10:30 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's been a couple of months since the last time I made a submission to DMOZ. Since then, I have had an entry in my referral logs from http*://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev2.cgi
Does this mean the editor's looked at my site? It's only been a couple of months for me. Maybe you can check your referral logs to see if they've taken a look at your site.
Re becoming an editor, I have to confess that I would have a hard time being impartial as an editor, given my competitive nature :) Vive Le Capitalisme! ;)
| 10:52 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
korkus2000 on msg #:2 - [webmasterworld.com...]
|If you see the editunrev2.cgi in your logs and you are not in the cat your site is either on hold for more content, deleted, or being moved to a new catagory. |
Unfortunately not so good news for ya .... :/
| 11:05 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The problem isn't DMOZ. You can't blame them for being so slow to update many indexes.
The problem is that Google uses their information for its directory. Who really gets referals from DMOZ any way?
| 12:12 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would imagine MANY referrals come from DMOZ, whether it be direct or from one of their mirrors.
| 12:15 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Who really gets referals from DMOZ any way?"
I got one last week.
| 1:37 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>If you see the editunrev2.cgi in your logs and you are not in the cat your site is either on hold for more content, deleted, or being moved to a new catagory.
There are other possibilities. One that comes immediately to mind is that an editor may be doing a quick check of all sites in unreviewed looking for spam to blow away, and sites that are submitted to the wrong cat to move them. Thus, your site gets a quick look over, and if it seems reasonable it is kept in unreviewed for a later, more thorough examination.
| 2:16 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't deny that an ODP listing really give a good boost to your Google ranking. That secondary impact is by far and away the main benefit of getting listed in DMOZ.
However, I've never seen DMOZ crack the top 50 of my referal sources on three sites.
| 3:15 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you see the editunrev2.cgi in your logs and you are not in the cat your site is either on hold for more content, deleted, or being moved to a new catagory.
Yikes.. why would they do that? I have good content and submitted to a relevant category... curious.
| 7:53 pm on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It could have been peeked at, nothing more.
| 10:55 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can someone please tell me what exactly is going on with Dmoz?
I submitted my website back in Feb 2003 and still nothing.
I just do not understand what's going on.
My category has no editor so I volunteered to help only to be turned down.
It almost appears that there is a monopoly on certain categories keeping the new guys off the directory by design.
I know this is probably not the case but it is very frustrating.
| 12:38 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My problem is that Google uses them. My only concern is Google, and the boost in page rank you may receive due to being listed in Dmoz.
It is obvious through many of the posts at WebmasterWorld that Dmoz is not a reliable directory for anyone seeking to promote a website (for profit or non-profit) because no matter how relevent, well-done, popular, or exceptional your site may be, there is nothing you can do to include your site in the directory if they don't want you in the directory.
And by "they", I mean some editor you are not supposed to contact to explain why you think your site should be listed in the directory.
Conversely, I have contacted Zeal editors numerous times and although on occasion they have not fully agreed with a submission or request, they respond with professionalism, sincerity, and I have no complaints to this day.
The statement many people make about it being a "Volunteer" directory is not sufficient, as Zeal is also a volunteer directory, just run much better.
As for quality of listings, I can't say I enjoy Dmoz results any more than I do Zeal results.
I hope in the future Google follows Yahoo! or Zeal. I don't mind paying for submissions as long as there is some way for me to promote a site I believe is perfectly legitimate.
In regards to an attempt at submission, I have found that if you give the editor a reason to add your submission, it may propagate it quicker.
Contact the editor (even though you're not supposed to) and include some more sites you think are relevent to the same category. Sites you are not affiliated with, and at the bottom of the email point out that you also submitted a site of yours a while back and would appreciate it if they could take a look at it.
Other than that, I have no tips.
| 12:55 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It is obvious through many of the posts at WebmasterWorld that Dmoz is not a reliable directory for anyone seeking to promote a website
Yes, that's absolutely correct. It is not the purpose of the ODP to be a promotional tool.
include some more sites you think are relevent to the same category. Sites you are not affiliated with, and at the bottom of the email point out that you also submitted a site of yours a while back and would appreciate it if they could take a look at it.
That's an interesting and potentially powerful idea. It means that you're really helping the editors in the task they have volunteered for. Sometimes just being helpful will result in better success than a number of other things you could try.
| 1:07 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No-one said you're not supposed to contact an editor - often this is a valuable way to highlight problem listings in a category for example. Some editors will sometimes answer your post - especially if it is polite and helpful, less likely if it is just "please just pop into my category and list my site". However, you will understand that many webmasters get annoyed with the sometime slowness of the dmoz processing system and enter into less than pleasant conversation and occasionally spam attacks, so many editors have chosen not to reply to most e-mail for this reason.
With the lower number of submissions at Zeal, it's perhaps possible for an editor to check out a site if they receive a prompting e-mail. However at dmoz, it's considered unreasonable to allow one webmaster to the front of the (generally much longer) queue just because they were the most vocal one. Also, if e-mailing the editor was a legitimate way to get your site listed faster, all the editors would soon be receiving dozens or hundreds of site listing requests in their inboxes every day and that's clearly not going to increase their editing speed. It's for the same reason that posting at RZ can only inform you of your site status but can't facilitate the listing of your site directly.
| 1:32 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why does anyone even bother with DMOZ anymore?
I agree i was in dmoz for about 3 weeks then just disapered That was 6 months ago. Im still havnt been relisted till this day!
Dmoz is a Drag!
| 2:40 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You aren't supposed to contact editors in regards to their categories. The contact form states:
"Note: Do NOT use this form to send URL suggestions
or updates to editors. Use the Add URL or Update URL
links from the category page instead. Thank you."
Any URLs you would suggest would be suggestions, and any changes would be updates.
So anyone contacting an editor with any information pertaining to their own site would be a violation of DMOZ rules.
However, having to resort to pacifying editors in order to propagate getting in the directory is again an extremely business oriented idea, even though DMOZ is supposed to be free.
It's a method of shmoozing... figuring out ways to shmooze the editor in question without breaking rules, or at least so it doesn't appear that you are trying to break rules. If you don't have adequate social skills (which many webmasters lack :-) you are just out of luck, which to me obstructs the ability for a directory to be formed of good ideas, not just ideas that are presented well.
| 3:13 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There's an old shopkeeper's adage, goes something like "Everyone wants three things from my service: they want it good, they want it cheap, and they want it fast. I tell them to pick two and call me back." (-:
The ODP provides valuable, free listings, but you have to put up with the volunteer timescale. On the other hand, the Yahoo directory will give you a valuable, fast listing, but it'll cost you. There are plenty of places to get marginally useful links fast and free. But I don't think there's ever going to be anyone giving out listings that are valuable AND free AND fast, for the same reason the original adage is still in play. (-:
| 3:17 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, except for Google.
Fast, Free, and good.
I don't believe in "sayings".
| 3:31 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If there was some policy against contacting editors, then why would Dmoz put a link to contact the editor in each editor profile?
If you have a good site and submit according to the guidelines a polite note to the editor at least shows you care enough to follow up on the submission. If yours is one of the reportedly few listings in the unreviewed queue tht writes a compliant title and description, seems like its worth a shot contacting an editor.
| 3:41 am on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't fully understand what you are asking. That is a policy, which is why I placed it in quotes. If you attempt to contact any editors, you will see that warning above the contact form.
A note, polite or not, is not permitted if it relates to your site submission.
| This 212 message thread spans 8 pages: 212 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ) > > |