homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.182.118
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 ( [1] 2 > >     
Getting established site listed in DMOZ?
Something funny going on...
jc2005

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 1:13 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi folks.

I run a pretty established site. Google PR of 7, 200K+ pages server each month and regarded by many as one of the most useful online resources in its sector.

However, the submission editor at DMOZ appears to have some hidden agenda, and has failed to list the site, even though it satisfies *all* of the criteria and is a heck of a lot more functional and useful than other sites which have been listed.

Any ideas how to proceed? I fear that the editor has some axe to grind but I can't think what. I feel that not being listed in DMOZ hurts my site's visibility in the world stage (even though for its generic SE phrase it ranks at #1 on Google).

John

 

skibum

WebmasterWorld Administrator skibum us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 5:32 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

John - The folks at Dmoz don't care about PageRank or page views or any of that stuff. If you've got a good site, chances are it's just sitting in unreviewed waiting for a review. If you've got that much traffic and a decent PR already dmoz won't do much for you. Best bet is to forget about it and maybe submit again 4-6 months down the road.

uzs980

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 8:58 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

As you probably know, some editors of the Open Directory Project run a public forum, where you can check the status of your submission.

martingale

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 9:28 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Did they reject your site or is it just taking forever?

kctipton

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 3:27 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

appears to have some hidden agenda

Is that all you can think of as a reason to not see your site in bright lights?

BillyS

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 5:25 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Search under the term "resource zone dmoz" the forum allows you to check the status of a submission.

There are certain "rules" you need to be aware of, for example do not keep submitting to the category. The process I use is this:

Submit
Wait 2 weeks
Check the status in the zone - they will tell you if they have the submission.
If they have it, all you can do is wait.

You can check resource zone every 6 months to see how it is doing. If it has been rejected, they will usually explain why.

jimnoble

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 6:17 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Wait 2 weeks

That would be a month actually. You won't get an answer to a status enquiry before then.

benevolent001

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 6:33 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

i am too facing similar problem

i asked status of my listing about 6 months back and they asked me to come in this feb 28 to ask back status

two days before i went to there forum and they said nothing but to come after more six months....they dont give any reason but seems some editors are not doing there job finely

does any one know to whom to contact any head of these editors

jimnoble

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 6:51 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

They actually said
I see no change in status in your suggestion.
which implies that it's still awaiting review.

The news could have been much worse.

troels nybo nielsen

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 7:05 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

> the submission editor at DMOZ appears to have some hidden agenda, and has failed to list the site

I know very little about DMOZ, but I do know that each single category may be edited by many different editors. If one editor "fails" to list a site it is still possible for one of the many others to list it.

Pedent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 9:21 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

... each single category may be edited by many different editors. If one editor "fails" to list a site it is still possible for one of the many others to list it.

Only if you make multiple submissions to multiple categories, which is very, very strongly discouraged.

troels nybo nielsen

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 10:23 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Eh?

pmkpmk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 10:29 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's considered as SPAM and very frowned upon!

kevinpate

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 10:39 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

> Only if you make multiple submissions to
> multiple categories

I think you misunderstood. No one in this thread suggested multiple submissions was a good idea.

What was suggested is that any category you can think of has more than just 1 editor, and that includes the categories that do not have any editor listed at all. Many editors have editing rights in multiple categories even though they are not listed in every category.

The point being made is that it's not really possible for 1 editor to have a successful hidden agenda to keep a site from being listed because he or she is never the only editor with access.

As an old saw goes ...
when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

pmkpmk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 11:46 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point being made is that it's not really possible for 1 editor to have a successful hidden agenda to keep a site from being listed because he or she is never the only editor with access.

Do you have any idea on the amount of work which editing a few categories means? I recently took over a category with about a dozen sub- and sub-sub-categories which had ~350 sites listed and ~650 sites in the backlog. Another category I took over a week ago had 45 sites listed and slightly less than 100 in the backlog. I had to create 5 subcategories to sort them appropriately. NOBODY else is looking into these categories!

As soon as you have proven with a few minor categories that you can edit and seem to be honest, you are left alone! There is a tremendous lack of editors, and once you have proven that you can do it, you get more responsibility and more work as you may probably wish for!

If somebody HAS a hidden agenda, he/she can go undetected for a very long time, if he/she is not too dumb. Fortunately enough, those with sabotaging schemes in mind seem either to be dumb or too shortlived. However with the track record I have gathered so far, I would be able to start some serious trouble which would go unnoticed for quite a long time. But the amount of time and effort I have invested so far to get this track record would (hopefully) make no sense for anyone with only mischief in mind.

I'm not naive though. I know very well that there IS abuse. But I think it is the exception, not the rule.

Pedent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 12:08 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, you're right; I misunderstood what you meant when you talked about an editor "failing" to list a site.

If an editor reviews a site, and decides that it shouldn't be listed, then they will delete it from the unreviewed queue. That's why I thought that in order to have a chance of another editor coming along and listing it, you would have to have submitted it to another unreviewed queue somewhere else.

It seems that this isn't what you referred to as failing to list a site; you meant simply not reviewing it at all, leaving it in the queue. You're right that that would leave the possibility of another editor coming along and listing the site.

Of course, an editor with an agenda could, in theory, review a competitor's site each time it was submitted, deleting in from the unreviewed queue; it is possible for a single editor to reduce the chance of a particular site being listed, even if other editors have access to their category.

kctipton

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 1:08 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

As soon as you have proven with a few minor categories that you can edit and seem to be honest, you are left alone! There is a tremendous lack of editors, and once you have proven that you can do it, you get more responsibility and more work as you may probably wish for!

If somebody HAS a hidden agenda, he/she can go undetected for a very long time, if he/she is not too dumb. Fortunately enough, those with sabotaging schemes in mind seem either to be dumb or too shortlived. However with the track record I have gathered so far, I would be able to start some serious trouble which would go unnoticed for quite a long time. But the amount of time and effort I have invested so far to get this track record would (hopefully) make no sense for anyone with only mischief in mind.

Basically all true, but the "work" is self-imposed, not forced. You can ignore all the submissions if you choose, or you can obsess and try to handle all of them all the time.

As for you being "able to start some serious trouble" -- can't we all? You've proven yourself trustworthy, apparently, and the assumption is that you'll continue to be. If it's found otherwise, then you'll be an ex-editor in fairly short order.

Ultracomplex, sneaky schemes are possible, yes, but to _start_ by thinking that something like that is the reason for not getting a listing is silly. It should be the last thing on a list of possibilities, not the first.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 10:16 pm on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> in theory, review a competitor's site each time it was submitted, deleting in from the unreviewed queue; <<

Since every editing action is logged, and the log can be seen by every editor, then such an action will appear both against that category and against that editor. It will not stay hidden for long. Each delete has to have a reason typed in too. People do randomly check up on those.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 3:28 am on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Basically all true, but the "work" is self-imposed, not forced. You can ignore all the submissions if you choose, or you can obsess and try to handle all of them all the time.

Seriously? I am an ODP editor. I confess to ignoring numerous submissions without bias or prejudice. I just don't have the time.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 4:17 am on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Since every editing action is logged, and the log can be seen by every editor, then such an action will appear both against that category and against that editor. It will not stay hidden for long. Each delete has to have a reason typed in too. People do randomly check up on those.

Indeed. Any ODP editor can check my edit logs for any reason. Or, no reason at all. I've actually checked other ODP editors edits for "no reason at all." I have yet to find anything in the guidelines that says I can't look at the edit logs at random if it floats my boat. I can even easily check the edit logs of metas. In theory, and practice, I can look at what what any editor does. Secrecy is non-existant at the ODP.

cornwall

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 5:47 pm on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Secrecy is non-existant at the ODP.

Hey, like that one, quote of the day.... no make it quote of the month ;)

podman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 8:10 pm on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I routinely look at other editors logs just because I'm exploring around and checking stuff. Every so often you notice something that looks wrong, then you look a little harder. Sometimes when you look harder you find something questionable and you file an abuse form for someone to do a really serious look. I went to do that recently, and guess what -- the editor had just been terminated because someone else had noticed also.

Meanwhile even though I've done tens of thousands of edits, I know someone is always looking over my shoulder, in case I turn bad. Every so often I get a review I've done "corrected".

You woould have to work very hard to not get caught. That means you have to to do a lot of good edits, and somehow sneak in a few bad edits. There is no way that anyone is going to do a lot of servious damage without getting caught.

Pedent

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 4:20 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Certainly my experience suggests that a shortage of volunteers is a vastly bigger problem for DMOZ than editor abuse.

Even if (hypothetically speaking) there are some perfectly good sites that have been rejected by dodgy editors, it must be a miniscule number compared to those that aren't listed because they're still waiting to be reviewed.

The latter is the real problem, particularly as (as we've heard) dodgy editors are likely to get caught before they can do any serious damage, and so is almost always the most plausible explanation of why a submitted site hasn't yet been listed.

podman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 5:07 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Without question getting editors who are able to edit would be an immense help. But it does seem that it's harder to attract good editors than would be expected.

I was just reviewing some sites in a sub-category of mine, and fixing up sloppy mistakes by another editor, that editor has been here for a year and half and done less then 50 edits - over half the edits had to be corrected by me or someone else for obviously bad grammer, just plain sloppy. I noticed that the editor had been recently been removed - probably for failure to improve the editing quality. When one editor has to keep fixing mistakes and check every edit amde by another, it's better not to have the editor there.

The embarassing thing was that the senior editor that doing quality control on that editor found a few of my edits that were also unacceptable. Got to keep on your toes at all time.

pmkpmk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 10:18 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just to put more weight on my statement that the ODP is in urgent need of editors:

Category "Computers/Internet/*"
Sites listed: 43904
Backlog: 52816
Errors: 579
Change requests: 307

Category "Regional/North_America/Canada/*"
Sites listed: 78523
Backlog: 6061
Errors: 44

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 11:13 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

A team effort has reviewed over 50% of all of the update requests across the whole of the directory in the last few weeks. Spammy requests now stand out like a sore thumb.

flicker

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 12:12 am on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

As an ODP editor I've had the same experience as Podman, for what it's worth--I've noticed that imperfect work I've done has been corrected by other editors. It's always a little embarrassing when that happens, but at the same time, it's a relief to know I'm not out there floundering on my own with no one to notice if I do something wrong. (-:

I've also, by the way, had the experience of leaving a site in unreviewed with the intent of reviewing it that night, only to find that when I returned, somebody else had beaten me to it. It would really be impossible for one editor to sabotage your submission by simply ignoring it, from everything I've seen. Another editor would come across it in pretty much the same timeframe that they would have if the other editor didn't exist.

donaldb

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 2:42 pm on Mar 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just to put more weight on my statement that the ODP is in urgent need of editors:

Pmk, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by backlog. There are a lot of sites that have been suggested, but have as yet not been reviewed, that doesn't make it a backlog. The ODP isn't a listing service. If an editor chooses to use the sites that have been suggested to help them build out their category, then that's great, but there is no expectation that any of those sites will ever be reviewed.

And just for the record, we've joined over 150 new editors since the beginning of March. I think we're doing pretty good with the amount of editors that we have. If we have too many the whole structure would become unmanageable.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 4:37 pm on Mar 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

>There are a lot of sites that have been suggested, but have as yet not been reviewed, that doesn't make it a backlog.

True. The only real backlog is worthwhile sites that have been CREATED. That's all that matters. The trick is, as always, finding and recognizing them.

pmkpmk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2358 posted 9:27 pm on Mar 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm not an English native speaker. I call the sites not yet listed (or not yet dismissed) as "backlog".

This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved