| 5:47 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From what I've read on the resource zone forum, you've no reason to be scared (so long as you read the FAQs thoroughly before posting, and haven't been spamming the directory...)
| 6:30 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There are the two questions:
(1) What happens when you ask about the site -- and most of the time, ... nothing. Asking for a status check doesn't initiate a review and almost never gets one. (This is a principled decision intended to protect both your site and the forum.)
The things that can happen are: (a) if a site is an obvious no-brainer red-flag-draped doorway-spam or grand-aggregate-of-emptiness (which is not unusual), and for some reason an editor looks at it to answer the question (which IS very unusual) then it may get rejected right then (rather than rejected later. No harm done. (b) if the site was possibly eligible for listing and was rejected, then it may be put back for a re-check.
Neither of these happens very often -- down in the low-single-digit-percent range at most.
(2) What are you going to do anyway if you find out it's rejected? For any practical purpose, "waiting for possible review sometime in the next five years" is no different from "no possible listing anytime" -- in either case, you'll have to get out of your stalled huff and drive your own site promotion. But please don't say "Hi, I'm a spammer, I want to respam you as soon as you've canned my last spam." That may influence people but it does NOT win friends.
In short, the possible gain is almost always nil; the risk is almost nil; the usefulness of the information is close enough to nil for all practical purposes. Seeing that (from the editors' perspective) the value of the transaction is so low, it's almost impossible to do anything to damage or delay your site's review. Even ordinary submittal spamming, if fully disclosed and confessed, will generally be cleaned up (while minimizing prejudice) by the editors.
I say "almost." A whiff of a suggestion of the possibility of considering a threat of legal action or physical violence will make all the volunteers go away permanently. But that's about it. And usually those webmasters don't have listable sites anyway -- I only remember one or two sites where legal threats foreclosed a realistic chance of a site listing.
| 7:55 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The reason I ask is that back in my ignorant days of dmoz submitting, I probably over submitted my site because I kept finding a more specific category.
| 8:51 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dmoz is a waste of time and effort, just leave it for six months and then resubmit. Spend time building links from other sources instead IMO.
| 10:50 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>and then resubmit.
Please don't - it only puts your site at a disadvantage.
| 8:06 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
leave it for six months and then ask about the status
...would be better.
| 10:33 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Please don't - it only puts your site at a disadvantage. |
| 1:15 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It overwrites the previous submission, so if the editor chooses to review sites by date of submission, the resubmitted site keeps moving itself to the back of the list.
If it dosen't overwrite the previous submission, then editors time is spent deleting the duplicates - that time is taken away from reviewing sites.
| 2:15 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A few posts removed...
|Although you might think that it is not necessary for us to mention this in this charter, it does bear repeating: Please be civil to one another. Posts which serve no informational purpose and only insult or belittle other members will be seen as flaming and/or trolling and will be removed. |
See Charter [webmasterworld.com]
| 11:28 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No need to be scared anymore: the RZ will discontinue site status checks effective May 21, 2005!
The good news is that webmasters may now find it easier to "submit and forget".