| 7:25 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi SimmoAka -
I think you will find that ODP will eventually review the site based on its own merits independent of what other industry or "watchdog" sites may have written about it.
If there is additional info that might be helpful to an editor when reviewing a site, a simple [Note: ..........] after the description in the submission form is one way to convey that information to the editor who reviews the site.
While this is a common topic (My Site and Dmoz [google.com])
The answer is always the same, submit the site and someone will review it eventually.
| 8:14 am on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If there is additional info that might be helpful to an editor when reviewing a site, a simple [Note: ..........] after the description in the submission form is one way to convey that information to the editor who reviews the site. |
Damn...good piece of advice that i should've thought of myself Skibum :-/
Thankyou for your advice.
| 1:08 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>but some suggest that old sites previously rejected can be revisited in DMOZ
Yes, definitely. If your site was rejected because it was submitted too early and was still "under construction" or was a mostly-empty forum or directory with only a few links in it, such sites are re-evaluated without prejudice all the time. If what happened is your site had mostly unlistable content at first (ads and affiliate links and so on), but now you've added lots of unique content as well, you should make sure the unique content is easily visible from the front page and it's also a good idea to point it out in a note as Skibum suggests, because if the editor glances at the page and sees the same unlistable content that was remarked upon last time you run the risk of him or her just deleting it without exploring further.
| 2:06 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Flicker. It must be a tough job at times being a DMOZ editor especially with the world of affiliate marketing and adsense being so easily accessible these days.
That said, its hard for affiliates and webmasters who take time to research too. If only domain names were $500 each, that might help us all - lol :-/
Thanks for taking time out to reply anyway. I'll cross my fingers my site hits the mark come the time :)
| 2:31 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|my income stream is about 50% affiliate based |
With 50% affiliate income from the site odds are you will never be listed..as in never
This is an affiliate relationship based on clicks. Affiliate links are URLs for a commercial site that usually, but not always, include an affiliate or referral ID in the URL, such as AffiliateID=19555&ProductID=508. The person whose ID is in the link gets a commission from anyone who buys from the site after following that link. Affiliate links should never be added to the directory."
| 2:40 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That particular phrase refers to not adding affiliate links to the directory, not adding sites which include affiliate links.
This is the more relevant quote:
|Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links |
Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory. However, a site that contains affiliate links in addition to other content (such as a fan site for a singer that has interviews and photos plus banner ads and links to buy the singer's CDs) might be an acceptable submission to the directory.
General rule of thumb: Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP.
| 2:50 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yup Stever - thats what i read too. After all, there are such things as "good "affiliates and "bad" affiliates and its only fair to distinguish. Those who provide more information than you can glean from a merchant for example ar egoing about it the right way IMHO.
In my field, there is a lot of background information that could be added if an affiliate can be bothered to manually research it. I have to physically phone or email the merchants to get this normally.
That DMOZ description makes perfect sense to me.
| 3:03 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
SimmoAka look they havent let you in in 14 months ..do you really believe because you added some content to your affiliate stuff they will now approve you?
I just want you to realize that the odds are stacked against you ... especially with 50% affiliate based ...despite what they say
Your best bet is to remove ALL affiliate stuff ..then if you get approved add your affiliate stuff back ...
OR simply signup to be an editor ..that's the route 60,000 + others have taken to get their sites listed.
Look ..you said in over a year the same 27 sites are still listed! over an entire year they havent addedd or removed any sites ...what does that tell you
| 3:26 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi dauction - lol - you might be right. But to be honest a) I respect the principle behind DMOZ and b) if everyone did that ultimately everone would suffer, as the clout of DMOZ to assist Google SERPS would eventually be consigned to history.
It may have its issues, but you have to accept that it is a concept founded on good principle.
Treat others how you want to be treated. Thats my philosophy :) Call me stupid...(or poor)!
| 3:41 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Absolutely/I lobve the concept of DMOZ
The problem is human nature always leans on how to do for one's self rather than others. It's just human nature and that's why you cant let the prisoners run the prison... on occassion we get some great stories of some editors that really shine..but by and large human nature prevails ...in all her failings
DMOZ has grown far too large to be handled by "volunteers" , look they cant keep up with the submission process let alone cleaning all the garbage out of the directory .
DMOZ's final death blow comes when one morning we all wake up and read the thread.. DMOZ not passing PR ..
Then DMOZ will truely be "just another link"
| 3:44 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|remove ALL affiliate stuff ..then if you get approved add your affiliate stuff back |
That's called "bait & switch". As soon as it has been noticed by an editor, the site will be un-listed, and an appropriate note explaining the situation will be added... Definitely not the way to go if you're in this for the long run!
|especially with 50% affiliate based |
The OP states that 50% of his income is affiliate based, not 50% of his site/content... Big difference!
Anyway, dauction, based on your posts in another thread, I don't think anything positive (or even neutral) that's said here about ODP will make you change your perception of that directory.
Some people seem to use this forum much like a drunk would use a street lamp: only for support, not for illumination...
| 4:03 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|OR simply signup to be an editor ..that's the route 60,000 + others have taken to get their sites listed. |
Man, you have a real problem with dmoz … Yep, you are correct, editors join to list their site and then leave…
It always amazes and amuses me when people get ruffled up about dmoz and it's editors. I believe the concept of volunteering to be an editor for dmoz or any volunteer work is simply beyond their comprehension.
The point those people need to understand is that becoming a volunteer for dmoz is no different than any other type of recreation. They believe it is run and maintained by a bunch of webmasters that do nothing but list their own sites. They simply cannot understand that editing is a form of recreation for the vast majority of editors.
I find it hard to believe people spend the time and money they do golfing. You buy golf clubs, apparel, and shoes then pay green fees to chase a little ball around whacking it with a club. You see people of all different backgrounds, young and old, with ethnic diversity partaking in this recreation. The same people often spend time watching others whack a ball around on television….simply ludicrous.
Editors at dmoz are no different!
Who cares if grandma adds a few quilting pattern sites to dmoz in her spare time instead of staring blankly out her window? What makes it so difficult to understand that uncle Sal prefers to edit in Arts/Literature/Poetry/ instead of going out for a few beers and a game of bowling? You have no idea how many editors are as I described them above. They are grandmas, grandpas, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, moms, and dads. They come from every ethnic background you can imagine with some being close to poverty and others being well off financially and everything in-between. People don't realize the vast majority of editors wouldn't know the first thing about ftp, building a website, or SEO. It is so small-minded to paint several thousand people with the same broad brush.
I think the biggest problem with complainers of dmoz is they cannot understand the concept of volunteering and what it really means. In the case of dmoz editors it simply means add/edit sites and categories that are relevant to a particular category following the guidelines. There are rules for editors and submitters …read them and follow them whether you are an editor or a submitter.
I know a woman that recently left for Mississippi to help Katrina victims. She is a Registered Nurse and she put in for a 6-month leave of absence (no-pay). Some that believe they know her talk as if she went mad – leaving a $75k+ a year position to go volunteer for 6-months with no guarantee her job will be there when she returns. Those that really know her fully understand and support her – helping out and taking care of her house and pets while she is away.
That's the difference with some – they cannot grasp there are those that volunteer with nothing in it for them.
As I have said many times, those that understand dmoz get it, those that don't never will.
| 4:04 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That's called "bait & switch". As soon as it has been noticed by an editor, the site will be un-listed, and an appropriate note explaining the situation will be added... Definitely not the way to go if you're in this for the long run |
Well that's what were told but the reality is simply look at damn near any category and it;s filled with affiliates that have never been cleaned
I dont have a problem with that ...I have a problem with DMOZ pretending like they control the issue of affiliate sites ...the proof is in the pudding as they say.
And thats my point about human nature ... the editors put on a face , the submitters put on a face ..
the reality is this is a cut throat business and everyone is doing what they can to get in , stay and profit from being in ..
all that ends when Google finally stops giving DMOZ weight
| 4:22 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|all that ends when Google finally stops giving DMOZ weight |
The irony of this being, it is largely down to Google that so many affiliates exist in the first place. Google need DMOZ, or at least something as good or better than DMOZ to provide an answer to the problem they helped create.
Like i said elsewhere, if domains were $500 a pop, everyone would be sorted :)
| 4:35 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You've received some really sound advice, and you've received some advice that was, well, let's just leave it as it strikes me as somewhat less than sound.
Your own posts amply suggest you are more than capable of determining which is which.
As you've improved your site after it was rejected, and you've already resubmitted to the appropriate category, you've done all that anyone expects prior to again suggesting the site.
Having done so, it's time of course to look at other available options for promoting your site. After all, any plan that would overly focus on a single link from dmoz would be somewhat less than a well rounded plan.
Luck to you and remember to always duck whenever you see a low flying rant headed straight for you. :)
| 5:04 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|After all, any plan that would overly focus on a single link from dmoz would be somewhat less than a well rounded plan. |
Yes i think you're right kp. Not much more i can do now anyway except cross my fingers. The biggest problem now is how many months i wait before guessing its been rejected again - lol
Thanks everyone. And apologies to any DMOZ editors if i opened another can of wriggly things.
| 5:44 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's called "bait & switch". As soon as it has been noticed by an editor, the site will be un-listed, and an appropriate note explaining the situation will be added...
Isn't that wrong. If a webmaster wants to run affiliate banners on his/her quality site, then surely that's his business and noone elses - certainly not dmoz's. I thought dmoz's aim was to select quality sites, why should affiliate stuff be the decider on whether a site gets in. If it's quality - it should be useful in some way, and thus listed. Who is Dmoz to tell others what they can or can't do with their websites.
So a site not only gets banned, but a note is left for all editors to see and ensures that said quality site never gets in. I did read that correctly, didn't I.
These power games get worse and worse.
| 7:07 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As several editors have stated in the past, there's nothing wrong with affilliate links per se (they are to be "ignored" while editors look for unique, valuable content).
However, if a webmaster has a website that would be unlistable because the non-unique (affiliate) content "crowds out" the "good stuff", and he or she decides to remove the affiliate stuff temporarily until the site has been listed, then adds it back (returning the site to its earlier unlistable state) --that's bait and switch, and the editors don't like it. (Would you enjoy being taken for a fool?)
IMO, a site would not be "banned" forever for such behavior --but a webmaster who has tried to fool the editors once may well try to do so again in the future; therefore, the site may be handled with some "additional caution". (Hence the note.)
Some webmasters are looking for a way to meet ODP's criteria --barely. "If the current five articles won't qualify the site for inclusion, will you list me if I add a sixth?" That is only rarely a good way to convince editors that "this is a valuable resource that should really be listed"...
| 7:11 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|simply look at damn near any category and it;s filled with affiliates that have never been cleaned |
I am fairly certain that you know where and how you can report such "renegade" sites --and if you report them (rather than complain here or in other 3rd-party fora, in general terms), an editor will look at your report and act on it, if appropriate!
| 7:27 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The biggest problem now is how many months i wait before guessing its been rejected again |
Taking it off topic slightly - well it *was* my thread ;-) - i used to submit music to a music site. They took a long time to accept/reject it, but when they did you always got an email saying a) it had been reviewed and b) very briefly stating the reasons why it may have been rejected.
It made a lot of sense and judging from the forums, other musos used to respect that, improve, and go back later. Surely if DMOZ did this, people would a) see things were moving and b) start to understand the policies better. After all, if DMOZ editors already log info, it shouldn't cause them any more work.
There must be a reason for this not happening. After all its not rocket-science so someone must have suggested it/tried it at some point.
90% of problems in business stem from ineffective lines of communication. Just a thought.
| 8:30 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|There must be a reason for this not happening. After all its not rocket-science so someone must have suggested it/tried it at some point. |
It's been suggested and discussed before but it's been decided that it's not something we want to implement at this time for a variety of reasons.
| 8:37 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The reason for not listing a site is almost always: "insufficient original content"...
True, it can take quite a bit of time --months or even years-- before an editor looks at a site suggestion; but if a suggested site is a truly valuable resource that offers a lot of unique content, there is a very good chance that it will eventually be listed!
| 8:52 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It's been suggested and discussed before but it's been decided that it's not something we want to implement at this time for a variety of reasons. |
Fair enough. But it would be handy to know when a site has been reviewed if it ever comes up for discussion again :)
| 11:17 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>DMOZ's final death blow comes when one morning we all
>wake up and read the thread.. DMOZ not passing PR
Most categories in dmoz.org have very low PR. I mean 3 or 4 apiece. If what you're concerned about is PR, the ODP is *totally* the wrong place to go looking. My son's webpage about his CAT has a PR 3 (courtesy of a link from his elementary school classroom's page, whose PR is 4.) (-:
| 3:22 am on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But it would be handy to know when a site has been reviewed if it ever comes up for discussion again |
Could you explain why this would be handy.
| 7:49 am on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Could you explain why this would be handy. |
NP. My site evolves continually as many do I'm sure. In the time between submitting to many online directories and the time of review, my site may well have new content and features or information. If i know when/if my site has been rejected, i can judge whether it has significantly moved on enough to perhaps represent itself for appraisal.
| 12:42 pm on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
According to ODP's Editorial Guidelines, editors should add sites that contain "[o]riginal, unique and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject."
The Guidelines also state:
|The site should have working links and content rich subpages. Links should not bring up 404 pages or subpages with no content. If a web site is still under construction it is not a good candidate for the Open Directory. |
If you suggest a site that meets these criteria, there is little reason to assume that it will be "rejected".
As I said before, some webmasters try to create a site that just meets the ODP Guidelines. Worse, they may use the following process:
1) Since review may take a long time, "submit" the site now, even though there's no content yet
2) Start adding content until there's just enough for the site to be considered "listable"
3) Meanwhile, "refresh" the suggestion on a monthly basis, in case it got lost
4) (Optional) Complain in fora that it takes "forever" to get listed
A more fruitful process would be:
1) Build a content-rich site that would make your competitor's jaw drop with envy...
2) Suggest the site once, in the single best category, using the official site/company name and an objective (non-hyped) description
3) (Optional, but highly recommended) Go on with life, and do not worry about your suggestion (if you've done what I described, it is almost certain that it will be listed once an editor has reviewed it; and, no, there's nothing you can do to "speed up" review anyway...)
| 12:22 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
editors should add sites that contain "[o]riginal, unique and valuable informational content that contributes something unique
Having checked a category of personal interest, I noticed that many of the sites in this category look very home-made and NOT even professionally designed, and have little content. How can this be accepted by Dmoz as quality, never mind what visitors may think of such sites. Yet many real quality sites just don't get in at all.
This doesn't make sense, and is unfair to many site owners that have put a lot of work into their sites and do offer lots of content. If Dmoz is about quality, then most of the sites SHOULD BE quality - but they aren't. All the editors gotta do is to view them, it's not rocket science.
I've got to say that having just viewed an entire category, some of the sites are so bad, that their inclusion must be some kind of joke and Dmoz must be on a wind up offering that as content to it's users.
| 3:20 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I noticed that many of the sites in this category look very home-made and NOT even professionally designed, and have little content |
Well design, professional or otherwise, is completely irrelevant in the review process (unless it renders the site unusable), so that's not a valid criticism. It does not impact the content on the site, which is what we are looking to list.
As for "have liitle content", a fair comment if the content is also available on other sites in the category (that have not appropriated the content from the listing). However it's not the amount of content, but its uniqueness and value to the category that's important. (Is the category as complete as possible without that listing?)
| This 61 message thread spans 3 pages: 61 (  2 3 ) > > |