I have listed a lot of sites that were never submitted, so 0 days is common.
"I have listed a lot of sites that were never submitted, so 0 days is common"
are you an editor?
Only editors can truthfully say that they have "listed" a site, non-editors should say that they have "suggested" one (but they often use the term "submitted" instead)... ;-)
I'm with cbpayne. I've listed many sites which were never submitted via the suggest a site route, so if one measures theperiod of submitted to listed, those had no wait time at all.
As for sites which are (a) listable and (b) submitted as suggestions, there's no set time frame. It could well happen in under an hour, as it has before, or it could be anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks.
If someone suggests a listable site to a cat where I edit aqnd does so just before I sign on, the 'wait' time is likely to be oh so brief.
Conversely, someone may suggest a site a half hour after I've logged out. If my non-dmoz world happens to pick right then to become hectic enough I don't edit for a while, a listable suggestion might sit a spell. Of course, some other editor might see it and act on it while I am away, so even if I should know I'm gone foe weeks, that's not an automatic impact.
I've never had to wait more than 4 or 5 weeks.
I don't know whether I'm just lucky, or if it's because I submit appropriate sites to the right category and within the guidelines.
>within the guidelines.
Those sites that have what appear to be guideline compliant titles and descriptions (ie no keyword stuffing or marketing hype) certainly get my attentian sooner as they "stand out" from amongst the many....
I one saw a url on a flyer on a building site.
I checked. The site was listable in an category I edit, and so I listed it.
Out of curiosity (I don't normally do this), I checked its whois......The site had been registered just 23 days earlier.
Probably not a record, but an example of what is possible.
The trick here, of course, was that thye'd unwittingly put the site directly in my line of vision.....Had they suggested it to a wildly inappropriate DMOZ category, it may literally have been years before it meandered into the suggested URL pool for the category in question.
I see. In the case I described there was apparently the only right category, like "Science/discipline_name/Institutes/" so it made things easier than in the cases where there was any doubt about choosing appropriate category.
It's nice to know that sometimes sites are picked up by editors without submitting. I'm building a site for year and submitted it too early so it didn't get listed, and DMOZ rules forbade me to submit it again, so I can still hope it might eventually be found and included by editor without my further initiative.
>DMOZ rules forbade me to submit it again
No, if the site was rejected because it was under construction last time you submitted it, and now it is substantially complete, there's nothing wrong with submitting it again.
If it's the sort of thing where the forum was empty when you submitted it and now the forum is getting lots of traffic and posting every day, you may want to point it out in a bracketed comment like [Forum is active now] or something like that. But either way, I'm an ODP editor, and if a site was empty or nonfunctioning last time I looked at it, and now it isn't, I'm always glad to give it another look.
In general you're correct, though, and any action you take that increases the chance that a websurfer will find your site on his or her own, also increases the chance that an ODP editor will. Even billboard flyers. (-:
|No, if the site was rejected because it was under construction last time you submitted it, and now it is substantially complete, there's nothing wrong with submitting it again. |
How can I know the reason the site was rejected? I'd like to submit the site in question yearly as it develops quickly and sooner or later it will be worth being listed, but I don't want to get it penalized for resubmitting.
I encountered a visit from referer editors.dmoz.org/editors/editcat-unrev2.cgi in July, even if I hadn't submited it this year till July. It didn't get listed though and I submitted it in September, and keep waiting. The editor who looked at it in July might have visited it not because of submission, but perhaps because my site was in referer log for their category (my site links to related DMOZ category).
I know it may take a significant time before anyone looks at the site and I focus on adding content and developing site. The site also contains user added reviews, are their dates important? I added 'last reviews' section on main page, is it likely to help in getting listed if editor finds that there were some recently added reviews? Then I don't need to worry :)
Bilboards? Cool idea, indeed :) The only downside is that if I bought bilboards on every street in US to promote my site, noone would believe my claim it's non-commercial. Fortunately, I can't afford it :)
|perhaps because my site was in referer log for their category |
AFAIK, (regular) editors don't have access to those logs --and even if they did, they would probably not use them to search for new listing candidates!
|..... and sooner or later it will be worth being listed, but I don't want to get it penalized for resubmitting. |
This is perhaps where you're going wrong. Don't submit your site until it is worth listing. Wait until it's a no-brainer, then submit it.
Editors will generally not add a site on the basis that "sooner or later it will be a good site" - no matter how fast it's developing.
Yes, I'd hold off on submitting it until it actually has enough unique quality content for a listing. I know that it can be frustrating not knowing whether a review is going to occur within eight days or eight months, but if the site is reviewed while it's still under construction it won't be listed anyway, so you're not actually losing anything by waiting until the site is finished to submit it. If you've already submitted it a few times in an unfinished state, then when it finally is finished, you should definitely call attention to that fact in the submission, so it isn't overlooked.
> I've never had to wait more than 4 or 5 weeks.
> I don't know whether I'm just lucky, or if it's
> because I submit appropriate sites to the right
> category and within the guidelines
I think that there is not a rule.
I ever submitted appropriate sites to the right category and within the guidelines ( perfect title and description).
Most of the sites got listed in few weeks with no changes in title and description.
Few sites are still pending without any reason: probably the related editors have too much submissions to review...
I think that Dmoz is useful but I do not think that Dmoz is so important. I just submit and wait...
|This is perhaps where you're going wrong. Don't submit your site until it is worth listing. |
You're right, but it's hard to judge it clearly if it's your site :) I won't submit it again for a long time to be sure it's worth, and I still believe it can be included in following months - the site has over hundred pages of unique content, and a few innovative features adding much value for users. It's acquired a few backlinks from forums where it was cited as an authority.
Still, I have plenty to add and in time my content will keep growing. As a significant part of the content is submitted by users (most of it is premoderated though), the site needs traffic to develop, but I can afford very slow development. It's a long-term run.
If there is a Dmoz editor that can get my website listed please sticky me. Its been 10 months and I am about to give up.
Is there is an editor out there that has a heart that can help I would surely appreciate it.
JoeHouse: I understand that you may feel frustrated, but IMO, your "call for help" is unlikely to get you the desired result.
In essence, you're asking an editor to do you a favor --to review your site, rather than some other site that may have been waiting as long or longer. I don't think it would be a good idea for editors to base their priorities on who asks loudest (or nicest)...
<added>Actually, you can expect your site to be reviewed at some point; you just can't predict when that will happen, and you can't "speed things up".</added>
You make good points. Here is what you do not understand.
There have been many sites in my category that have been listed in the same category that I have submitted to and they have been listed before me on Dmoz and they submitted way after I did.
How do I know they submitted listing came after mine?
Because I checked to see when they registered their domain name. Many of them many months after mine. I had my domain registered way before their domain was even born!
I double and tripled checked my listing that I submitted is the right category and everything is correct. I have had friends who got listed and people in the web business all say what I submitted and where I submitted is fine.
So now I ask you, should I still remain patient, or do I have a right to get upset?
This leads me to believe I am not playing on a level playing field.
Wouldn't you think this way after the facts I have just given you?
There are some cats you can get in real quick. If you are asking this question I'm sure you don't have a site that fits there. People that don't really care about DMOZ seem to get in real easy. Meaning personal sites hobby sites.
You have the *right* to get upset about anything you want to; but I do think it's a waste of your energy. I agree with the person further up the thread who said he thought an ODP listing was useful, but not too important. There are better things to be spending your time worrying about, in my opinion.
JoeHouse: As I said before, I do understand the frustration that can arise from waiting (what feels like) "forever".
However, it is useful to know that ODP doesn't "process" sites using a "FIFO queue" (i.e., first in, first out).
When editors look at the "Unrevieweds" in a category, they see a collection of sites in "some" order; editors can specify which order they prefer, e.g., chronologically or alphabetically (by title or by URL).
However, regardless of the order in which the sites are presented, an editor can choose to review any site that looks "promising" for some reason --one near the top, near the bottom, or somewhere in the middle...
Also, editors are under no obligation to "process" the queue with "submitted" sites at all --they may very well go out and look for promising sites on their own, and list those. In fact, editors in "spammy" categories may well feel that that's a better use of their time!
I don't know the details of your case, but I just want to point out that there are several reasons why other sites may be listed before yours, even if they were never "submitted" by their owners.
<added>Even in non-spammy categories, editors may well look for sites on their own. I'm currently doing just that, in a category that gets very few external site suggestions; my guess is that most of their webmasters have never even heard of DMOZ...</added>
Thanks for for response. Honestly I am not here to ruffle any feathers, this is not my intensions.
However I have been in the ecommerce business for 10 years now and I have a pretty good idea how things work.
Think what you want you have your opinion. If you knew my site's url and what it can offer the end user and the Dmoz directory you would list it in a second.
It is my opinion (however not all) that editors who volunteer to work for Dmoz usually are editors for categories that they have a speical interest that in some way benefits their own project.
That is why sites like .org, .edu etc....usually get in right away. While .com's take a much longer time for the simple fact to delay their competitors getting listed and obtain an equal playing field.
Been doing this too long to tell me any different.
One man's opinion.
I won't say this won't happen sometimes, but when we find out an editor is behaving in this way he is told to change his behaviour or his editor priveleges will be taken away.
What realy is happening is that commercial categories are so overwhelmed by spam (in some categories we will have to delete over 95% of suggested sites) that many editors decide not to work in them anymore and concentrate on categories where it is fun to work. Other editors keep working in the commecrial categories but decide to forget about the suggestions all together.
So if you want to complain go and speek to your fellow webmasters and most importantly to a lot of so called SEO companies. The few of you who are honest just suffer from their beahviour.
|However I have been in the ecommerce business for 10 years now and I have a pretty good idea how things work. |
In which case, I an sure you can answer the following questions in your sleep:
Is it important for SEO for a commercial website to be listed in DMOZ [A: opinions are split, but enough SEOers say yes to have started an unstoppable stampede to attempt to list every commercial siet in the world, regardless of whether it meets DMOZ's inclusion criteria or not.]
Why is it important?[A: it is assumed that the "special relationship" with Google will make a difference in the SERPs.]
Why does Google have that "special relationship" with the ODP? [A: No one really knows and a lot of SEOers say it is on its last legs. But it is obvious it won't die until the webmaster industry come up with something better to replace it.]
So what initiatives are there that aim to produce something better than DNOZ that Google would then use?[A: We shout at the ODP volunteers to do more work.]
I agree with you 100%. Great post. Its refreshing when people really say what's on their mind and speak their true feelings.
No one is shouting at editors. We are simply expressing our true feelings as to what has become of Dmoz and its commercial site of the directory.
Like everything else it appears politics has made its way into the internet arena!
I think that in addition to what Pagode says, it's fairly -difficult- to edit categories with topics that are serious spam magnets. There are topics like online drug sales and real estate and gambling where the majority of the websites that are out there in the first place are garbage (as I'm sure anyone with a quality site on one of those topics would be the first to tell you.) You really have to know a field like that inside-out to be able to pick out the good sites. So though the editor of a gambling category might feel confident reviewing a site in a literature category, it doesn't work that way in reverse. There are many categories I stay out of editing completely, not just because the submissions tend to be spammy, but because so many sites on the topic are themselves spammy or scrapy or deceptive that I'd have trouble picking out the wheat from the chaff. So almost by definition, the percentage of ODP editors who feel qualified to review a site in a field where original content is very easy to judge (like those academic and hobby sites) is always going to be higher than the percentage who feel qualified to review a site in a field where everybody is copying each other and redirecting and cloaking and presenting fake content for Adsense and so on.
|What realy is happening is that commercial categories are so overwhelmed by spam (in some categories we will have to delete over 95% of suggested sites) that many editors decide not to work in them anymore and concentrate on categories where it is fun to work. |
If this is the case, why do they deny so many applications to be editors of these categories?
| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 (  2 3 ) > > |