| 12:25 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have applied to be a dmoz editor many time and they have very strict rules on what sites they allow etc and I blieve that they have such a large backlog that I been waiting 3 years now.
I could be wrong but I have given up on all hope of a DMOZ entry
| 1:37 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There is no "backlog" that would stop any editor from listing any listable site anytime. On the other hand, there's no systematic process that would be guaranteed to find every listable site within specified finite time (guaranteed, that is, until spammers figured out how to DDoS it, which would probably be a matter of days...)
So one very good site might wait years for a review, and a marginal site might be reviewed and listed the week it was published. Overall, the theory goes, the better sites tend to be reviewed more quickly ... and my impression is that it often works that way. Your mileage may differ, especially if you have a different concept of "better" than I do.
| 10:56 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hmm I see your point, a site that maybe has been suggest many time may be entered in. I just expected a email back to say if it has been accepted or not.
| 11:45 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't expect an email as that doesn't happen with DMOZ. Also, the likelihood of a site being listed quicker the more times it is suggested just won't happen. If *you* suggest your site more than once it will more than likely never appear in the directory as the editor may consider multiple submissions to SPAM.
I have had some sites listed in less than 3 months and others that I assume will never be listed as I suggested them 2 or 3 years ago.
Just wait, be patient, submit once and if you have done everything correctly your site will appear in due course.
| 5:52 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
what if there is no editor listed? i submitted my site to a category that is very popular, is accepting submissions, yet somehow lacks an editor.
| 6:25 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't matter if there is not an editor. Someone will check any sites listed in that category. I believe it may take just a little more time thats all.
Patience is a virtue when it comes to DMOZ.
| 6:29 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The ODP definition of "popularity" is "surfers are interested in it." The way we know surfers are interested is if they volunteer to edit it. So a "popular category with no editors" is a contradiction in terms.
But "category with no editors" is a logical impossibility itself: there are hundreds of editalls who can edit any category -- and this is not merely a logical distinction, the vast majority of the edits EVERYWHERE are done by these editors. "Category with no LISTED editor" is, practically speaking, an irrelevance -- the more active editors are often and quickly promoted to higher-level categories anyway.
As for the "need" that a category has for editors, it is defined primarily by its inherent interest (as defined by surfers), secondarily by the web content available for it. The presence or number of submittals is not a significant datum in any sense, nor is it usefully correlated to any significant datum.
| 12:48 am on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
unfortunately, mine is indeed a very popular category that lacks an assigned editor. the nature of the type of business is: anybody fit to edit it would not be seeking info on it.
in other words, any typical surfer wouldn't have the knowledge that dmoz seeks for an editor of it.
not many people surfing for assistance from attorneys have the knowledge to effectively edit the category. only paralegals, judges, attorneys themselves, legal assistants etc. have the appropriate knowledge and experience to do so.
so, not many (if any) people that use DMOZ for this category would be appropriate to edit it - so it continues to sit, indirectly edited. even slower than normal, which is already incredibly slow.
i'm sure that this is not the only category for which this is true. there is at least one more, as i don't SEO attorney sites anyway! ;)
| 4:01 am on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|i'm sure that this is not the only category for which this is true. |
I'm sure that this is not the only category for which this is not true........
| 4:29 am on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually, there are active editors who are veterinarians, doctors, lawyers, nurses, nutritionists, physicists, musicians, biologists, historians ... the strength of the ODP (compared to other general-purpose directories) is precisely that on so many highly technical topics the editing community can provide someone that does understand the subject. On topics where I'm not an expert but have read a couple of books, I generally find some editor at the ODP who knows much more than I -- and when perusing other directories, I find ample evidence that THEIR specialist DOESN'T even share the basic clue I have.
| 1:25 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>not many people surfing for assistance from attorneys have the knowledge
>to effectively edit the category. only paralegals, judges, attorneys
>themselves, legal assistants etc. have the appropriate knowledge
>and experience to do so
Actually, though one of the reasons I enjoy editing at the ODP is learning new things from the many interesting people there with varied fields of expertise, editing the websites of attorneys wouldn't take very much legal knowledge at all. We're not researching and evaluating the legal acumen of each attorney and the success rate of their recent legal cases, we're just viewing and evaluating their webpages. If an attorney in Hopatcong, New Jersey has a website describing her practice with contact information and sufficient information for someone searching for a lawyer to decide whether or not to call her, and the site works, and it isn't already listed, then it's a useful site. The website of a unique real-world business--one that offers real goods and services to real customers--is unique information by definition. Whether the attorney went to an excellent law school or just a so-so one, or has a bad reputation amongst her peers, isn't really for us to decide anyway. We're just judging websites, not the people on the other end of them.
| 1:53 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have applied to be a editor of Dmoz many times and for a subject I know well (my local town) but always I have been turned down and I do not even receive a reason. I wounder if someone from my town is already editing it.
I like the idea of Dmoz and I think it works well. Never managed to get any site listed there, Even my main search engine, but I am sure there are valid reasons.
| 2:45 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|but always I have been turned down and I do not even receive a reason. |
If you received the standard email that declines an application, then you received a list of reasons why your application may have been declined. One or more of them apply.
If you declined to read the list and simply re-applied without applying the lessons learnable from the list, that may well explain your continued non-aceptance.
On the other hand, it you literally did not receive an email from DMOZ (perhaps you have spam filters set higher than "stun") you don't know if you were rejected or not.
| 9:22 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I did read the standard list but I do not think any idea (well they must of). I have been applying on and off for over 6 months, but I have given up now because I am never going to be allowed in.
| 9:21 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah I have tried submitting many quality sites to DMOZ and none of them got added. I think their backlog is so large that they will never catch up. By the time they get entered the site will be way out of date for those who don't keep fresh content.
| 11:32 pm on Feb 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There is a pile of stuff that has been suggested, but it isn't a backlog.
Any site in that pile could be reviewed at any time. There is no preset order to process stuff.