Forum Moderators: open
Hmm....10 minutes would be a dream...the server problems still haunt DMOZ. Sometimes it can take hours to get a submission submitted.I have often found that the server hangs when trying to submit. In those cases it seems to want me to click on the TOS link (submission instructions and policies). Once I've done that it zooms right through to the interminable waiting stage.
I might have tried that but kctipton came thru and fixed it for me.
Thanks kctipton I very much appreciate that you took the time to look at it and change it!
I have been in the DMOZ forum and found it quite helpful.I'm glad you were able to find help there...
perhaps getting your head in DMOZ gearThey sell hats?;)
Most of the editors think they are GOD himself... They all talk about the treaths of other users by phone, personally, in their work... That a website can be 3 years to be reviewed because they (at least by their talk) admin the entire DMOZ themselves...
BEFORE YOU START REPLYING WITHOUT READING THE REST, REMEMBER THAT I'M A DMOZ EDITOR TOO!
I have a lot of websites to be reviewed in my category. Why? I'm lazy! I've became an editor to add my website (that was waiting for a review since 2002). Also, for me to be an editor I needed to go to the Resource Zone forum, ask about my editor aplication status, starting to translate some parts that where still in english and voilá, I'm an editor!
After that I asked to be an editor in other categories, after some months and lots of whinning in the forums I got to be a greenbuster (in a category in the Regional side).
So, what can you get from this post? Respect the guidelines in the following: URL, Title, Description.
If your website is named Site Title don't submit Site Title for amazing Widgets. Submit only Site Title.
For you description instead a list of keywords use the following: Green widgets in various forms. Reviews and widget world news about green stuff.
Also, submit your main URL (don't submit [widget.com...] if your website is located at www.widget.com/site/main/ and the user will be redirected to it).
And the most important thing: PRAY! If the editor is having a bad day most websites (even good ones) will be deleted with no mercy.
Sorry about all the errors in english, but I'm a little disapointed with the way DMOZ works internally... Looks like my country governement, very lazy, stupid and burocratic. I'm starting to think that most DMOZ editors dont have a clue about what is a website.
The biggest reason for delays is that there is no editor at all for the cat. The next biggest reason is that the editor is too busy and hasn't gotten around to reviewing the site due to a large backlog. Next is that people submit to the wrong catagories. Then there are those who try to get the same site listed everywhere, which is grounds for getting booted. Laziness? That too.
You can see who the editor(s) is(are) at the bottom. If you don't see anything, there may be no editor. (That is, no one really dedicated to filling out that particular cat. All cats do have a nominal editor somehere up the chain, though.)
You can often email an editor directly and very politely ask about your site. But proceed with caution. The prevailing climate is one of dislike for webmasters that try to get something for nothing.
The prevailing climate is one of dislike for webmasters that try to get something for nothing.And therein lies the problem. DMOZ is gaining by listing quality sites just as much as the webmaster. Most editors, or more importantly, some metas, just don't get that.
And therein lies the problem. DMOZ is gaining by listing quality sites just as much as the webmaster. Most editors, or more importantly, some metas, just don't get that.
I agree. I think DMOZ is too stingy about listing quality sites with affiliate links. When someone spends months upon months researching and building a quality site, they do deserve to get listed (and make a bit of money for their efforts). Then again, a lot of webmasters really do try to abuse the system. In my biggest cat, I get lots of folks that try to submit doorway after doorway as well as try to get the same sites listed in numerous cats.
I'm fed up with your trolling.Whatever are you talking about? There IS a feeling of contempt towards those that submit sites to dmoz on the part of the upper echelon of dmoz. It is evident on these boards, at the public forum, and at other boards. Your last post is another example. I have given some helpful advice in this thread as well as others for those that are looking for help with dmoz. Deemozwatch attempts to be a helpful resource for those looking to get on dmoz. If my posts and that site also happen to be a bit tilted against dmoz then so be it. Lizards are thick skinned, aren't they?
One of the Internet's true, original failures.That is simply not true. DMOZ was one of the internet's original huge success stories. Starting from nothing and with almost zero budget it became the internet's largest and most complete directory (it still is today), edited solely by volunteer effort for the most part. The problems arose when it became so large that the 'community' part ceased to exist and Google started to place so much emphasis on the link. While Googleguy would sit here and say its just like any other link, the serps would include your dmoz description, giving you up to 40% more real estate in the results, as well as a category listing, as well as a link in Google's directory, and more.
There IS a feeling of contempt towards those that submit sites to dmoz on the part of the upper echelon of dmoz
There is contempt towards SPAMMERS and those who similarly waste editors' time.
Yes, that must be it.
There is contempt towards SPAMMERS and those who similarly waste editors' time.And when 90% of the submissions to a category are spam it is only human for editors to begin to feel that submission=spam to a certain degree over time. Meta editors tend to have more permissions to edit in categories where these conditions exist so it must wear upon them more than an editor in a category that doesn't face a lot of spammy submissions. In this very forum I have seen metas refer the the submission cue as the "toxic spam pile" and other terms that would lead one to the conclusion that in some cases, metas do believe that submission=spam. I know that is not always the case even for the meta that said that, but it does exist to a degree and IMO it is a problem.
In order to see the editors' perspective, you have to get away from the barracks-lawyer mentality.
It's really simple. If the editor thinks the primary purpose of the site is to drive commercial traffic to other sites, then it's not listable.
And we don't care HOW it's done. Banner ads, text ads, blind ads, fake directories, fake search engines, fake reviews, affiliate-tagged subdirectories, affiliate-tagged tags, affiliate-tagged subdomains, links with no visible tags but using cookies or referer. And we don't care WHY it's done. Pay per view, pay per click, pay per sale, pay per lead, pay per month, pay per paid page, paid by social status, paid by cash, paid by carnal favors, paid in overripe breadfruit sweetbread -- the details are irrelevant.
The webmaster know what the site is for. If it's for advertising goods and services he doesn't provide -- then it's not eligible. If it even looks like it's on the subject that nobody in their right mind would write about except for the purpose of advertising, then ... we should (and often do) let it mature for a few years before picking it. That way we can see if it is actually someone with a wierd passion, who's really developing it, or if we're just being trolled by incipient doorway-page domains.
This isn't necessarily what some commercial webmasters want. That's fine: the web is large, and there are thousands of sites that cater to that market better than we could ever do. We don't mind focusing on a different mission, that we can demonstrably do better than anyone else.
Indeed, this affiliate view is one of the two bizarre axioms that have never allowed dmoz to get off the deck. (The other is, of course, the governance of commercial cats by vested interests - despite the holier than thou protests of effective self-policing. Surely one of the worst, decisions ever on the net.)
Forget for a moment the fact that some "original suppliers" do - but many cannot - make a comprehensive, quality website. Some of them are merely wholesalers! Online B2B2C eliminated categorcally (literally) by a bad assumption made years ago. In this scenario, what dmoz lump into the grotesquely defined "affiliate" pile, act as retailers, often excellent ones.
Anyway, I'll renew my annual call for Google to disassociate itself from this plodding and disingenuous organization ASAP. It looks like they've taken the first step by removing the directory info. Thank God!
I have never seen why so many people get so excited about DMOZ's policy in giving non-reciprocal links.
It would be more balanced if, when reporting that DMOZ has declined to make a non-reciprocal link to your site (or is being tardy about making such a decision), you also reported all other sites you have request links from, and told us their status.
Also report all sites who have made a non-reciprocal link to you without being first asked.
That way, we'd get an idea as to whether DMOZ is above or below industry averages in this respect.
But I agree that sites like DMOZ should not be given any priority in Google.
I write to Google regularly and say that the only sites that should appear in the top ten of any SERPS are sites that add more than 5000 non-reciprocal links per day.
All other sites are a complete waste of time, including DMOZ which manages only 3000-4000 a day.
the only sites that should appear in the top ten of any SERPS are sites that add more than 5000 non-reciprocal links per day
I don't understand what you're getting at with a "per day" qualification, but I'm sure it's too off topic for this thread or this forum.
It would be more balanced if, when reporting that DMOZ has declined to make a non-reciprocal link to your site (or is being tardy about making such a decision), you also reported all other sites you have request links from, and told us their status.Why would you do that when you can contact those other sites directly to inquire?
And so it is not just inconceivable but logically impossible that a site could "authoritatively" promote information contained at ANOTHER site. It is by definition the OTHER site that's the ultimate authority; the "affiliate" site's authority can only be derivative and secondary. The promotional material has the informational value that all such material does -- that is, negative. And so at the very best the affiliate site can only contain false or non-unique content: it cannot ever possibly have any authoritative true information.
The straw man you wave so vigorously -- I've reviewed over a hundred thousand sites, and I haven't seen one of those sites yet. How could I? They simply don't exist!
And the ODP has never claimed to be "complete" -- or, for that matter, even "comprehensive". Its claim is merely to be "the most comprehensive." You're welcome to tell TV Guide that their program listings don't list all the commercials; you're welcome to remind National Geographic that their own indexes of their magazines don't list all the advertisements in each issue; you're even welcome to start up your own index to the advertising content in the world. People who are boycotting firms they consider unethical may even find that useful. But -- it's not the ODP mission.
And so at the very best the affiliate site can only contain false or non-unique content: it cannot ever possibly have any authoritative true information.So where is the line between a unique content site with affiliate links and an affiliate site?
That's a truly, um, unique response, Hutchesin. You do sound conscientious however, as Powdork suggested, so I'll continue. I really wish you could take a deep breath, and a step back, and think about this outside the paradigm for a moment.
Watch this. Site A buys widgets from the real manufacturer at the North Pole and keeps them in "inventory" (either physically or "electronically"). Now, since they handle all sales and customer service and can adjust prices they are considered, at least by you guys, to be "suppliers". Ok, fair enough. This Site A, in addition to selling their products online also offers X% to others who may wish to market "their" (ahem) product. So far, so good. Now, Site A has a website selling those products, let's just say toothbrushes. The only problem is, is that Site A is fat and lazy - their photos are blurry, and they have almost no information about the product - usually it's just a blurry photo.
On the other hand, Site B is motivated. They know Site A has gained a reputation for unparalleled customer service and aggressive pricing. But their SITE sucks. It contains little or no information about what it actually sells. On the other hand, Site B - highly motivated by Site A's inabilities - takes or acquires its own crystal clear photos of each product - something not only Site A has never done but HAS NEVER BEEN FORCED BY THE MARKET TO DO. Not only that, Site B employs editors to write up detailed, quality descriptions and employs independent reviews for each product. The information is accurate, clear and simply does not exist on Site A (the "supplier"). Site B is more informative, more original, AND more AUTHORITATIVE than the alleged "supplier". Surprise, surprise.
If you're not starting to see this very clear, very bright, very obvious light, I hope other voices there might.
What you're not getting is that to us it isn't about whose site is better. It's about listing the source and not the dropship users/affiliates.
