Still not listed in DMOZ

1 year later still not listed

[mazzi]

Listed my site with dmoz a year ago. Had correct category as all my competitors were there, have good placement on google but am missing out on lots of directory traffic.

I relisted a few months ago and still not there...

Is there anything I can do?

[skibum]

Not much, the editors will get to the site when they have the time, till then midas well focus on other things cause there doesn't seem to be anythng that will speed up the process.

[mikeweb]

You are not alone with this problem. I along with a lot of other I talked to have this silimar problem. It is worst than going to a dentist, working with dmoz.

[bears5122]

If it is a competitive category like adult or dating, you won't get in.

[amznVibe]

Here's a tip. Go through all the links in the category you are trying to get into. Find all the dead ones, or hijacked links (bought for dmoz value but no longer the same site). Then go onto the DMOZ forum and report all the bad links.

Suddenly there will be editors looking at the category and new openings available. This has helped for at least one of my sites.

It certainly can't hurt and you are helping DMOZ by cleaning it up.
(Dead or hijacked links are removed within 24 hours usually no matter where on DMOZ)

[mazzi]

Thanks for all the info. I will go into my category, as it is very competitive to see if there are any dead links.

I also posted a message on the open directory public forum asking for a status check of my url. If I receive any interesting advice I'll pass it on.

[eggypiece]

<<Suddenly there will be editors looking at the category and new openings available.>>

For whatever is worth, I wish to clarify something to prevent misunderstanding. This statement left me with the impression that some people may believe there are a certain number of openings per category...it is not.

True, finding those dead links and reporting them may help in the sense that it is normally human nature to wish to reciprocate an act of good faith (you taking the time to find and report the bad links) with another act of good faith (your cats editor reviewing your submission faster), but it has nothing to do with openings available.

Depending of the category, the editor could face, not only hundreds of unreviewed listings submitted by the public, but another hundred unreviewed listings received from other editors (from people who don't take the time to list in the right category!) It could be quite a challenge and very time demanding.

I believe most editors try to go through their unreviewed pile based on date of submittal, but they don't have to. By you helping them out, it could well be that the editor decides to move you ahead of others. This is all a big maybe...and only If he/she wants to...but has nothing to do with openings.

Good luck!

Jose
PS- I waited one year to get in...and yes...I am.

[mazzi]

Thanks, Jose.

A year seems a long time to take for a listing, yet I know how important dmoz is as they feed so many directories.

I think the hardest thing is there's no way to contact them and if they do find some issue with your site you'll never know what it is so any changes you need to make for listing in dmoz may never happen...

[hutcheson]

mazzi, there's no way an ODP editor can tell you what changes to make to your site to make it acceptable. It's not logically possible.

The ODP guiding principle is "unique content." If you have unique content, publish it. (You know whether your content is unique better than the ODP editors do. How can you not? You know where you got it.) If you have enough unique content, the ODP lists it. If you don't have enough, what can the ODP editor tell you? "Find more unique content?" Duh. What are you going to do, copy from all the other sites in the category? That wouldn't be, like, unique.

And ... if you aren't adding to your site while waiting for the ODP editor to review it -- and it was borderline anyway, then it obviously shouldn't be listed (and again, you know that as well as the ODP editors.)

All this is not merely obvious and logically necessary. It is also experientially validated. The sites we reject, mostly cannot possibly be repaired: it is our duty and delight to prune them out for the good of the surfer. A few sites we reject simply for inadequate content. Most of them also do not return triumphantly with more content, by which we deduce the webmasters really couldn't or didn't want to provide enough content.

The genuinely original, genuinely expading sites get in sooner or later, unless they get a REALLY bad reputation from some really clue-bereft SERPer who submits it so many times before it has content that we finally say, "We've seen this a dozen times before, no point in looking at it again", and shoot it in the dark.

Focusing on some mythical list of "unwritten ODP laws" that you might have transgressed is futile. It is not what you did that gets you rejected; it is not "some issue." It is always and eternally what you didn't do -- provide unique relevant content.