Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Well, maybe the listed editor isn't active, or is active somewhere else? Your site waits awhile, maybe a minute, maybe a year. And then, THEN, it gets moved ... to the category where you should have suggested it in the first place. The category that doesn't have a listed editor. And you're just where you would have been, only delayed by some indeterminate time.
Well, that's if you're lucky. The editor may move the site in the general DIRECTION of the right category -- maybe he wants to focus on variegated widgets, and your standardized gadgets are just a distraction. Then the site waits in THAT category, until an editor takes the time to push it along in the right direction. So it can start waiting again.
What puzzles me is why this isn't mind-numbingly obvious. After all, why should an editor stop what he's doing to hunt down the absolute best category? Is it reasonable for someone, with no interest in the site OR the topic, waste the time on it -- that YOU, the presumed topical expert, wouldn't take for your OWN SITE?
And if you say, "I would have taken the time, I just wanted to waste the editor's time more than I wanted the site listed" -- then the editor doesn't need your help, and you may expect that when he figures that out, he'll REFUSE your help. Reputation, that bane of the terminally rude, raises its ugly head.
Does it sound like a bad idea yet?
Just wait, there's more.
The simple fact is, the vast majority of edits are done by people who are NOT LISTED AS EDITORS IN THAT CATEGORY. This also should have been obvious--after all, most categories don't have named editors, but they have site listings anyway. So, you're deliberately designing a strategy based on the assumption that you KNOW where ... a tiny fraction of the edits are going to happen next, carefully ignoring the fact that you're ignoring most of the edit opportunities that might affect the site.
All in all, I think it's a bad idea.
There was a thread that I was reading several weeks ago about this topic. Most of the posters were claiming that it would be easier for us to apply as an editor and include our websites than to wait for those editors who are no longer active or their DMOZ account were terminated for inactivity of four months.
Thousands are sharing your pain brought by DMOZ including myself. As I understood, there are anomalies within the editors. Their judgment was polluted by their conflict of interest.
In a big category or one that sees a lot of submissions, resubmitting your website every few months is metaphorically shoving it to the back of the line every time it starts moving up. It may never be reviewed at all if you keep that up.
how does one find out if the site has been reviewed and found wanting
An approval leads to a listing, rejection ,,,,, leads to what?
Does the site get sent back to the bottom off the queue until the webmaster improves the site to acceptability?
Does the site just get removed from the review list?
It would be good to know
Do you know that INACTIVITY OF AN EDITOR FOR 4 MONTHS would deactivate his account. And according to my friend who is an editor, once the EDITOR is terminated, DMOZ is not removing the name of that editor in the DIRECTORY. It looks like there is an EDITOR but actually, DMOZ removed him from logging in because of the 4 MONTHS TIME OF INACTIVITY.
The explanations of Flicker about resubmission is full of obscurity. DMOZ MUST ADMIT THAT THEIR SYSTEMs AND PROCEDURES ARE FLAWED and that only those first websites had give the attention in all the spaces in the directory and that their EDITORS ARE GONE ONCE THEIR WEBSITES ARE ADDED.
On the one hand, it's nice to see someone countering
the age-old 'ya ain't nuthin' until ya get in dmoz' myth. Somehow, when folks affiliated with dmoz mention the fact that dmoz is not the holy grail of seo, it lacks the same punch :)
On the other hand
> I only resubmit every 5-6 months
is really not all that different from asking "Why does my foot hurt? I only kick the wall barefoot every 5-6 months."
First things first ... stop kicking the wall, so to speak. Once you have submitted a guidelines compliant request to the most appropriate category, walk away and fergitaboutit. You've done all you can do at that point.
Come to think of it, the next time you get an urge to resubmit, take off the shoe and kick the wall instead. That will actually be more productive than resubmitting because going ahead and kicking the wall doesn't overwrite your submission. Plus, the pain of a solid placed kick will probably take your mind off the dmoz submission for a spell and you can concentrate on your site, and on where you put that bottle of pain pills. :)
Luck to you.
>An approval leads to a listing, rejection ,,,,, leads to what?
Leads to the submitter's having wasted the editor's time and built a reputation for being the sort of person who (maliciously or ignorantly, usually the former) wastes other people's time for his own ulterior motives. What else could it lead to?
>Does the site get sent back to the bottom off the queue until the webmaster improves the site to acceptability?
That is one option. Since so few rejected sites show any indication of the webmaster being able or willing to improve the site, it is an extremely rare option.
>Does the site just get removed from the review list?
I wouldn't put it that way, because it is so misleading in multiple ways.
There is a "list" (thanks for not calling it a "queue," which would be misunderstood--in yet another way--by all the non-mathematicians in the house!) But it is not a list of "sites". It is a list of "suggestions."
A "suggestion" is not a "site," nor is a "site" a "suggestion." You can have a listable site, and be listed, without ever having a suggestion. And you can make a suggestion without ever having a site. And these are not merely theoretical possibilities, they happen all the time. Suggestions and sites are (in our experience) not related in any way that anyone can usefully reason about.
So there is not a "list of SITES." And there doesn't need to be. Any editor can review any site anytime, regardless of whether it's ever been reviewed, regardless of whether it's ever been suggested, regardless of anything.
Nor is there really a "review list". It is easy to think of it like that, as "something someone needs to review." But it's not. It is a list of known UNREVIEWED suggestions. There's a subtle but critical difference: the former is a management (controlling) tool, the latter is an informational (empowering) tool.
OK, so I'm an editor and I have a list of suggestions. I can review the site mentioned in a suggestion, and do the ideal thing with that site. In such a case, the suggestion is obviously finished, and should disappear. And eventually, that should happen.
But in the meantime, I could think, 'this SUGGESTION isn't very good, I can IMPROVE it.' (This has nothing to do with the site, just with a possible ODP listing for it.) I could send the suggestion to the right category (or a better category, or a category nearer the right category), for a more knowledgeable or interested editor to look at. I could change the URL to a better URL giving the same information. I could look at the site itself to find other listable URLs. I could correct the suggested site's title and description to remove inaccuracies, hype, and trivialities -- and again, leave it to be reviewed by another editor who wouldn't have been prejudiced by the original suggestion. I could decide the content was pretty worthless, but leave the suggestion there as a reminder to Google for some authoritative information on that aspect of that subject.
But, most often--90% or more of the time--when you look at an unlistable site, you don't ask "how long will it take this patient to get better?" You might ask, "was this site born brain-dead, or was the brain surgically removed?" but even that really doesn't matter. The most valuable thing you can tell anyone is "This site is worthless. Anybody who thinks this site ISN'T worthless, has such bad judgment that we're better off getting along without their help forever. Anyone who thinks this site was worth developing, we're REALLY BETTER off not reviewing any of their sites forever." Fellow editors often appreciate knowing that. Webmasters seldom do, so it's a very brave editor that would respond to a status check request--except in broad daylight, in an open square patrolled by police.
We submitted their site to DMOZ two and half years ago. Two years ago next month a DMOZ editor moved it to the queue for the category above the one we submitted it to and there it has sat ever since. So don't hold your breath.
An interesting thing is the category we submitted to has had few of our clients competitors sites added but the category above which the DMOZ editor chose for queuing our client's site seems to be shrinking i.e. exisiting sites are getting deleted rather than new sites added.
But, yes, always, don't hold your breath.
But I am a professional (in an information industry), and as one professional to another, I'd like to say: you have not done well for your client, your real client, the person who pays you money and received assurances of your competence.
As an amateur editor, it is none of my business to know the ODP UK category charters, unless I choose to edit there. (Of course, and still less could it be my responsibility to tell anyone what they were.) But as a professional, it IS YOUR responsibility to know how to best serve your client, and to communicate the nature of that service.
You OUGHT (as an ethical obligation) to know, cold, the organization of the region where your clients are; you OUGHT to know, cold, the standard exceptions to the one-suggestion-per-site rule (and some of the unusual exceptions!); and you ought to know, cold, the general rule for site listability (which, curiously enough, the description of your client did not address in any point!)
As an honest provider of professional service, you ought to be able to tell one client, "that site isn't listable, and here's why", "that site is listable in Yahoo, x-hundred-euros-and-wait-two-weeks, in ODP, no money but no holding-of-breath either, in Looksmart, x-euros-per-week", etc. The client ought not to tolerate any less. We, as ODP amateur editors, don't have to tolerate any less than full honesty and competence both with us and with the clients, from you professionals -- and we won't! Rather than tolerate that, we can and do cut off communication as necessary.
In turn, you have the right to expect honesty and public interest of us; you have the right to expect an absolute absence of mercenary spirit in our actions; you should expect that we will NEVER start thinking of ourselves as customers, or of any of you as our clients -- all in the best spirit of amateur activity. And YOU should tolerate no less.
Professional is good, it's the honest way of making money. Amateur is good, it makes life worth living. Each in its place, with integrity and competence as ideals everywhere.
1) The site doesn't work for me. Usually that's because it's a Flash-only site. I leave these in the pool of sites awaiting review, with a note saying they're Flash-only or whatever. Eventually another editor will review them, but it could take a long time. It's always a good idea to make sure your site works with different browsers and with or without Flash, for reasons that have nothing to do with the ODP.
2) The site doesn't belong in the category it was submitted to (it's on a completely different topic, disobeys the rules of the category, is written in the wrong language, etc.) Those sites also stay in the pool of sites awaiting review, but I move them to await review in the category I think it belongs in. Sometimes I guess wrong. It's a good idea to read the category charter and look at the other sites listed in the category to see if you're really submitting to the right place.
3) The site doesn't have enough unique content (it's a forum with ten posts, an informational page with three sentences of generic text, an ad, content copied from somewhere else, only contains content that we don't list like affiliate sales, etc.) I delete those. If a lot of new and genuinely unique content gets added to the site--say, the forum takes off and now has a hundred regular posters--it's fine to submit it again. Most webmasters with content we didn't consider sufficiently unique don't understand WHY we felt that way in the first place, though, and so nothing's likely to change no matter how much they tinker with it.
4) The site is deceptive or is spam. I delete those and take steps to ensure the site won't cause us any more problems.
Thank you very much for your message of the 15th August. I'm very sorry to hear about the problems you are having. At the moment the dedicated full-time team of DMOZ editors are very busy with preparations for the AGM and for that reason you may have to wait longer than normal.
At DMOZ we decide whether a site should be included by looking at how well it ranks in major search engines. As you stated that your site ranks well then it is certain to be included.
As you have had to wait such a long time for your inclusion I suggest that you apply for a refund of your submission fee. Please reference 'vincevincevince' when you do so and I will personally ensure that the refund is sent immediately.
We value your contribution to the directory and hope to be able to approve all your sites for years to come.
Should you wish to discuss this issue further please feel free to contact me directly using the details above.
V. I. Ncevincevince
In case anyone's irony-meter wasn't working during vincevincevince's post, by the way, that's not actually the case.
Zaneta, I was answering another poster's question about what happens to rejected site submissions. Most submitted sites that haven't been added to the directory yet have not been rejected; they simply have not been reviewed by an editor yet.
whenever i asked abt status they use to say not yet reviewd come again after six months to get status
now even after 3 years website not included and am not at present worried about