Forum Moderators: open
1)No or little content = no addition.
2)The more subject specific the web site or page, the better.
3)I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, it’ll show on the page. I reject such sites.
4)Geocities sites are highlighted by DMOZ for regular review, probably because they tend to disappear. If you have a Geocities site, make sure it’s updated regularly.
5)Do not submit more than two times for the same domain.
6)Long descriptions get chopped, always. The shorter the description, the better chance it’ll be used as is.
7)If the site’s not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editor’s a good editor, he or she would thank you.
8)Submit to the right category, or it’ll be passed around like a burning coal until it’s deleted by some careless editor.
9)Sites with its own domain are less likely to be rejected.
10)If you’ve been deleted from the list, kindly ask the editor why. Perhaps the site was down when the links were reviewed.
11)Don’t bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted.
You can't be serious.
Sorry, but do you edit in the hobby and crafts section? You can't really be serious about a site that wants to make money not being reviewed fairly, can you?
Maybe, but my site, my.isp.net/~myname got listed with no problems. Note that I did not say with no delays, it took five weeks, but it got listed and I am grateful.
> 11)Don’t bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted.
I had a good case for changing the description, and it was changed.
I never said subdomain sites don't get listed, just that domain names have a higher chance of getting listed. I mentioned Geocities didn't I? Also, you try to question the editor's ability to edit sites many more times, and you might just get deleted. It's not like he or she didn't go into your site and looked around to make sure it fit the initial description. Don't push your luck.
Bingo.
I hope I don't offend a senior editor but I strongly disagree with the statements in the following:
3)I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, it’ll show on the page. I reject such sites.
There are many, many areas of DMOZ that it is perfectly normal for the site to be promoting their business with the expectation of revenue generation. Most sites in the ODP are business based and I hope you do not apply this practice in these areas.
7)If the site’s not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editor’s a good editor, he or she would thank you.
Two weeks is almost impractical in most areas. Yes, I have listed sites that were submitted hours before, but that is an exception in categories that I have been caught up on. I would say give it at least a month or more depending on the category which may have thousands of "unreviewed".
I am serious. Nothing wrong if it's commercial but when the page is merely affiliate links and very little content, you can just forget it. Surprisingly, there are very few borderline cases, because there are mainly two types of private individual webmasters: the get rich type and the enthusiast.
Read post above. As for the timeline, two weeks are more than enough time to wait. The cat editor must be prompted to do his or her freaking job, even if it's volunteered.
Emailing the resident editor 2 weeks after you submitted is probably not going to get you a response and probably not going to get your site reviewed faster. Many editors don't answer emails from submitters...ever. There are public forums for checking your listing status.
Simply requesting a description change will not get your site deleted. You may not get the requested change, though.
I've never seen Geocities sites targeted specifically for review. Depending on the category, the freshness of the content isn't necessarily relevent. In categories where the freshness is important, Geocities wouldn't be much more likely than any other free host to have stale information.
Submitting to the right category definitely helps but few missubmitted sites are "passed around like a burning coal until [they're] deleted". It can happen but it isn't a common occurrence.
As for the timeline, two weeks are more than enough time to wait. The cat editor must be prompted to do his or her freaking job, even if it's volunteered.
[edited by: motsa at 2:24 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
[edited by: mat_bastian at 2:28 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
Been quite a while since I edited in ODP (actually was a senior editor), but an editor that was that heavy handed was sure to be "caught" and reprimanded (or worse) by the metas.
I find it strange that you guys are surprised that d-moz doesn't like to list obviously commercial sites
(a) legitimate businesses whose sites are, obviously, going to be designed to help bring in business (and thus money) for the company (otherwise, why bother having a website?) and
(b) sites that are virtually nothing but affiliate links to other businesses.
Both are technically in it for the money but only the first type is welcomed into the directory.
Say what you like because what's funny is you yourself are giving tips when you're not even an editor. I am. For example, for any editor with Geocities listings, ODP will have them marked orange with a special mention. Would an imposter know this? Perhaps my tips are non-standard for some editors, but I'm giving one perspective (which I doubt it's all that unique) that some people here may find valuable.
[edited by: Laisha at 3:12 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
[edit reason] Removed unnecessary insulting language. [webmasterworld.com...] [/edit]
Neo... you seem to be a bit abrasive in a couple of threads I have read here today. Would it be out of line of me to ask if you are having a rough day? If so, I hope it get's better for you, but I need to say, people here are not naturally inclined to make enemy's. Your approach seems slightly suspect.
How am I heavy-handed? Do you want your sites to be listed in a timely fashion and fairly? I do. Perhaps Laisha can address why there's a pervasive opinion that editors "normally" wait months to list. I check my cats on a regular basis. Sorry to "disappoint" you all.
I apologize if I sound abrasive in my posts, I'm really a nice guy in person. On the Web, you can just speak you mind, and I'm doing just that...pissing many people off I'm sure.
You do the ODP a major disservice by posting such a list. I agree with fewer than half of your points. You're entitled to your opinion, but I sure hope people here don't give it much weight.
Keith aka kctipton
meta-editor at ODP
Is this not a board to help people get listed? Perhaps if editors be more upfront about the unwritten rules, they'd get listed faster and in a more reliable fashion. Where is your list of tips?
Perhaps Laisha can address why there's a pervasive opinion that editors "normally" wait months to list.
Well, since you asked...
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It has been a fact for a couple of years now. There is an inordinate wait for most submissions.
In November, 2000, there were already numerous unreviewed listings a year old, as evidenced by this excerpt from the Official ODP newsletter [dmoz.org]:
"How does THAT impact the unreviewed for a category which has been piling up since November 9, 1999? Yes. There really ARE unreviewed from that date."
There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is that many of the shorter-term "long-term" editors have a propensity for finding reasons to make rules which keep listings out rather than adding listings. This has puzzled me for quite some time now.
Both staff and shorter-term "long-term" editors have for some time found reasons to remove listings along with editors, which doesn't help much either, but that's for another post, I suppose.
The last I heard -- and granted, that was quite awhile back -- around 10% of all applicants were accepted. Back "in the day," there was talk of making the application clearer, as it was suspected that many intelligent and capable applicants simply misunderstood the questions, and the application was fairly unclear as to what was wanted from applicants.
Further, many of the true long-term editors have simply given up doing much of anything.
I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, it’ll show on the page. I reject such sites.
Well, again, perhaps this has changed, but the motive of a webmaster never used to be at issue. Why is it now? If a site has useful content, the guidelines, staff, and metas used to say to add it.
Do not submit more than two times for the same domain.
Sites with its own domain are less likely to be rejected.
Don’t bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted.
Wow. Is this now policy, or simply the way you handle things?
If the site’s not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editor’s a good editor, he or she would thank you.
If you’ve been deleted from the list, kindly ask the editor why. Perhaps the site was down when the links were reviewed.
ROFL! Okay, this is simply funny. Unless you're talking about small categories or unemployed editors, both are doubtful. There were countless threads in the ODP forum encouraging people not to answer email from submitters. (And yes, I will admit that I was one of the major encouragers.)
As a long time editor, I must say I'm quite disappointed with your reply. True editors commit to reviewing submissions on a timely basis. Because I'm both a webmaster and an editor, I perhaps can see the situation both ways...and I know what it's like waiting to be listed. When Yahoo! listed my site in a week many many years ago, I thought I died and went to heaven. I want to do the same thing for the submitters who have great content for others to see. True editors DO NOT wait months to edit; I find your lack of dedication shocking. (Maybe you'll edit this portion of my message, too.) Perhaps my way of doing things are unwritten and non-standard and you may disagree but I doubt if they're all that unique. What I fail to mention is that I give my submitters feedback on how to improve if I reject and when the site's listed if I accept. I answer all emails from my submitters. I see no problem with communicating with the webmasters because as a webmaster myself, I would appreciate the feedback. To each his own.
Obviously google needs to re-evaluate the "seed" , sounds like the fruit is getting rotten, there is way too much pressure on an already over burdened system.
A few new sources of quality sites would add a degree of freshness that "minty" just can't find now.
I was about to post my cats for verification but after I disagreed (strongly) with two editors here, they might get me kicked out. ODP will always be valuable if we all stay committed and force editors to do their jobs. The only thanks I ever get from being an editor for the past three years were from the webmasters, and that may be the reason why I'm still there.
3) I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, it’ll show on the page. I reject such sites.
This is completely wrong. The value of DMOZ is research on any topic including commercial enterprises. Even non-profit organizations and research established need to generate revenue (grants/donations) for operating expenses, and labor of love has nothing to do with it. Point #1 covers this.
5) Do not submit more than two times for the same domain.
This is wrong. The guidelines suggests once, but in either case point #1 covers this as well.
Noting most companies with their own category didn't have their own category when they started or DMOZ started. Why this discrepancy?
6) Long descriptions get chopped, always. The shorter the description, the better chance it’ll be used as is.
Editor specific. A short description is better mind you and DMOZ guidelines suggests 25- 30 words. (seems rather long to me though).
11) Don’t bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted.
This is wrong, and very much time dependent. Fixing typos is always permitted, and should the contents of your site change I believe an edit is in the best interest of DMOZ and DMOZ users.
Changing Your Site Listing [dmoz.org]
[edited by: fathom at 4:47 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
It's not a matter of wrong or right...I was trying to put into words something that is mostly very subjective.
