Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
For DMOZ hip hip - HOOOOORAY.
As the title suggested I submitted my site yesterday (at 7pm UK time) to DMOZ and today it is listed in my category.
PRAISE PRAISE ... I will be listed for next Deep Crawl ... PRAISE PRAISE
Thank you DMOZ!
ps. if the editor that review my site happen to crawl WW I would be glad to personnaly thank him/her (sticky me)
1. You submitted it to exactly the correct regional locality.
2. You had a proper bricks and mortar address on your website which made it easy for the editor to confirm that it was eligible to be listed there. (Why do web design companies so often think it's a good for business to not provide an address and land line phone number?)
3. A keen on the ball editor (not me BTW) lives in the area and he likes to keep it tidy :).
Make it easy to list a website in a locality and response times of several hours are not uncommon. My fastest acceptance was about 6 minutes - because I happened to be working in a category when the website was submitted there.
You submitted it to exactly the correct regional locality.
Yep I couldn't have put it elsewhere it's where I live :)
Why do web design companies so often think it's a good for business to not provide an address and land line phone number?
I think that because they don't want their customers to be put off by a company 'living' half way accross the UK. I don't mind as long as I can have all the ones around me ;)
3. A keen on the ball editor (not me BTW) lives in the area and he likes to keep it tidy .
THANK YOU MR/MS EDITOR. He/She went to my site only about 15 min after I submitted my URL. So may be he/she was working on the category just as you did.
Thank you for the insight, BTW.
Whilst it is encouraging to know that some sites are added within minutes of submission, it is irrelevant to webmasters in general. (as indeed is the counter post that someone's site was added after a 2 year wait)
I am not trying to be rude, but I want to point out that what is relevant is the average wait for review (whichever of the mathematical means you care to use)
It is painfully true that most sites wait a number of months and that there are hundreds of thousands in the unreviewed queue. :(
Many new sites are added within days or weeks of being submitted. The directory grows by at least several thousands of sites per week. In this forum, you mostly just get to hear only about the ones taking a long time; so thanks for letting everyone know that things do go a lot faster sometimes.
You have not in any way answered the point I made above when you say
>>In this forum, you mostly just get to hear only about the ones taking a long time
DMOZ has a mean wait of months and a backlog of hundreds of thousands of sites. So I am correct in saying that if one site is added in minutes is not relevant to the average submission by the average webmaster (whoever that is)
I have had a site added in 5 months.
I also had a site which I wanted removing for ceratin reasons, and my request was sent to an editor 2-3 categories up the ladder.
The site was promptly removed within 15 minutes.
from what I can tell, it depends very much on industry/category and editors.
from what I hear some editors have 100s of sites waiting to be listed, whilst others only get 2-3 submissions a month and are quite prompt in their approval/rejections.
It is quite likely that you're observing a fundamental pattern here.
Your basic smalltime/freelance web development shop will develop 2-3 websites a month for genuine small businesses, which are quite easy to place in appropriate niche categories.
Your basic affiliate spammer will generate a handful of affiliate and/or doorway pages on some new or hijacked domain, call it a "website", submit to some category already overloaded with several of his own previous effusions as well as hundreds of his fellows'. Such categories are not particularly fun to edit -- or useful or productive, since 95%-99.5% of the submittals are non-recycled animal wastes.
(Side note: I don't believe there is anyone on EARTH who has more than five independent, legitimate websites for their own personal interests and real business activities. Anyone who claims to have "49 e-business sites is -- carve it in granite and bronze -- no more than an affiliate doorway spammer.)
So, yes, we hope to provide people who develop several unique sites a month with very good response, and to drive people who have "hundreds" of sites to the point of death in a paroxym of disappointed rage, freeing up planetspace and oxygen for more productive entities. We are not always successful, but it is heartening to hear we are being perceived to be partly successful.
More commonly, there are huge areas of cat space at the ODP where the next editor(s) are well up the tree, with a huge number of cats to worry about. On the other had, there are cats where this is the only cat the editor in question edits, or just one of a small few. In cases where the submission is to the latter, review often happens very quickly. Thus, referring to "average" wait for review at the ODP is very misleading.
The problem is those who submit hundreds of their "unique content" sites tend to bury the legit webmaster with just one site under all their spam. :( And, I have to figure that the ODP spammers are tenacious. Since I have had to deal with submissions of male reproductive organ enlargement sites to categories for substance abuse centers, I can only imagine what things must look like over in Shopping. It is of course easy to fend of spammers in cats where submissions are exceptions to the rule. However, in a cat where 95% are effluvia, it is not so easy.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 9:55 pm (utc) on April 13, 2003]
I do not think it is. If one submits say 100 different sites to different categories, then statistically one is likely to find the whole spread of wait times to get listed (or rejected ;) )
That spread has an average (mathmatically you can work out various means)
As a webmaster, that is the figure that concerns me, not whether one site is listed (luckily) in 15 minutes, or that another is listed after a year.
its like the infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of word processors, sooner or later one monkey will write the complete works of William Shakespeare. But that does not prove anything about the monkey's literary ability. On example is immaterial
as a webmaster, what concerns me is the situation in my cat. Statistical spread doesn't interest me at all.
As a SEO, I'm interested in my experiences so far with dmoz submissions. Again, statistical spread doesn't interest me at all.
Only as someone generally looking at the ODP, talking about the overall state of this giant organisation, I am interested in statistical spread.
The problem is that as a webmaster, you should not be concerned with how long the average is, but how long it is likely for your specific site to be approved. It wouldn't make a difference to me if the average wait in Shopping is over a year if I am submitting a site to a cat in Science that has an editor which has never let a site go unreviewed for more that a week over the last 3 years. Basically, the problem with looking at an average here is the standard deviation is huge. Odds are very good that the review time for a specific submission will be much different than the average.
Added: heini beat me to it. ;)
The you need to rethink your concerns because they are worthless.
If you submit two sites, and one is listed in aday and the other is listed in a year, "six months" is a ridiculous thing for you to consider important.
Some categories are well maintained and updated regularly. Some categories have no one at all interested in them and they are unattended for extended periods. Jumbling concepts of those two together is worse than pointless.
... and a famous variation of that quote continues and all the millions of people using the Internet have shown that to be untrue.
Hey, you can choose your own myths and misconceptions, whether or not you are a webmaster. But it's a bit like saying "what's the average number of tickets you have to buy to win the lottery?" Someone who is determined to be rich will not care about the answer to that question.
And someone desiring to be listed in the ODP will not find the "average wait for review" figure useful. Anyone who submits enough sites for the "average value" to take on any practical meaning, will by then have attracted maximally negative attention from the editors.