Forum Moderators: open
We have a site which I have submitted to Dmoz twice in a year, which has not been listed. I am thinking of doing a major redesign soon and I need to know which, if any, of the following things could have caused the site to be rejected:
1. The whole site is in Flash (as we use it to demo Flash to clients). It doesn't really need to be in Flash.
2. Some content is dynamically generated in an iframe over the Flash. Therefore it does not work in netscape. We have a note to this effect on the index page (but have an older site online for Netscape users, which is also Flash).
3. Some content, i have belatedly noticed, shouldn't be there as it is copyright protected. Only a small number of pages, and a dmoz editor would have to have been very dedicted to spot them, but they're there (obviously I'll remove it anyway, but if this could have been the reason for rejection I'll resubmit afterwards)
So does Dmoz penalise sites for not being fully Netscape compliant, and do they have guidelines for using Flash?
If it's evident that it requires Internet Explorer, the editor might fire up a copy or might just leave the site in the queue for somebody else to revue - his/her choice.
Don't forget that some editors are running Linux or Unix. Also, there's always the danger that the editor can't tell the difference between a dead website and one that doesn't work in his/her browser. Standards compliant websites aren't a requirement, but they sure make editing easier.
As to Flash, that's not grounds for rejection either. On the other hand, we do like websites to be usable. A Flash intro that takes a very long time to download with no escape or bypass is at some risk of being put back in the queue or even declined.
>> ..... I need to know which, if any, of the following things could have caused the site to be rejected: <<
How do you know that the reason that it has not been listed yet, is that is has been rejected? It is quite possible that it has not been reviewed yet, or has been reviewed and then passed on to the unreviewed queue of a more suitable category, where it is still waiting?
You were correct in your first assumption. You should enquire on Resource Zone as to the current status of the submission; although discussion in general terms can still continue here if you want to.
You should be aware that Flash and proprietary HTML are bars to viewing sites to some viewers; in fact, for several very good reasons, they are proportionately greater bars to ODP editors than to the general surfing population. They will therefore -- on average -- delay site review. And, if you don't clearly indicate on the entry page that they are required, the site may be deleted as "apparently nonfunctioning." But they are not absolute bars to a listing.
Caveat: I am one of many editors that don't ever review or list such sites at all.
I would link this thread back to that one, but seeing as the mods here always delete such links, you will have to search for it yourself.
If the editor doesn't spot the notice that it doesn't work in his browser (and, please note there is more than IE and Netscape in use), this may mean a quick rejection. Not to mention, if an editor just leaves it in unreviewed for some other editor to possibly look at, it could languish there for years. If your site is being passed over by the local editor because it is non-standards compliant, if that cat is in an actively edited branch with few unrevieweds, odds are good no editall will ever even bother to look, and instead focus on areas of the ODP where greens are plentiful. Thus, there is a chance your site may be ignored for a long time. Also, is this site quick loading for people on dial up connections? And before you answer than, factor in that your idea of quick loading may be different than the ODP editor that reviews it. The opinion that counts will be that editor's, not yours.
The site speed is something I hadn't really thought about - there is a speed issue on one page (not the whole site). I'll work on it, and perhaps convert the site to HTML after all.
