DMOZ followup - SIX MONTHS!!

[csn]

Delay between follow-up requests increased to six months
Due to the increasing number of follow-up requests in this forum and the limited editor time available for handling such requests we ask you to wait six months instead of only one before inquiring again about your site. Please understand that we prefer to spend our time on reviewing and adding sites to the directory rather than answering to status requests and that we consider first-time requests more important than follow-up requests. Thanks for your comprehension.

If you're coming back to get an update on the status of your site, please do not start a new thread. Reuse the original thread you started. It would probably help if you bookmarked the thread the first time around. You can also make an 'Advanced Search' for threads started by you (Search by User Name).

http://resource-zone.com/forum/announcement.php?f=22

Ridiculous.

[stymiee]

Anyone really surpised?

[Magic2K2]

I don't see how this changes anything. They are asking that you wait six months before posting in their forum again, which doesn't really make a difference. Whether you post or not, it'll still take the same amount of time for them to get to your site. They aren't saying it will take them six months to review your site.

[Christoph]

DMOZ is out of control.

[metavisia]

Possible. I posted a web site in the spring, it's not there yet. It's now November.

What I hate about DMOZ is the way they order sites. They take months to list your site. Why don't they give it some rating, so best sites of category be on top? If I name my company "000 AAA 00011 My company" I got first position? I don't get that.

[petertdavis]

Editors can make a top site list on the top, problem being is they usually only do that for their own sites.

[davesplace1]

DMOZ is very slow, but then again listing is free. DMOZ has just not entered the internet age yet

[Cutter]

Don't rely on DMOZ for your sites success.

They should consider submission fees to speed up the process ... it would be the only directory that would be worth it.

[racerman28]

Nothing new with DMOZ. Your pretty much at the mercy of the category editor.

Some 'editors' NEVER (and I'm not kidding) add sites!

I've have several sites that NEVER got in and one of my sites was added after 1 day!!

Go figure.

[Brak]

Nothing new with DMOZ. Your pretty much at the mercy of the category editor.

Some 'editors' NEVER (and I'm not kidding) add sites!

I've have several sites that NEVER got in and one of my sites was added after 1 day!!

Go figure.

Then be a part of the solution, not the problem - volunteer to be an editor.

I don't see how anyone that's not already an editor can possibly complain.

[stymiee]

I don't see how anyone that's not already an editor can possibly complain.

Easy, they reject you left and right. Seems like they don't understand that they have a problem.

[petertdavis]

Then be a part of the solution, not the problem - volunteer to be an editor.

I don't see how anyone that's not already an editor can possibly complain.

I tried that myself. The problem isn't that they need more editors. The problem is the leadership. It's terrible.

[tkmerch]

Bluefind is better!! and only $40

[Backlinker1]

<quote>
Seems like they don't understand that they have a problem.
</quote>
I am taking this quote out of context but it raises some interesting points.
1...
Dmoz editors certainly 'have a problem' The 'problem' is that they have to waste a mountain of time dealing with sites that have been submitted ( often deliberately I think ) to the wrong category. Taking the category I edit as an example.... 99% of sites submitted have to be redirected to another editor in another category. 99% !!! I kid you not. To make matters worse I know that the category I am sending them on to has no resident editor at the moment. I could apply for that category as well but I dread to think what would be waiting for me.

2...
Getting listed in dmoz is often very important to the submitting webmaster. this means they are very concerned about the waiting list and getting to the top of it....... many dmoz editors do not see it this way. their job is to add valuable new sites to the directory and they do not necessarily see getting through the waiting list ( the greens ) as being the best way to do this.

3...
Editing is a voluntary job. Dmoz do not charge for listing and do not pay their editors. Most editors probably join to get their own site listed but those who stay on are doing it for the fun of it. They do not always have the time to spend hours every day doing it.... and why should they ?

Dmoz runs a web directory and their mission is to list all the 'good' sites on the web. their mission is not to list YOUR site ( quickly or otherwise ). they are not there to help improve your business chances or your placement on Google. these are just little bonuses you get from being in there .

You may want to be in dmoz, but they have no obligation to put you there, or play by the rules you want them to play by, or do things the way YOU think they should be done.

<disclaimer >
I am just a fairly new and very junior editor at the ODP. The thoughts above are mine and do not necessarily reprsent them or their thoughts.

graham

[JakeCop]

I am just a fairly new and very junior editor at the ODP. The thoughts above are mine and do not necessarily reprsent them or their thoughts.

graham

Well, maybe you or anyone here can answer me this. I submitted www.whatdvd.net to Dmoz back in April, and I've just been told it has been declined because it doesn't have any original content: http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13831

Can anyone see the content on www.whatdvd.net?

[petertdavis]

Well, maybe you or anyone here can answer me this. I submitted www.whatdvd.net to Dmoz back in April, and I've just been told it has been declined because it doesn't have any original content: http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13831

Can anyone see the content on www.whatdvd.net?

It doesn't matter what you have on the site. DMOZ won't look past the Amazon affiliate links.

[easytrade]

I agree with you guys.

Dmoz is now ruled by the editors who would not let you apply for a new editorial post at any cost.

I submitted my sites to Dmoz ages ago - no replies, tried contacting the editor, still no luck. Applied for the editorial post again no luck.

End result: DmoZ ---> bye bye

[JakeCop]

It doesn't matter what you have on the site. DMOZ won't look past the Amazon affiliate links.

Amazon affiliate links shouldn't be a problem, as I pointed out in the thread on the boards every site in that category has either Amazon, or Adsense or both. Affiliate links are allowed as long as there is sufficient original content.

Sadly, my site has no content whatsoever.

[Backlinker1]

I cannot, and will not, comment on your particular site, but I know that I have rejected one or two on a similar premis. My category is for informational sites in a specific niche area. I have rejected two ( I think ) submissions on the basis that they contain nothing but a bunch of pictures of someones collection. If there had been some text about the pictures it would have made them a reasonable reference site or whatever, but pictures without captions are pointless.

I think the important thing here is that the dmoz guidelines are for editors to list good useful sites with original content. they do not allow affiliate sites or sites that just churn out the same thing that can be found on hundreds of other sites.

I am not saying your site is like this, I really wouldn't know, I have never seen it, but dmoz is not there to list EVERY site on the internet. it is there to list the good/useful/original ones. that is why they have editors rather than autolisting.

I am also not saying that this is right or wrong, my opinions are not important, I am just telling you how I perceive it to be from ( sort of ) on the inside.

[JakeCop]

You even sound like a Dmoz editor, no offense.

I was told by the editor Hutcheson:

I dunno. The site I visited certainly has movie pages with no reviews at all, unique or not.

Which is a flat out mistruth. Either he's incompetant, or lying.

[pfitz]

Well its getting to the point that webmasters are getting to dislike DMOZ. IF only DMOZ wasn't used by google it would be entirely irrelevent and webmasters would ignore the out of date directory :|

[Backlinker1]

<quote>
IF only DMOZ wasn't used by google
</quote>

What was that my grandmother used to say ? " If ifs and ands were pots and pans.... we'd all be tinkers

i guess google use dmoz because it is still the best, and because it IS human edited. If another directory was to take over from them then I think 6 months down the line the result would probably be the same.

Graham

[JakeCop]

i guess google use dmoz because it is still the best, and because it IS human edited.

I think the human edited thing is the trouble.

My thread was closed, my abuse report has been 'resolved' with this message:

Status

Report 670408bf98253e665dfb732fbdbfbf7e was submitted on 2004-11-11 09:01 .

Its current status is resolved - This report has been resolved. We do not disclose the details of our findings, but if abusive editing was found it will be rectified. Thank you for your report.

So they don't disclose their findings? In short, my site hasn't been listed because it doesn't have any reviews on it. I ask you, come on!

[racerman28]

Brak,

I don't think I am part of the problem. If I came off like I was complaining then you misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out that they don't have their #%$@ together. This is common knowledge.

I have, in fact, applied to be a category editor several times and was rejected EVERY time. And I wasn't applying to promote myself either. Again, not complaining here just stating some facts.

tkmerch, I agree that there are 'better' directories but unfortunately DMOZ is important as far as links go because of their relationship with the big G.

That being said, I try to get some of my sites in if I can and then I move on...and always have done that.

Have a great weekend!

[JakeCop]

Check it out, this guy hutcheson is now calling me a lier, saying that I'm pretending the site has more content thanit actually has.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27376

I think you needed to feature the links to pages where the site actually HAD unique content, rather than trying to pretend that it had much more content than was actually there. Deceptive linking doesn't pay.