foetusized

I got into that category yesterday and did some work. The unreviewed queue was a mess. I took care of some older submissions (from 2001 and early 2002), a couple update submissions, and deleted a bunch of content-free submissions; but I don't think I got to yours yet. I'll try to get back to work on the category in the next few days. Thanks for pointing out this backed-up category -- Foe

Sure. Go to the Site Submission Status Thread, read the first post for directions on what to post, and then post a message asking for the status -- Foe

I listed your site today whilst editing within Shopping: Entertainment: Recordings and its subcategories -- Foe

Hmm, that is his contact email (and he gets a lot of mail there) but his title is not Editor in Chief, IIRC -- Foe

Took me about one year to become an editall and another year to become a meta, but your milage may vary. It is a slightly-well-known paradox that those who strive to become a meta for personal glory rarely achieve the position; it is only by becoming one with the directory and working selflessly to improve it that one can optain meta status -- Foe

Re: Submitting sites to a category needing an edit Dodgyvinyl: I'm a meta-editor who is listed in the "parent" category Shopping/Entertainment/Recordings and I regularly review the submissions to that Vinyl subcategory since no one is listed there. I've not been able to get in to edit for several days due to to downtime on the ODP site (and some health issues) but I should be able to look at the submissions in that category within a week (if the Lord's willin' and the crick don't rise). That category does need an editor (I'd love someone to help out there) but that doesn't mean that it goes unedited in the meantime -- Foe

I've undone some of the damage; the Stickers Exchange site is now listed in one of the categories where it used to be, and I've left notes to try to prevent this confusion for happening again. I'm not sure where all you've submitted your site; it has been found in the unreviewed queue of some really off-topic categories like http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/S . Stop doing that, please -- Foe

It appears to have been deleted because it is a mirror of http://www.stickersexchange.com/ which was previously listed. It also appears that http://www.stickersexchange.com/ was also deleted for being a mirror of http://www.Label-Exchange.com/ . You need to decide which of the two you would like listed and not submit the mirror as it can lead to problems like this -- Foe

We have an automatic link checker (called Robozilla) that finds some of these problems. It runs every few months, and just completed a run. There are lots of sites throughout the directory marked in red by Robozilla that editors are busily working on. The number of dead links should decrease quite a bit over the next few weeks as they are either fixed to a working URL or removed from public view -- Foe

Re: dmoz Feedback Form Feedback on the main feedback form ( http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi ) goes to staff, and is likely to not get a response as they are quite busy and more concerned with the "big picture." Feedback to specific editors (follow the link at the bottom of a category page to their profile, and follow the feedback link from their) is more likely to get results, but one's mileage may vary -- Foe

The old listed link is not dead, but did contain information about the band's new domains http://www.galahadonline.com/ and http://www.galahadonline.co.uk/ , both of which forward to http://www.galahadonline.fsnet.co.uk/ which I listed. So it wasn't dead, but did give evidence that it was out-of-date and superceded by the new site -- Foe

It appears to be the lack of anyone editing within that category. Out of 8 submissions in that category, five were from you about this matter. I've made the change. As a volunteer organization, we all pitch in and help, but there are areas of the directory that sometimes become neglected. There's a difference between refusal to make a change and the lack of someone to do the work. However, when such problems are pointed out, most all editors will do their best to fix them. Hope this helps -- Foe

Yes, this is true for the most part. There are some exceptions. For example, some sites have no "local" presence so they would not get a Regional listing. My personal site, about the hobby of collecting compact discs, falls in this category. Your site may belong in a category in or around http://dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/India/Business_and_Economy/Internet/ , for instance (but I tend to stay out of Regional, and that's just a personal opinion) -- Foe

We do this already, although the way the system works we add a message to the rejection email explaining why we rejected the application and urging them to reapply to a smaller category (for example). Its not a requirement, but us metas want to get as meny good editors into the ODP as we can, so I cannot see anyone not using this option that we already have -- Foe

Re: can you check on submission It is currently in unreviewed in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Home_and_Garden/Garden_Accessories/Irrigation/ . It appears that the submission from Home was moved to Shopping, which at first glance seems to be a better fit for the site as it features an online store. I would go ahead and clear up the unreviewed in that category, but I know absolutely nothing about irrigation -- Foe PS: JavaScript would only be a problem if the editor trying to review your site was using a browser which didn't include JS and the site didn't work at all without it. Sites that use Java or Flash for navigation are more likely to cause problems for editors and delayed reviews, IMHO.

Two ideas: 1) Work your way up the category tree. If the editor in the category in question is not active (not every listed editor still works in the ODP, it takes some time before their account "times out") or is not responsive, then try an email to the editor in a parent category. 2) Post the name of the category here; there are many editors here who could take a look to see if there is a problem, and perhaps accept one of the update submissions. Hope this helps -- Foe

First of all, after a year with no response one should never worry about resubmitting. However, someone submitted your site again last month. Even still, a resubmission would not have gotten you or your site "in trouble." It appears that a submission to Health/Nutrition was deleted as being off-topic, but there is still one submission waiting review (with about 300 other sites) in Shopping/Health/Nutrition, and a second submission made last month in Shopping/Health/Nutrition/Vitamins (with about 70 other sites waiting for review). Hope this helps -- Foe

Also, all that information about submitting only once is outdated (and needs to be fixed). Submitting one's site to two or three applicable categories is not a problem, and will not get you in trouble. We will block abusive submitters and perhaps remove them from the directory, but a handful of submissions does not constitute abuse. That said, many editors will look at such additional submissions, see where the site is already listed, and delete the additional submission because they feel the current listing is sufficient. Personally, I delete many such listings as being "already appropriately listed" when they submit their online shopping site to Arts/.. when it is already listed in Shopping/.. per our guidelines -- Foe

No one uses the DMOZ search engine, other than editors. And webmasters trying to see if their site has been listed yet. /images/icons/smile.gif -- Foe

I'll take a swipe at answering this. First of all, each entry for a multiple listing is stored individually, with its own title and description. This way, a URL that is listed twice can have different descriptions in each category it is listed in (for example, a bilingual site listed in two different languages would need to have a description in World/Deutch/.. in German and in Arts/.. in English). Changing the description for one listing has no effect on the other listings. However, internally, editors can see if a URL has multiple listings and see where else the URL is listed (and can import the title and description from any of the other listings, which they can then use as is or with modifications. If I were trying to get a listing moved, I'd contact the editor where it was listed and ask for it to be moved. If I were trying to get a second listing, i'd submit my URL to the category where I desire that listing and submit it there. Emailing an editor in that category would be using the feedback form to ask for a listing, which is frowned upon. Emailing the editor where it is already listed would be barking up the wrong tree, in most cases. That said, I consistently delete submissions asking for a second listing, if the site is off-topic where they are seeking the second listing and it looks appropriately placed where it already is listed. Make sure you make a good case to the editor that the site deserves the second listing, and look at the submission guidelines to make sure that your site really can be listed where you think it can. I'm really not sure what your proposed "interface to suggest additional listings of their sites" would do that submitting the site to a second or third category doesn't already accomplish -- Foe

The Open Directory Project has a link-checking bot that runs every few months, named Robozilla. It checks every listing for validity, then goes back in about a weeks time and double-checks the ones that had problems on the first run. Robo then marks the sites that were invalid on both checks, flagging them in red. At this point the human editors become involved, giving the sites a third check, and attempting to find a new valid URL if the URL we have is indeed dead. So why am I bringing this up now? Robozilla is currently on the rampage, marking sites in red; he started this afternoon. Editors are starting to panic as their listings start to bleed red. Oh, the carnage! How does this affect the users of the Open Directory Project? First of all, the weeks following a run are the few times the directory shrinks instead of grows, as invalid URLs are removed from the public view. If you notice your site removed from the ODP in the coming weeks, there is a chance that it was flagged as bad and removed; please submit the current URL (editors appreciate this help, really). Secondly, there is a tendency for editors to concentrate on dealing with the Robozilla-flagged errors following a run. The number of unreviewed sites will increase over the next months, partly because some of the error sites will be moved to unreviewed to remove them from public view pending further investigation (different editors do this, but not all), and partly because we review fewer submissions while investigating the Robozilla errors. That's right, it might take even longer for new submissions to be reviewed in the coming weeks; it all depends on how much time the editors working in an area have to edit. Sorry to lecture. Any questions? /images/icons/smile.gif -- Foe

Working on the updates first is my own personal preference; other editors may work differently. New submissions usually outnumber update submissions by a large margin, so I like to get updates done first, as they may include URL changes to fix dead listings (and I hate dead listings). After I do the updates, I work on the new submissions, first deleting the obvious garbage and moving the obvious misplaced, then reviewing sites for submission with the oldest first. When dealing with categories with hundreds of submissions waiting for review, one has to prioritize them somehow, and that's how I do it -- Foe

* Read publications in their areas of intrest, both to stay on top of the subject and to note advertisments with URLs. * Keep in touch with fellow editors; communication, even socially within a chat session, leads to increased teamwork within the project. * Already kinda mentioned, but I keep an eye out for subjects without categories in order to create new categories for those subjects. As a music editor, I try to identify important musical artists that should have their own categories but don't already, and then build and add these new categories to the directory. Don't have as much time as I used to to do that now that I'm a meta-editor, but it is very satisfying work. -- Foe

Those pigeons at Google work fast. http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html -- Foe (yes, the above is Google's April Fools joke for today)