Automated Site Status

As a new member, I notice quite a bit of frustration and time spent on NOT knowing.

I may be a bit naive or have not been here long enough to know whether it was previously discussed, could not find it in FAQ, but has anyone thought of an automated interactive database.

Something like:
1. You submit a site within a category.
2. It automatically joins the line within the category.
3. Your number in line is created so when visiting, webmasters can view their number in line.
4. As the editors, pull a site, to be worked, from the line every other site in the category moves up one.
5. This also allows webmasters to approximate the time frame of moving up one number closer.
6. Webmasters get automated status updates 24/7 and the editors will be FREE from status requests.

Maybe this was already discussed, not sure.

Anthony

Maybe this was already discussed

Click to expand...

Yes, and at frequent intervals. Essentially, it's not going to happen any time soon. Please search the forum for the reasons why not.

Oh, and there isn't a line as such. Listing suggestions are processed in any order that the editors see fit. I usually do the most promising ones first - those are the ones which approach guidelines compliant titles and descriptions.

In fact is is asked so often that we even have an entry in our FAQ about this topic.

Jim
Your point is well taken.

But from a public releations standpoint, would it not make more sense in opting for a way by which webmasters may be able to view their status online?

From reading these posts, I see Dmoz is coming under heavy fire.

The online viewable database would definitely eliminate many inquiries about rejections (when not reviewed) etc.

The editors can continue to choose sites at random, but at least webmasters will be able to view categories that are not being worked as well as the status of their sites.

It would be a small step to avoid many negative posts.
It may even serve to place Dmoz at the epitome of an "Open Directory"

Anthony

>But from a public releations standpoint, would it not make more sense in opting for a way by which webmasters may be able to view their status online?

Ah, but you see, we're not WORKING on a PR project.

That might be why the moderators reached consensus to include this in the FAQ:

"We see no benefit to the directory..."

The difficulty arises because there is a big difference between what the ODP is and what people perceive it as being or would like it to be. The two different perceptions does lead to frustrations on both sides.

From the outside. people see a large directory of website listings and believe it must be some sort of corporate entity who are geared towards listing sites. In fact it is a group of people following a hobby and listing sites is only part of the work involved. So, for most people who react to the ODP as a result of their perceptions, a better understanding of the ODP actually is, is what is needed.

The ODP is about developing categories and the suggestion pool is only one source of websites. I list most sites that are suggested but most of the sites that I list are not suggested. I regard a suggestor as someone who is helping me develop a particular category by suggesting a site thus saving me the effort of finding it when I get round to that category.

So the answer as to why any particular site is still unreviewed in a category I could edit, is that I can only devote so much time to editting and this varies. Sometimes I am enthusiastic and get lots done, other times I feel a bit jaded and do other things. Sometimes I feel a particular areas needs my attention and as a result I ignore other areas. The same goes for all the other editors who could review that category. I don't think you can get a more open and honest assessment than that.

At the end of the day the guidelines identify what sites can be listed. After that it is a question of when a site will be listed which is totally unpredictable. So a status report as you suggest would not help at all except to raise and dash peoples expectations and take up editors time.

The heavy criticism often comes from webmasters who believe that the ODP should provide a service promoting their business interests. Pointing out that some 20,000 sites are added each month (including a new Slovak folk dancing category ) does not impress them at all.

regards

Eric
I understand what you are saying.

At the end of the day, one true fact remains.
If you are not in Google, you are nowhere.
If you are not on ODP, you are not in Google.

If this holds true. The editor's work will only increase as time goes on and as the number of sites grow. This will in turn cause reduced output.

While the ODP is a volunteer organization. At some point, PR will become a factor as the downward spiral continues.

ODP has become a very important, if not the most important factor on being found on the web as the web grows.

I think this is where the editors perceptions are different. Most editors would see the ODP as a resource of quality websites that can be used for reference.

f you are not on ODP, you are not in Google. ... ODP has become a very important, if not the most important factor on being found on the web as the web grows.

Click to expand...

That is not true as you can get onto Google fairly easily without being in the ODP. The ODP merely provides a backlink. Getting found on the web is more about how unique you are. Being No 1 on Google for 'village + Dance' is easy for the only dance site based in the village and would be sufficient for the purpose of the site.

The ODP is not about listing all the sites that webmasters choose to create but about listing quality sites that a surfer may wish to find. Thus an increase in sites does not equate to a decrease in output. Though the number of sites on the internet grows, the quality is not in proportion to the growth (i.e. made-for-ads, affiliate marketing sites etc. are produced en-masse) and so the ODP does not perceive as much of a growth as you may think.

To a great extent, I'm afraid my answer will be less than satisfactory as the concerns you seem to advance for the ODP are not relevant to us.

regards

I'm not sure what kind of mission or process models you have in mind. The ODP "editor's work" is TOTALLY supply-driven: that is, there's exactly as much work as there is effort available. But demand can only come from licensees (AOL or Google) or users (individual surfers.) (Webmasters aren't customers, and aren't offered services, so there's nothing they can demand.)

TP207 said:

At the end of the day, one true fact remains.
If you are not in Google, you are nowhere.
If you are not on ODP, you are not in Google.

If this holds true.

Click to expand...

It is easely to be proved wrong.
There are many sites to be found in Google search (even in the first 10 listings within a search) that are not in ODP.

I agree with pvgool that logically, it cannot be true.

But the real point is, it simply doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to you, because it is not something you can control. And it doesn't matter to me, because ... if I were the sort of person for whom such things matter to, I'd be doing something else instead of this anyway. So the question is moot from the beginning.

Start prayin' now and do a lot of it.

*

FWIW - my site was on Google, with a fairly respectable PR, long before I suggested it to DMOZ.

If anyone is being told that they cannot acheive PR without a DMOZ listing, they are being lied to.

Sorry! It's the truth.

Is it true that some web sites could wait even one year for a review? I submitted mine few weeks ago I and I am hoping I'll get a reply within 6 months.

Thank you for your time, OOP editors

A site suggestion can in some cases have to wait several years before it is reviewed. In other cases it is reviewed immediately -- there is never any way of telling.

You might want to have a look at the FAQ about suggesting your site for review. Thanks!

It is also very important to note that very large numbers of sites that were never sugested are reviewed and listed (or not) as a result of editor initiative.

Also note that there is "no reply".

"It is easely to be proved wrong.
There are many sites to be found in Google search (even in the first 10 listings within a search) that are not in ODP."

Can you suggest some that are in the top 10 and not listed in Google for COMPETITIVE KEYWORDS? That is the key. Find a competitive keyword, search google, look at the results. I bet there are more sites in that top 10 that are in DMOZ than those that are not. UNLESS people are spamming the engine to achieve their listing. If you do find a term to prove me wrong, I can find 10 more that will prove I am right. Saying that, do I think there are exceptions? Yes. But they are merely small exceptions.

Could it be that Editors routinely use Google to search for sites, review say the top 30 or 40 listed in Google, and those that could be listed at the ODP then get listed?

Chicken or Egg?

Egg or Chicken?

I knew that was coming. Editors that rely on Google need to dig deeper. They are not doing the ODP justice.

If that really is the case, editors are making the situation even worse. By giving sites that have already made it even more weight, thus pushing great sites even further down in the results.