Banned somehow? Akira Web not getting in DMOZ

I submitted my site and the editor said "After logging in, I noticed you do not have a submission pending review. This might be due to multiple submissions or submissions in the wrong category." I submitted it again, and asked her if it was pending review. I never got a email back so I sent another a few days later, and there still wasn't a response. Anyone have any suggestions? I really want to get my site listed in DMOZ. I submitted it again if anyone wants to help me out and check on the status, and maybe keep me updated that would be really appreciated. I didn't realize when I started that it was a task in itself getting listed here. I'm just hopeing the outcome is a good one.

Category:Category: Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Hosting: A
Site URL: http://www.akiraweb.com/
Title of Site: Akira Web
Site Description: Affordable web hosting services for individuals and small to medium size businesses.

No, not banned (why do people always think they are banned, simply because the time for a listing is long?).

Like all those webdesigner categories, a very huge amount of sites is submitted. In this one, more than hundred are still waiting for review - including yours. Everyone seems to be doing webhosting nowadays, and of course everything begins with an "A" ...

Seems like my reply to the question "why do people always think they are banned, simply because the time for a listing is long?" was deleted.

The reason I believe is because DMOZ has a policy of leaving submitters in the dark and not informing them in any way shape or form. Most emails to editors are never replied to, even though the time frame to have a site listed is far longer than other directories.

In a nutshell DMOZ informs legitimate sumitters with as much information as they supply to spammers. From my-point-of-view, it's not suprising "people always think they are banned" as they are given no reason to think otherwise.


Dave

>> In a nutshell DMOZ informs legitimate sumitters with as much information as they supply to spammers. <<

There is a reason that we don't supply information to spammers. If we did, they would be able to use that information to more effectively disguise their submissions, making it harder for us to weed them out.

As soon as genuine submitters start providing us with notarized certificates verifying that they are genuine submitters, and that they have read, understood, and complied with the ODP submittal policies, we will start sending them feedback on what's happening to their submission. Even then, all we'll be able to say is "not received", "still waiting" or "listed", because that's all the information we have.

There is a reason that we don't supply information to spammers. If we did, they would be able to use that information to more effectively disguise their submissions, making it harder for us to weed them out.

Click to expand...

Yes I know. I am speaking of the genuine site submissions. As far as feedback goes, they are treated the same as spammers. Hence the very possible reason so many assume they have been banned.

As soon as genuine submitters start providing us with notarized certificates verifying that they are genuine submitters, and that they have read, understood, and complied with the ODP submittal policies, we will start sending them feedback on what's happening to their submission

Click to expand...

Isn't that what the I have read and understand the submissions guidelines, and I'm ready to submit my siteis for? If it's not, it's all that DMOZ supplies so there is not much else submitters can do.

I think you're right about people thinking that they've been banned because they do not have easy access to information about their submissions. In the absence of real information people tend to invent their own explanations. We are aware of this, but it never hurts to be reminded that this is still a problem. I don't think anyone feels that we have come up with the best possible solution to this problem.

This resource zone is (so far) the best tool we have to combat this information vacuum. Here, editors can use their judgment and answer specific questions about the status of a particular submission. This is not a perfect solution, but neither is this problem the aspect of the directory that is most in need of attention right now.

Most emails to editors are never replied to...

Click to expand...

I'd like to address the response issue. There is an unfortunate valid reason that many editors don't reply. When I first began, I eagerly emailed back in hopes of being helpful. What I unfortunately learned was, if I told someone something they didn't want to hear some of those people: 1. Become really nasty. 2 Use my email address in a negative manner and 3. Threaten to sue me if I don't add their site immediately. I've heard other horror stories from other editors about negative responses.

Granted, that is not what happens every time, but it only took a couple of times for me to stop responding. I know of many others who have had a similar if not identical experience. Editors are not required to respond to emails, and many don't--others do, it is up to them. I've found most of the submittors were appreciative and acted appropriately, however, my personal feeling is that I spend a lot of my free time editing and I'd honestly rather not spend it being abused even one more time. Therefore my personal choice is that it isn't worth risking a third bad encounter. Fortunately, this forum exists so that those who submit sites for consideration have a place to go to find out the status of their site.

Hi xixtas & kokopeli

I hear what you are saying about abusive replies to emails. What I think would make a BIG difference is a simple auto-reply that reads something along the lines of:

==================
Dear Submitter

Thank you for taking the time to submit your site to the DMOZ directory. As you may, or may not be aware, all submitted sites are reviewed by human volunteers. It is possible that the editor may change your title and/or description and/or category to better suit your submission.

The delay in having your site included or rejected can vary between 1 month and 1 year. Please wait at least 3 months before enquiring about your submission. When/if you do enquire please only do so here: http://www.resource-zone.com

Once again we thank you in helping to build the largest human edited directory.
=======================

Something as simply as that can make a world of difference and is only common courtesy.

I would also like to suggest that Editors that do not wish to reply to emails set up a similar auto-reply stating politely that they will not reply but have recieved their email and WILL read it.

Dave

Well, that's certainly worth thinking and talking about. Thanks!

If it were up to me I'd phrase it a bit differently though, to take into account the fact that many of our best site suggestions come from our customers, the web surfers, rather than from our suppliers, the webmasters.

Something like ...

Thank you for suggesting a site for inclusion in the Open Directory. We appreciate all help in calling our attention to good web sites and, though we cannot respond individually to the large number of suggestions or guarantee that they will be evaluated in any particular time-frame, we do eventually evaluate them all.

That would work too I'd say. Anything informative has go to be better than nothing.

Dave

Though I hate opening this for discussion again, I'm just wondering what would be the difference between receiving that e-mail above and the current confirmation screen that now reads

"Submission Received

Your site submission has been received.

An editor will review your submission for inclusion in the directory.

Once your site has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule."

Entering an e-mail address in the form is optional at the moment, and a lot of people enter a bogus address. I think that we might have a lot of e-mails bouncing all over the internet. As stated above, a lot of submissions are made by helpful web surfers who probably don't really care about receiving a bunch of confirmation e-mails. Is is worth bogging down an smtp server just so that a few people can have a confirmation e-mail? What is someone going to do with a confirmation e-mail besides delete it?

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but it is one that has been discussed a great deal, and will probably continue to be discussed a great deal in the future. I don't know that we need to keep having that discussion here, but as usual, it will be noted for future internal discussions

Didn't rdkeating address this in a different thread here at RZ not too long ago? That would be the "final answer" on the subject. All else is speculation and wishful thinking.

Yes - automated emails are not going to happen anytime soon. However, we can consider updating the wording in the submission confirmation screen.

>> Once your site has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule." <<


That paragraph only addresses how long it takes for the data to propogate to other places after it has been listed at the ODP. Perhaps another paragraph in front of that could be added to address how long it takes for the listing to get into the ODP first; so the suggesion that it could take weeks to many months could be made there.

Putting a link to resource-zone on it might not be a bad idea either.

Once your site has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule."

Click to expand...

This may be part of the problem. when someone reads this quickly, and not carefully, they may come away with the impression that their site will be reviewed by ODP in two weeks to several months.

If we clearly stated that the review by ODP can take several months to a year, and then add how long it takes at the partner sites we might ease some of the confusion.

Just my opinion.

I would separate that into two distinct sections, the first being the time to get accepted into ODP, and that should specify a time frame.

A big quandry, if we say two weeks, then it leads to false expectations that most people will get that service. If we say several months, it may sound too hopeless.

In the categories I have under control, I like to add people within 24 hours of submission, [but would not want to promise it]. My best record is adding the site within 15 minutes of submission. In categories that I just started working through, the backlog is very bad, and it may be several months before new sites get added.

I would rather say several days to many months, but add wording to clarfiy that it's not predicatable, and may vary considerably depending on many factors.

As far as AOL Search or Netscape Search, etc., I would prefer to not specify any time frame at all, and say that it totally depends on circumstances outside our control.

RE: If we say several months, it may sound too hopeless

You mean you wont tell the truth? You guys are making rods for your own backs. Why not work out the TRUE average and use that figure, you might just realise how "hopeless" is does appear to submitters.

Dave

Read my post again - I said 15 minutes to several months. There is no such thing as a true average. Thats my gut feel for my categories.

As you guys want a 'blanket approach' you cannot state the time frame based on any single editor. It seems like MOST have to wait at least 3-12 months, so why not state that?

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time"

Dave