Been waiting over 4 years patiently

We operate one of the largest sound effects and music licensing web sites on the internet, at <url removed>, that is a marketplace where over 1,400 content providers sell digital audio content. I first submitted the site to DMOZ over 4 years ago, and have since then re-submitted it twice, thinking that perhaps our submission got lost or mishandled. Not once have I ever gotten any response whatsoever, and have never gotten listed at DMOZ. My hunch is that a biased editor is deleting our entries. Patience is my middle name, but this is absurd. Can you please help?

We rarely respond to people who suggest sites to us. When's the last time you suggested it? If it was before January 2007, then I would recommend suggesting it one more time as the Crash of '06 wiped out most of the pending suggestions. Otherwise, I'm afraid you just have to be patient.

My hunch is that a biased editor is deleting our entries.

Click to expand...

We have an abuse reporting system for people to use to report situations where they feel abuse is occurring but a 4-year wait and a hunch really isn't sufficient.

Waiting for a listing

I have submitted my site twice now over the past year.....and nothing. Surely this can't be thebest way to create a directory with no communication and up to four year waiting lists. How can the situation be improved?

DMOZ has been working in this way for over 10 years and as we all can see it is a way that works very good to create a directory. We know that improvements are possible but I doubt these improvements will be in the field of proving information to people who suggested sites or in the field of a quicker review process. One reason is that we have many more improvements which are much more important for the directory. An other reason is that DMOZ is not a tool to promote websites and it also is not a listing service for people who own a website.

You can find more information in our FAQ and by reading the many other threads about this and related subjects.

[1] Surely it should be obvious to anyone that the less communication is required to do work, the more actual work can get done.

So the ODP communication channels are tightly focused on providing the actual needed information (such as site suggestions), and avoiding information that really isn't useful but wastes valuable time to create.

[2] Surely it must be obvious that there are always waiting lists. Given that there are waiting lists, it should also be obvious that good prioritization can always drastically improve the quality of the directory in the short term.

But given that prioritization is happening, it should be obvious that there will be potentially long delays for non-prioritized activities.

Now, any processes are capable of improvement. But the aspects you mention are strengths of the ODP process, and we should be trying to enhance them: cutting down on unnecessary communication while still getting the necessary information to people at the moment they're ready to need it; improving prioritization so that excellent sites are listed quickly without even being suggested, and less-useful suggestions are passed over without overhead.