Can we find status of "Site Suggestion"?

Hi,

I have submitted a site for suggestion. I was continuously monitoring the category if the site got listed. Is there any way we can find the status of it? Do we get a mail if the suggestion was rejected? Can one resubmit an already rejected suggestion?

Thank You,
Suresh Bonda

No. It says you can't right at the top of this forum.

No.

How would you know it was declined and what would be the point? We only decline unlistable websites and you can check your site's listability for yourself at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

> I have submitted a site for suggestion.
Thanks.

> I was continuously monitoring the category if the site got listed.
Why? What do think to accomplish by this behaviour? Do you think something magical will happen when the site gets listed?

> Is there any way we can find the status of it?
No

> Do we get a mail if the suggestion was rejected?
No. But you can read our guidelines and determine if a site is listable or not.

> Can one resubmit an already rejected suggestion?
Can: yes. But there is no reason. If a site is not listable it will be rejected suggesting it again won't make it listable.

Hi

Thanks for the replies.

I had checked the guidelines before submitting the site. I felt the site has nothing against the guidelines. Then I have submitted the site.

[Why? What do think to accomplish by this behaviour? Do you think something magical will happen when the site gets listed?]
I was monitoring alexa ranking of the site which was improving. When I found that I can find the value of the site from sites like cubestat.com and dnscoop.com, which also shows the site is listed in Dmoz. So I thought of getting it listed at Dmoz.


Thank You,
Suresh Bonda

If a site which is rejected becomes listable due to site modifications which cause it to fall within the DMOZ guidelines ...if the site is resubmitted then will it be processed in the same as any other submitted site?

As I read the ODP Social Contract, we promise to review a submitted site--once. Any subsequent reviews are because the editor thinks it might be a good idea, not because there's any ethical or social obligation to.

It is reasonable to expect an editor to NOT review a site that has been suggested and recently reviewed and found lacking unique content.

Normally, I'd expect an editor to re-review a site that HASN'T been reviewed at all recently, and HASN'T been reviewed much more than two or three times--unless there are other issues.

Basically, website owners have one or two free shots--after that, it's reasonable to expect that you're building a reputation, and you'll have to live with it.

Given that, what would the recommendation be?

(1) If you realize you had suggested a site without significant unique content, and you recognize that you now DO have "significant unique content", then do two things:
-- a. Mention the added content in your proposed description in brackets as a note to the editor: [added complete Galactic Encyclopedia, 2130 edition (or whatever)]
-- b. wait at least 6 months after the addition before resubmitting it.

That way, no matter how it works out, the site will not have been "recently reviewed with inadequate content", and the editor will know there's something new if it was "previously reviewed with inadequate content."

(2) If you've already been through step (1) more than once, and you've decided your prior judgment wasn't right -- then stop. The pattern is, you're not good enough at recognizing unique content to be a help to the ODP. Let someone else with consistent, better judgment (i.e. an editor) find and suggest the site. And you'll avoid building the kind of reputation nobody would want.

CAVEAT: I should mention that this is my advice, not official policy. It's based on my experience of how editors really work, and it's designed to make sure you don't harm yourself by deliberate actions, and that you're not harmed by unfortunate synchronicities between your actions and editor's actions.

I can't guarantee that you WILL be harmed if you DON'T follow this advice, and (as always) I can't promise that editors don't make mistakes, because we do. (We've fixed millions of each others' mistakes already.) I think I can guarantee you won't get a reputation as a spammer if you work this way.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the taking the time to respond in such detail.

I imagine quite a lot of website developers submit sites to directories such as DMOZ early on in the websites life-cycle to try to gain exposure (maybe not fully understanding what DMOZ considers to be "unique content").

I would also think it is common for a site to develop more unique content over time, and subsequently become listable.

Sometimes it does appear that people try to preempt the possible wait by suggesting sites which are still visibly under construction. Unfortunately this is a bit like playing roulette...

>I would also think it is common for a site to develop more unique content over time, and subsequently become listable.

In my experience, it's not common. And it's ESPECIALLY uncommon if the site doesn't have a solid core of material generated by the site owner.

For instance, I contribute to CCEL. And why? Because its original owner had already posted some content similar to the content I had ... and rather than setting up a separate site with potentially overlapping scope and certainly duplicated site maintenance effort, I decided to cooperate.

I found out later that some of my content was some of the most often-accessed on the site. But it never would have happened without that owner-provided "seed". And the owner did what he did without knowing (or caring) whether I'd donate material perhaps on the fringes of his personal interests. What he did was worth doing all by itself. What he did was worth listing in the Open Directory, all by itself.

That's the pattern followed by essentially all successful sites.