Can't get my site listed on DMOZ

I have been trying to get my site listed in DMOZ for the last 5 month. I have sent it to the data base 3 or 4 times but nothing. I am offering international and interstate long distance service. It is not an affiliate site or ....
<url removed>

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks

Alex

<url removed>

You might try the "Submission Status" forum for this. Read the forum guidelines first!

Dmoz

;23061 said:

I have been trying to get my site listed in DMOZ for the last 5 month. I have sent it to the data base 3 or 4 times but nothing. I am offering international and interstate long distance service. It is not an affiliate site or ....
<url removed>

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks

Alex

<url removed>

Click to expand...

Nothing!

We no longer discuss individual websites here - which is why I've removed the URLs.

In late 2006, AOL's servers suffered a major crash in which the huge majority of listing suggestions were lost. No harm will be done if you suggest your website once more.

site listed in DMOZ

There is no separate procedure for submitting your site in dmoz. Do same as you do for rest of the sites. Check the correct category while you are submitting your site. Try to submit in exact category like ie.., Shopping>Shoe>football shoe but not directly in shooping

submit site by guidelines.

Sites don't get listed because they're submitted well.

Sites don't get listed because they're submitted often.

Sites don't get listed because they're submitted in the right place.

Sites don't get listed because of ANYTHING about the submittal.

And yet, when people say they're "trying to get listed" they always mean they're "submitting early and often." But that has nothing to do with getting listed (even when it's carried on beyond the limits of common courtesy, not to mention the submittal policies.)

Sites get listed because of what's on the site in the form of unique content.

So, in a rational world, "trying to get listed" would mean "creating and collecting lots of content not already available on the net, organizing it well, posting it on a website, and cooperating with other people who are creating similar kinds of content."

Of course, the net is man-made, so even there rationality is an ideal, not an observed condition.

Unique Content?

"Sites get listed because of what's on the site in the form of unique content."

So, in a rational world, "trying to get listed" would mean "creating and collecting lots of content not already available on the net, organizing it well, posting it on a website, and cooperating with other people who are creating similar kinds of content."
*************************
Rational world? There is no such thing as "unique" on the net anymore. Just about anything you want to know about is posted somewhere on the net. Isn't "cooperating with other people who are creating similar kinds of content." contradicting to "unique"? If everything is similar, then it can't be unique.

You shouldn't ban a website from being listed just because it is not "unique" or because it doesn't have "content not already available on the net". If that were the case, then you would have to delete the majority of the sites you already have listed.

What you are telling people is that if you don't like the way someone has set up their site (content), then you won't list them. It has nothing to do with being unique. I could understand if it was a site that was a "copycat" of another site, or if it was a mirror site, but not because of unique content.

You might want to think about updating your policies for the new world-wide-web, or you will surely be "left in the dust", as it were.

Being listed on the DMOZ has nothing to do with whether or not you will be listed on any of the other directories. In fact, you can be listed in all of the other directories and never be listed in the DMOZ, as I have. It is going on three (3) years that I have tried to become listed in the DMOZ and still have not been accepted. I followed all of the sumission guidelines, but still to no avail. So, all I have to say about DMOZ editors is, be picky if you want, cuz after a while you won't have to worry about it. It will die just like a dinosaur.

Thank you for letting me bend your ear.

You seem to be under the impression that your site has been rejected for not being unique when really the primary reason why a listable site hasn't been listed yet is simply that no one has gotten around to reviewing it yet. No conspiracies, no deep dark mysteries, just the expected logistical problems inherent in a system that relies on volunteers who are allowed to edit where and how much they want.

The concept of "unique" from an ODP point of view varies depending on the part of the directory you're looking at and what type of site you're talking about. Remember that "similar" is not necessarily "the same". Identical content is not unique and surfers aren't served by us listing multiple sites offering identical content to one another. Similar content may or may not be unique and surfers may be served by similar sites being listed.

AlfTheAlien said:

Rational world? There is no such thing as "unique" on the net anymore. Just about anything you want to know about is posted somewhere on the net. Isn't "cooperating with other people who are creating similar kinds of content." contradicting to "unique"? If everything is similar, then it can't be unique.

Click to expand...

I think you have a totaly different idea of what "unique" means than that we in DMOZ use.
Let's simplify things. There are 2 kinds of websites.
1) Commercial: the uniqueness lies in the information about the company and their activities not in the products they sell - else we would not have to list any bookshops except Amazon - if there is a real company that has real activities it will have a listable website. MMF, MLM, Affiliates, Dropshippers, they are all not real/unique activities and they won't be listed.
2) Information: if the website publishes information written specificaly for the site it has unique content and is listable (it doesn't matter if the same subject is descibed on other sites - similar websites are listable), if the website just copies information from other websites it is not unique and most probably is not lisatble.

You shouldn't ban a website from being listed just because it is not "unique" or because it doesn't have "content not already available on the net".

Click to expand...

We don't ban websites for that reason. We just prefer not to include them in the directory.

Being listed on the DMOZ has nothing to do with whether or not you will be listed on any of the other directories. In fact, you can be listed in all of the other directories and never be listed in the DMOZ,

Click to expand...

Correct. Being listed in other directories or search engines will have totaly no effect on the listablity of a site in DMOZ. We have our own guidelines about what we will list and what we won't.

It will die just like a dinosaur.

Click to expand...

DMOZ exists just over 10 years and these predictions have been given almost from the start. As long as there are volunteer editors DMOZ will continue. Our existence does not depend on people suggesting websites.

>In fact, you can be listed in all of the other directories and never be listed in the DMOZ...

Exactly. That's what gives the OTHER directories a CHANCE to be unique.

And the Open Directory has whole categories on subjects where other directories don't have a single site listed. That's what makes IT unique.

Or, if you look one step back in the chain of causation, the Open Directory has given thousands of people a chance to contribute something of their own unique personal knowledge. So, almost from the beginning, its categorization of obscure religious groups was more accurate than Yahoo's, because members of those groups contributed to the discussion that hammered out the ODP taxonomy. Its Music categories had the benefit of volunteers with Music degrees. Its programming categories had the benefit of volunteers with relevant professional experience. It drew on local knowledge from thousands of volunteers--knowledge that a few dozen Yahoo editors in a single office could never have matched.

And that's the same thing that can make a personal site unique: the unique knowledge, skills, experience of the person it represents: (or if a business, the specific services its employees provide (and the fee they charge); if an organization, the unique sequence of activities its members share; and so on.)

Look at the people around you. If you recognize how each one is a unique person, then you should have no trouble recognizing their online representation (websites) as unique.

You know, I've done some looking around in this forum, and have come to realize you editors are nothing but a bunch of old men who got your sites listed a long time ago, possibly AFTER you became editors.

I don't need DMOZ, and neither does anyone else. Last summer I had a domain development firm contact me about selling them a site I tried for three years to get into DMOZ. I sold the site for $150,000.00.

Low quality? I don't know anyone who would pay $150,000.00 for low quality anything. The problem was never the site, or its contents. The problem was you arrogant old fools trying to keep out the competition in the name of "high quality".


Why don't you give some of these guys a break.

I'll step off my soap box now.

Daymon74 said:

You know, I've done some looking around in this forum, and have come to realize you editors are nothing but a bunch of old men who got your sites listed a long time ago, possibly AFTER you became editors.

Click to expand...

DMOZ editors come from all kinds of background, from all over the world, in both sexes and in all ages. We have editors from schoolkids to pensioners.

I don't need DMOZ, and neither does anyone else.

Click to expand...

That's OK. DMOZ does not provide any service to website owners so it is good that they don't need us.

I don't know anyone who would pay $150,000.00 for low quality anything.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone that would pay 150.000 for a website site at all. High or low quality.

The problem was never the site, or its contents. The problem was you arrogant old fools trying to keep out the competition in the name of "high quality".

Click to expand...

Problem is that DMOZ does not care about "quality". Not quality of layout, not quality of programming, not quality of content. We only ask that a site has enough unique content.

BTW the fact that a site is not listed does not mean it has no unique content. Most of the times it just means that it is not reviewed yet.

You quoted everything but the part about giving some of these guys a break.

Aside from that, I think you guys need to rethink your idea of "unique". DMOZ itself was never a unique website. When it was created it was just another directory. The only thing different was the fact it was completely human edited.

With that in mind, think about some of the webmasters who have put a lot of time putting a unique spin (same thing DMOZ did with the directory) on an old beat to death topic. DMOZ editors don't look at this at all, or even consider it.

The second they see something that's already been done they throw it out. Even if the website has a unique way of providing the same worn out content. DMOZ in and of itself is unimportant to the average Joe. Nobody cares, and most don't even know. Nobody searches directories. The only people DMOZ is important to are webmasters, yet you say DMOZ provides no services to webmasters.

If it weren't for webmasters DMOZ wouldn't exist.

Daymon74 said:

Aside from that, I think you guys need to rethink your idea of "unique". DMOZ itself was never a unique website. When it was created it was just another directory. The only thing different was the fact it was completely human edited.

Click to expand...

Please reread what we already have written about unique and this time try to understand what we mean. It is something completely different as you are referring to.

Nobody cares

Click to expand...

First of all the DMOZ editors care. We build it as our hobby. Do we tell you which hobby you must have and how you should act within that hobby. No. So why do you think you should tell us how to fullfil our hobby.
And secondly. You seem to care. Why else would you be here to write about it.

If it weren't for webmasters DMOZ wouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse it will. DMOZ does not need the webmasters. Notice that in my eyes "webmaster" is not the same as "person owning or developing a website". Webmasters do build and own websites but there are many more people that delevelop and own websites who don't think of themself as webmaster. Those 'normal' people are writing about their hobbies, about their mom & pop business, about the things they are interested in, about the things they do. Those are the people we care about and without them there wouldn't be a DMOZ. The people who call themself ''webmaster" we can do without.

The only thing different was the fact it was completely human edited.

Click to expand...

What you mention is not a difference at all. Yahoo! was and is completely human-edited. But if you read this whole thread, you'll see several important differences mentioned. And there are others.

With that in mind,

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

think about some of the webmasters who have put a lot of time putting a unique spin (same thing DMOZ did with the directory) on an old beat to death topic. DMOZ editors don't look at this at all, or even consider it.

Click to expand...

OK, I've thought.

And here's what I think. What a waste of time! How can I avoid ever having to deal with such uninteresting websites?

I think you guys need to rethink your idea of "unique".

Click to expand...

$150,000 may seem like a lot of money to you. But do a little research, and you'll find bare-naked domain names that have sold for more. On the other hand, think about this: I remember another directory, with delusions of ODP-parity, that was (briefly) being rented to third-party hosts for eight-figure ANNUAL fees. When ODP adoption took off, that directory was relegated to PAYING seven-figure amounts to those same hosts. The mere presence of the ODP as competition DESTROYED an apparent valuation of $100,000,000 or more.

And in the years since, that ODP idea has served as a useful guide to picking out what's valuable to surfers. I'll stick with it until I see something demonstrably better.

But if you think you have a better idea, don't be giving away valuable secrets to me! Go build a directory around it yourself--and see how much it's worth. If it even seems to be about to work, the ODP community will examine and analyze it, as we've done earlier "similar projects." Which is one of the reasons the Open Directory HAD a tenth birthday.

DMOZ does need the webmasters. Without them there are no websites. Don't be so stuck up. DMOZ is nothing these days. If it's your hobby, enjoy it, but it is no more a hobby today than that of a stone collector, so don't look down your nose at those who wish to get their sites listed.

Daymon74 said:

DMOZ does need the webmasters. Without them there are no websites.

Click to expand...

Nope.
Webmastere create websites but not all websites are created by webmaters.
Many websites are created by people just for their hobby or as an extention of their small business. These people do not see themself as webmaster and neither do we.

If it's your hobby, enjoy it, but it is no more a hobby today than that of a stone collector, so don't look down your nose at those who wish to get their sites listed.

Click to expand...

A stone collector is interested in unique and interestig stones. Do you bring all pebbles on the beach to him. No.
A DMOZ editor is interested in unique and interestig websites. Do you bring all similar websites on the net to him. Yes. Why?

Your desire to get your site listed is not necessarily contemptible, it's merely irrelevant.

What matters is why any surfer would want to be directed to that site. And that, we'll only be able to answer when some surfer has reviewed it.

Nobody here "needs" anyone else. We're all building on other people's efforts. But some people try suck off value from other people's efforts; and some people try to add value to other people's efforts. The former deserve respect from everyone, and I try to give it to them; the latter deserve contempt.

Daymon74 said:

... DMOZ is nothing these days. ... don't look down your nose at those who wish to get their sites listed.

Click to expand...

If DMOZ is nothing, why would anyone wish, and make such an efforet, to be lsited? (Rhetorical question ...)