Choosing Correct Categories and Resubmissions

Hi there,

Over the past few years submitted several sites to DMOZ. I know the guidelines you editors have to work to are tough and I imagine that this, along with my own ineptitude at picking the correct category, has meant some of the sites have not been added. Of course it could be that the sites are just crap and don’t deserve to be there.

I have one site in the directory already, this is my personal site, <url removed>
The following two sites are the two I have been trying to add:
<urls removed>
There are others but these are the two I would like to get listed the most, see:

www.resource-zone.com/forum/search.php?searchid=205229

for details on <url removed> website.

Having read the instructions I believe I should not submit the sites again hence the reason for this post. Currently, I do not know the state of what is going on with those sites i.e. if they were submitted to the wrong category, are they just crap sites etc. Is there any way for me to find out what the correct category is for the sites above and if I should resubmit these sites to DMOZ in those categories? For instance <urls removed>

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Search_Engines/Specialized/

As for <url removed> website, should it go into a sub-category of:

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Information_Retrieval/

I am at a loss as to how to progress this in a positive direction.

If someone tells me that the sites are crap and that they have been rejected then I would appreciate this so I can go about improving the sites etc.

Thoughts much appreciated?

Regards,
Harry Jackson

First thought is to wonder why you ignored this forum's description Forum for discussions about the process of suggesting a site for inclusion. General discussion only, no mention of specific sites here please. .

Assuming that websites are listable, here are some general comments:

If you suggest your website to the wrong category, we'll move it.

If you don't provide guidelines compliant titles and descriptions (very few do), we'll rewrite them

The most common reasons why a suggested website isn't listed are that either nobody has yet volunteered to look at it or that they have, and it's been moved to a better category for further evaluation.

so I can go about improving the sites

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you be doing that anyway?

jimnoble said:

First thought is to wonder why you ignored this forum's description Forum for discussions about the process of suggesting a site for inclusion. General discussion only, no mention of specific sites here please. .

Click to expand...

Apologies. If I can remove the site names from the post I will.

jimnoble said:

Assuming that websites are listable, here are some general comments:

If you suggest your website to the wrong category, we'll move it.

If you don't provide guidelines compliant titles and descriptions (very few do), we'll rewrite them

The most common reasons why a suggested website isn't listed are that either nobody has yet volunteered to look at it or that they have, and it's been moved to a better category for further evaluation.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I added titles etc, they may or may not have been compliant.

This still leaves me in a bit of a pickle. I do not know if the sites are in your system and even if I did I would not know what status they are in. Having read through a lot of posts on here I see that there are a lot of people in a similar position. The whole thing seems to be a bit of a pickle:

Users of the directory want to know the status of their site submission and the only people they can ask are the editors. The editors are overworked and grossly underpaid . Even the satisfaction of being an editor is detracted from by inapropriate behaviour from users etc (some of the posts on this site users are horrendous). There is too much work for the editors to deal with easily or the tools are not up to scratch etc. Regardless, there seems to be a problem with the system from both an editors standpoint and the users.

Not being an editor I don't know the ins and outs of the system but is there no way to write a tool that allows users to check up on their submission. Being a developer I would be genuinely interested to hear thoughts on this. I imagine this has probably been discussed to death before and I am probably opening up a can of worms or have not thought of an obvious reason why theh tool does not exist.

jimnoble said:

Wouldn't you be doing that anyway?

Click to expand...

Always, but with some constructive advice I would make sure I was working in the correct direction

Kind Regards,
Harry

jimnoble said:

First thought is to wonder why you ignored this forum's description Forum for discussions about the process of suggesting a site for inclusion. General discussion only, no mention of specific sites here please. .

Click to expand...

I should have read my own post before replying, you had already removed them

Users of the directory want to know the status of their site submission

Click to expand...

A perfect embodiment of a common misconception .

We're providing a service for surfers and downstream data users here, not website owners.

You're quite right; automated status checks have been discussed ad nauseam here. I won't repeat the detailed reasons but we believe that they provide no benefits to ODP and could greatly aid some people that we'd rather not help.

The code is maintained by AOL system engineers and nobody else has access to it. We'd rather use what limited programming resources that come available from time to time to ease the editorial task.

jimnoble said:

we believe that they provide no benefits to ODP and could greatly aid some people that we'd rather not help.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. I will check back in a couple of years

Kind Regards,
Harry

hjackson said:

Always, but with some constructive advice I would make sure I was working in the correct direction

Click to expand...

The right direction isn't changing the site to make DMOZ happy, its changing the site to make your customers happy.

shadow575 said:

The right direction isn't changing the site to make DMOZ happy, its changing the site to make your customers happy.

Click to expand...

The statement is obviously misleading, my apologies.

I didn't state any direction, I should have probably clarified that the constructive advice would have helped me decide if I needed to worry about getting into DMOZ or not.

Perhaps what DMOZ requires is too strict, or not in the sites best interests, in this case I would ignore the constructive advice and stop worrying about getting into DMOZ, this benefits both parties since I am no longer on these forums and wasting everyone’s time.

Another assumption I made was that DMOZ customers might also be my customers so we would have a shared interest in doing what is best. Tapping the DMOZ collective in this case would be a smart move on my part if I received honest advice, even if I didn’t like it.

I take any constructive advice given with good intent seriously. The problem with a lot of advice is that it is rarely given with good intent. It normally takes the form of banal statements intended to swell the advisors ego and kick the receiver into touch. This sort of thing occurs frequently in “dominance hierarchies”, common examples can be seen in birds, fish, mammals and internet forums so we have all experienced this sort of thing in one form or another.

Regards,
Harry

hjackson said:

The statement is obviously misleading, my apologies.

Click to expand...

No apologies necessary, just wanted to make clear we were on the same page.

hjackson said:

I didn't state any direction, I should have probably clarified that the constructive advice would have helped me decide if I needed to worry about getting into DMOZ or not.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about any third party link. Rather consider them icing on the cake after I created a site that my customers find useful.

hjackson said:

Perhaps what DMOZ requires is too strict, or not in the sites best interests, in this case I would ignore the constructive advice and stop worrying about getting into DMOZ, this benefits both parties since I am no longer on these forums and wasting everyone’s time.

Click to expand...

What dmoz requires is plentiful unique content relevant to the topic. A site that provides that is listable and most likely useful to its intended audience as well.

hjackson said:

Another assumption I made was that DMOZ customers might also be my customers so we would have a shared interest in doing what is best. Tapping the DMOZ collective in this case would be a smart move on my part if I received honest advice, even if I didn’t like it.

Click to expand...

See previous comment.

hjackson said:

I take any constructive advice given with good intent seriously. The problem with a lot of advice is that it is rarely given with good intent. It normally takes the form of banal statements intended to swell the advisors ego and kick the receiver into touch. This sort of thing occurs frequently in “dominance hierarchies”, common examples can be seen in birds, fish, mammals and internet forums so we have all experienced this sort of thing in one form or another.

Click to expand...

Interesting opinion. I can relate, sort of. As an editor trying to offer factual responses and honest opinions, a lot of (not all of course) those that editors are trying to help have hard set, predetermined misconceptions. They cannot accept the honest and factual advice they are being offered, because they already know all the answers.

shadow575 said:

I wouldn't worry about any third party link. Rather consider them icing on the cake after I created a site that my customers find useful.

Click to expand...

The sites I have been trying to get in have been around for a few years and one has a page rank of 6. Getting into DMOZ has become the icing on the cake at the moment hence the reason for waiting for 2 1/2 years since the last time I posted

shadow575 said:

Interesting opinion. I can relate, sort of. As an editor trying to offer factual responses and honest opinions, a lot of (not all of course) those that editors are trying to help have hard set, predetermined misconceptions. They cannot accept the honest and factual advice they are being offered, because they already know all the answers.

Click to expand...

As an editor you are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side you have rational rules to follow and on the other a lot of irrational users. The irrational users are understandable because they don't actually know where or what state their site is in. Their predetermined opinions are normally formed on an anvil of frustration. Those that have read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” are aware that a negative attitude normally gets a defensive response and the cycle continues.

A similar thing is being experienced by Google. During the big daddy reshuffle an awful lot of website owners got shafted. Some websites that relied on Google traffic went down the pan and a lot lost thousands of pounds. There was an awful lot of ill feeling towards Google, and there still is. On the other hand Google cannot make it any more open without being exploited. People screamed their “Do No Evil” mantra all over the forums in frustration but what would have been more evil, letting the exploiters run riot or staying quiet and fixing the problem. I think they could have been more open but then I am on the wrong side of the fence from Google and not privy to everything they are.

Having read some rather rude posts from users I think it is a credit to some of the people on this forum that they have not got defensive but rather continued to state the truth and remain civil.

The irrational users are understandable because they don't actually know where or what state their site is in

Click to expand...

You're doing it again . We don't consider website owners to be users (when wearing their official website owner hats).

hjackson said:

The sites I have been trying to get in have been around for a few years and one has a page rank of 6. Getting into DMOZ has become the icing on the cake at the moment hence the reason for waiting for 2 1/2 years since the last time I posted

Click to expand...

Then it sounds like you already have it figured out.

hjackson said:

As an editor you are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side you have rational rules to follow and on the other a lot of irrational users. The irrational users are understandable because they don't actually know where or what state their site is in.

Click to expand...

Irrational users aren't really an issue. Irrational suppliers (site owners, promoters, designers) are the ones that become issues. These are the ones that have that predetermined idea of what they want the directory to do for them and trying to explain why the directory isn't going to ever provide those services becomes fruitless.

hjackson said:

There was an awful lot of ill feeling towards Google, and there still is. On the other hand Google cannot make it any more open without being exploited. People screamed their “Do No Evil” mantra all over the forums in frustration....

Click to expand...

I am of a firm belief that anyone can do anything they want with their own site, that includes Google. They do (as they should) what they feel is best for them and that is enough for me, although I certainly understand the frustrations.