Confused about rejection...

I have been trying to get a few of my sites listed for a while now (about 6 months) with no success.

One of the sites is a really popular forum for a not-so-popular topic and is actually linked to by one of the "editors" from wikipedia. There is no category for this topic, so I have been submitting to the category that is clearly closest to mine. Still have never heard anything back from Dmoz.

My other site has an obvious category, as 3 of the 4 sites in that category have the exact same scope of material as my site does. My site has more features and is arguably better than the other sites listed, but still nothing.

I applied to be an editor for this second category as I thought the current editor was no longer active, and overnight I got a response rejecting my application. At the bottom of the rejection letter, it stated "Specifically, we do not list sites like [my website] or [another website I suggested]." Ironically, the other website I suggested is actually listed in the google directory which I guess is supposed to be exactly the same as the dmoz directory...

I have read over the info about what sites are accepted, and it is clear to me that my sites fall in this category. But, they are rejected, and I must know why. I really want to talk to the person/people who are deciding this, but I have no idea how. I "sent an email" to the editor of the category, but never got a response.

Any info is appreciated!

Thanks!

Well, Google is one of our Data users but they do not have the latest dmoz.org data. If you suggested a site in the Google directory and it is not in the dmoz.org directory that probably means that site was removed because it did not follow our listing guidelines.

It would be quite clear to you if you read our listing guidelines what types of sites we list and do not list. There is not a big grey area there.

Check it out

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

thehelper said:

Well, Google is one of our Data users but they do not have the latest dmoz.org data. If you suggested a site in the Google directory and it is not in the dmoz.org directory that probably means that site was removed because it did not follow our listing guidelines.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes more sense.

thehelper said:

It would be quite clear to you if you read our listing guidelines what types of sites we list and do not list. There is not a big grey area there.

Check it out

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

Click to expand...

Already read this exact document several times.

Original, unique and valuable informational content

Click to expand...

This is very subjective. One would have a difficult time arguing that my site does not have this.

Is the site's content/information identical to other sites?

Click to expand...

No. No question.

Does the ODP include the type of site you want to add?

Click to expand...

Yes, several webites all with the exact same scope. Those sites are actually more limiting than mine.

Is the site complete?

Click to expand...

Yes. No question.

Is the site current?

Click to expand...

Updated several times a day.

Is the site available and does it load completely?

Click to expand...

Yes. No question.

Is it easy to assess the site's trustworthiness?

Click to expand...

Yes, better than most sites.


I would still like to somehow contact the person that denied my site and see what their reasons were.

Thanks

I would still like to somehow contact the person that denied my site and see what their reasons were.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not possible.

motsa said:

Sorry, that's not possible.

Click to expand...

Should I then re-apply to become an editor? I feel as though I would be an asset to the category.

tmnoonan said:

Should I then re-apply to become an editor? I feel as though I would be an asset to the category.

Click to expand...

It depends. Unless the reply you got clearly states not to apply again you are free to apply again. But make sure to correct the mistakes from the first application.


> and is actually linked to by one of the "editors" from wikipedia
We are not wikipedia. They have completely different guidelines for adding links than DMOZ has.

> I have read over the info about what sites are accepted
You should read which sites are not accepted
Sites Generally Not Included

If you do apply as an editor and are accepted, please be aware that you cannot ask for special treatment for your site. In many editor's opinion, that includes contacting any editor who reviewed your site and did not list it. I don't know what your site is, so I'm assuming that it was reviewed and not listed. But many times people assume that their site has been rejected but it really hasn't been reviewed yet. Six months really isn't long to wait, esp. since we aren't a listing service.

Also, whether your site suggestions are accepted or rejected, there will never be any discussion with you about the decision, we list sites at our sole discretion.

Especially if you became an editor. I would consider that as editor abuse, myself.

pvgool said:

It depends. Unless the reply you got clearly states not to apply again you are free to apply again. But make sure to correct the mistakes from the first application.

Click to expand...

Mine said that they encourage me to re-apply in the near future. I didn't know if they said that just to be nice...

pvgool said:

We are not wikipedia. They have completely different guidelines for adding links than DMOZ has.

Click to expand...

I understand that, but I feel as though their quality requirements are similar.

pvgool said:

You should read which sites are not accepted
Sites Generally Not Included

Click to expand...

I also had already read that, and my site is clearly not in that category.

gloria said:

But many times people assume that their site has been rejected but it really hasn't been reviewed yet. Six months really isn't long to wait, esp. since we aren't a listing service.

Click to expand...

tmnoonan]At the bottom of the rejection letter said:

...

Click to expand...

> I didn't know if they said that just to be nice...
Ofcourse they want to be nice but it is also meant as an encouragement to try again.

> At the bottom of the rejection letter, it stated "Specifically, we do not list sites like [my website]...
You can be sure that the reviewing meta has looked at the site and has determined it is not listable. We can not discuss details of editor applications or specific reasons for sites being rejected. Sorry. But I can tell you that from the 5 sites I managed to find through your profile in my opinion only 1 is listable in its current state.

I haven't looked at the sites accessible from your profile here nor do I intend to but I wanted to comment on something you said earlier. You mentioned that one of the sites was a forum and that brings to mind an important detail when it comes to listability. For sites like forums, blogs, classifieds ads, online auctions, consumer review sites, and the like, it isn't enough to have a great idea. There has to be significant actual content in the form of members, posts, ads, reviews, etc. It's not a case of "list it and they will come".

pvgool said:

But I can tell you that from the 5 sites I managed to find through your profile in my opinion only 1 is listable in its current state.

Click to expand...

Which one? Out of those 5, 3 of them were never submitted, since they aren't finished nor are Dmoz quality. Can you please discuss this with me personally? Send me an email or a PM.

pvgool said:

It's not a case of "list it and they will come".

Click to expand...

They have already come. If you look at either of my sites, this is clear.

That last quote was me, not pvgool. And I clearly said I hadn't looked at your sites. I was just offering some additional feedback about what constitutes sufficient listable content for sites that rely on visitor-provided content.

motsa said:

That last quote was me, not pvgool. And I clearly said I hadn't looked at your sites. I was just offering some additional feedback about what constitutes sufficient listable content for sites that rely on visitor-provided content.

Click to expand...

Sorry, must have been a typo. I was just trying to point out that I understand that, and in this case its not applicable information as both of my sites do not qualify under that label.

You guys have provided me with some information about which sites are listed and which sites aren't, that could be helpful to someone who has not read anything before posting here. I think that everyone is underestimating my due diligence, as basically everything you posted I already knew. Now I understand why you are posting this information, as I run a forum too, and the vast majority of visitors never read a single thing before posting.

The reason that I am posting here is to get some feedback. I take building websites seriously, it is a large part of my life, and when my work is rejected by such an Internet authority as Dmoz, I must know why. Not because I want to get my site listed here, but because I would like to learn how to build better quality websites in general, helping with my success as a webmaster. I read through all the guidelines, and I thought I knew what constitutes a quality website, but I guess I obviously don't. So I am asking, from one webmaster to another, for feedback.

We don't take building websites seriously. We take providing information seriously. The two activities are not related, either logically or practically. Don't EVER confuse them.

Please don't ask for site reviews here. There are many forums where that is discussed.

You can review your own site with the eyes of a surfer by asking yourself: what's on this site that I can't find anywhere else on the web? What would the web lose (or gain!) if this site disappeared? Will a surfer be able to answer this questions within a few minutes of visiting the home page?

If the answer to the first question is "not much" or the answer to the last question is "no", then that's an end of the discussion, and it's time to go back to work.

If you want to think like an ODP editor, also ask of collaborative-content sites: "what is there about informational content that this site has better than EVERY OTHER SITE in this category AND in any parent category?"

And if the answer is "nothing", you won't have to ask why the ODP editor didn't list it. You'll just have to ask yourself why you did it in the first place -- because it obviously wasn't to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.

hutcheson said:

Please don't ask for site reviews here. There are many forums where that is discussed.

Click to expand...

I am simply looking for logically concrete reason for my rejection, stating: "The other websites in this category offer ABC, while yours only offers XYZ".

Everything said about rejecting sites makes complete sense, but I cannot determine the connection to my sites.

Pvgool- I am interested in why you would reject one of the 2 sites I submitted. I would really appreciate a little insight.

Thanks

> Pvgool- I am interested in why you would reject one of the 2 sites I submitted. I would really appreciate a little insight.
I understand that you are interested but I am not able to give you more insight than the fact that the reason is in http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude With these guidelines and the knowlegde you have of your own sites it should be possible to determine the reason.

pvgool said:

With these guidelines and the knowlegde you have of your own sites it should be possible to determine the reason.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm.... Can you give me a little more direction? Wich site can be listed? Is it "1) m***********.com or is it 2)t******************.com?

More specifically, why was the other site rejected?

1) Affiliate Marketing Schemes
1a) Affiliate Links
1b) Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links
1c) Affiliate Reseller Sites (aka Fraternal Mirrors)
1d) Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) and Pyramid Schemes
2) Identical Mirrors
3) Redirects and "Cloaked" URLs
4) Illegal Sites
5) Site Listings Including Search Results
6) Product Listings
7) Site Listings as Notices
8) Spider Food, Lead Generators and Content Mills

A reply that says, for example, "2, 1d+8" would suffice. Maybe you can't get into that much detail, but I would really appreciate it if you did.

Thanks

There isn't a reason for REJECTION of a site. There are only -- actions and inaction. Inaction doesn't need a reason, it's what happens in the absence of reasons.

So what editor has a reason to edit in category FOO? (This is something that nobody but that editor knows.)

And in that category, you have to review some site first, so it makes no sense to ask why you didn't review some other site first: you have to start somewhere, and starting anywhere is always better than dithering about where not to start.

Then, if an editor reviews a site, there has to be a reason to list it. And there's only one good reason for listing: it is, in fact, "the other websites in this category offer ABC, while yours offers XYZ". (Well, to maintain a sharp distinction between what we do and the marketroid attitude, replace the word "offers" with "actually provides".)

Added: it is a little odd that your list of evil things skips the evil that (according to the submittal policy) merits the harshest penalty of all.

hutcheson said:

Added: it is a little odd that your list of evil things skips the evil that (according to the submittal policy) merits the harshest penalty of all.

Click to expand...

What would that be?