controversial reply... suggestion please

We have tried several time to submit our website to dmoz. finally I succeed to get in touch with the Italian editor of the category.

we have been told that our website (shopping guides related) is part of a category which already shows enough content (but i.m.h.o. it's a growing niche with new actors/players and new requests by users... while dmoz just list as the "fresh" content websites born back in 2002). The editor told us that anyway our website doesn't fit the guide lines due to the fact that we use even affiliates link to listings as tradedoubler and so on.. (but it's exactly the same for all other players listed in the category.. it's our business anyway, as it's theirs).

Unfortunately we not only would like to get listed because we feel our platform is a new special kind of platform that let people crawl the web in search of information, but even to let google correct our indexing which is heading to a wrong entry page... and last but not least because we know how important is to be part of dmoz for a long list of reasons.

what can we do? what do you suggest us?

why do our competitors may be listed (even if always the same players and without relevant fresh new features? and even if not matching minimum requirements? )

best all
thomas

We have tried several time to submit our website to dmoz.

Click to expand...

A mistake - you should only submit once, more is spamming and can get you a bad reputation.

we have been told that our website (shopping guides related) is part of a category which already shows enough content

Click to expand...

Is your website content unique? If not then we will not list it. But whilst there is still unique content to find and list a category is not closed. What we will not do is list multiple sites containing identical or very similar material.

The editor told us that anyway our website doesn't fit the guide lines due to the fact that we use even affiliates link to listings as tradedoubler

Click to expand...

There is no bar on sites using affiliate links - we ignore the affiliate links and duplicate content and judge on whether what is left is good enough to warrant a listing.

Unfortunately we not only would like to get listed because we feel our platform is a new special kind of platform that let people crawl the web in search of information

Click to expand...

Ah, so you don't have information of your own? Your concept is to present people with information from other sites? If that is the case then the bar is very high, the platform must be very innovative to create something really new that we feel worth presenting to our users.

why do our competitors may be listed

Click to expand...

Why not? We are about providing new information for our users not listing every competitor in every field. Once we have one site listed that gives us the information we might list a second for contrast, but beyond that it isn't adding anything new for our users to present them with more of the same.

and last but not least because we know how important is to be part of dmoz for a long list of reasons

Click to expand...

There is only one legitimate important reason for a site to be listed in DMOZ - it offers something new that we have not listed before. Page rank, search engine results, and all the other long list of reasons don't figure.

There's no doubt it's a fast-growing niche, with a plethora (if not a plague) of requests for listings. That is precisely why the standards are so much higher now than they were in 2000.

Back in 2000, we had no idea that the people who were suggesting sites would some day fall so low as to be considered merely "one of your competitors." At the time it was a new, NOT fast-growing, niche, and we didn't see the downside potential. (And there WEREN'T "many requests for listings!" If there had been, we'd have been much more selective, as we can afford to be now.) And, no doubt, if those sites were re-reviewed, many of them would be removed for falling too far below today's standards. And others might not be removed, even though they would not be added if reviewed today. (Hysteresis is an essential factor in any stable system, if you wanna get very technical.)

Think of their listings as the reward for pioneering.

ok then.. quick reply to both kind moderators

nop.. we don't merely catch information from other websites (except for all listing by merchants.. as all OTHER players are doing.....)

we build ourselves (editorial content) datasheet about the most products.... (things that other player doesn't do so well) in an affordable and easy language so as to be used and be useful not only for the geeky out there!

the content is not the same as the others competitors or players.. essentially because the market is wide and the offer by merchant is wide.

so i feel to be unique in my point of view... and i feel to be really different.

is it worth just to be speedy back in the golden age? I don't feel so sure. actually i was working in the same field for another company back in 2002 and it only took 1 week to get listed, with our site still in beta.. booh..

sincerly said.. I would appreciate more deepening and cleaning in some dmoz categories.

I expect cleaning would be a good thing in several respects. But, as always, what gets done is what folk volunteer to do.

If you feel there are sites listed that no longer meet the guidelines then by all means use the quality control forum on this site to report the details.

As regards your own site I can't really comment because there is insufficient information in your posts to tell us exactly what the site does. And in any case we don't do specific reviews of sites here. But in general shopping guides, even with some editorial (which is usually guided by the sponsors), usually don't make the grade - I can't recall ever coming across a new one I have listed though I have removed quite a few for being designed to generate affiliate income.

Tycoon - please don't use the private messaging system to raise additional points.

I would recommend you instil upon your colleagues the need to comply with the guidelines on submissions to the letter. Multiple submissions will eventually get this and all other sites with which you and they may be associated permanently banned. 7 submissions in 8 months is starting to get beyond a simple mistake and into the realms of spammer and we are very intolerant of spammers.

And building new sites specifically to get a listing is also an abusive practice that will yield the same punative penalties. If you get advice from webmaster forums they will show you how to get results without a DMOZ listing - it is not something you need to succeed and not something an editor can assist you in getting. You can spend a lot of money trying to design something specifically for DMOZ to list and 999 times out of 1000 it is a complete waste - even if you succeeded in producing something unique there are no time limits on it being reviewed - it might not be even looked at for 5 years. So focus your efforts on producing the best possible web site for your target audience amongst web surfers not us. Because it is the sites that serve their target audiences amongst web surfers the best that editors usually pick to list.

There's no way, no way at all, to "get" a listing. It says so right in the submittal policy. "No site is guaranteed a listing." And the fact is, even sites that ARE listed because they ARE, not because of anything anyone DOES about them. ("Suggesting" a site is just a way to bring a listable site to an editor's attention, it cannot make a non-listable site listable.)

Also, there's no way to tell a volunteer editor what to do and when to do it. (That is not a power that even the ODP administration has.)

So the concepts of "trying" or "getting" really don't apply. What you can do is "help an editor find a site" -- and one submittal does that.

And any act that might be considered "trying" usually runs into the facts of life, that is, causes a negative reaction (so that even a listable site can become unlistable through being too "trying") Six suggestions in seven months, although potentially trying, is _usually_ not absolutely fatal. But it is a trial.

There's really nothing that you can do at this point to help an editor directly -- and that is all, absolutely all, that matters.

You could, perhaps, help surfers by indicating, clearly and prominently, on the site, what exactly was unique about it. The next editor review, if and when there is another one, would start there, and use that as an indication of what to look for on the site -- and thus, if there is anything unique enough to warrant listing, it would be likely to be found.