David Fischer

Jim

I have added my site (url removed) to the following category:

Business: Information Technology: Employment: Recruitment and Staffing: Recruiters

Now the company is based in the UK, would it have been more advisable to add the site regionally, or was it correct to add the site to this category, which semed totally appropriate.

The reason I ask is because I have attempted to add my site twice, firstly on the 6th March 2008, and secondly on the 21st August 2008, both to no success.

I followed the 'title' and 'description' text as stipulated in DMOZ; is there a way of finding out the site's status.

Many Thanks
David

Why do people not read what we have written before
no mention of specific sites here please.

> I have added my site ....
No, you have suggested your site for an editor to review.
You can not add sites.

Business: Information Technology: Employment: Recruitment and Staffing: Recruiters

Now the company is based in the UK, would it have been more advisable to add the site regionally, or was it correct to add the site to this category, which semed totally appropriate.

Click to expand...

If the company delivers "international Information Technology recruiting" the mentioned category is appropriate. If it only delivers this service in the UK the category is not appropriate.
In both case: if the company has a physical location it may be suggested in the Regional category where it is located

The reason I ask is because I have attempted to add my site twice, firstly on the 6th March 2008, and secondly on the 21st August 2008, both to no success.

Click to expand...

As I said before you can not add or try to add a site. Please read our FAQ for more answers.

I followed the 'title' and 'description' text as stipulated in DMOZ; is there a way of finding out the site's status.

Click to expand...

No, there is not such a way. Please read our FAQ.

You could ofcourse also have read the previous answer by jimnoble. This would have saved you the time to ask most of the questions.

Site Status

no mention of specific sites here please.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the pedantic inclination of your answer.

But it hasn't helped in this instance.

I have read thoroughly the methods of suggestings a site for inclusion in DMOZ, but still haven't seen any sign of the site being included.

In the past, by following these rules I have succeeded in getting sites included in the directory.

What I was asking (with this latest site) was, and you say there is no way of finding out,

No, there is not such a way

Click to expand...

is there a way of assessing if a site is in the pipeline (of being suggested), or has it been refused outright.

In the past there was a very simple method and that was contacting an editor, of course this option is no longer available, which is a pity, as it made the whole process so simple, and saved having to ask many questions via forums.

You could ofcourse also have read the previous answer by jimnoble. This would have saved you the time to ask most of the questions.

Click to expand...

NB:
I did read the previous post by Jim, and left in my URL knowing he would remove it, but secretly hoping he may have a way of checking on its progress, which of course I now know he couldn't.

I did read the previous post by Jim, and left in my URL knowing he would remove it

Click to expand...

Forgive me. I'd assumed you'd included your URL out of ignorance, not in deliberate defiance of this forum's policies.

David Fischer said:

I did read the previous post by Jim, and left in my URL knowing he would remove it, but secretly hoping he may have a way of checking on its progress, which of course I now know he couldn't.

Click to expand...

It is not that we can not look at the status of a site. It is that we won't.

Do you know how we call people who deliberatly violate guidelines and provide us with information we don't want. Spammers.
Do you know what we do with spammers. At best we ignore them at worst we ban them.

Site Status

jimnoble said:

Forgive me. I'd assumed you'd included your URL out of ignorance, not in deliberate defiance of this forum's policies.

Click to expand...

That sounds a little strong, it wasn't meant to be in 'deliberate defiance', it's just that there was a way (which seems in the long distance past) of finding the status of a URL that had been suggested, and now there isn't.

DMOZ is such an important factor for website owners that you must surely understand the concerns of these people, when, after months they still haven't been added to the directory, after they've followed the 'suggest your URL' guidelines.

I can't see the purpose of this forum if we can't enquire about the status of a URL; I would have thought that was one of the forums main aims.

Site Status

pvgool said:

It is not that we can not look at the status of a site. It is that we won't.

Do you know how we call people who deliberatly violate guidelines and provide us with information we don't want. Spammers.
Do you know what we do with spammers. At best we ignore them at worst we ban them.

Click to expand...

That is a little too strong, the last thing I would ever wish to do was deliberately violate guidelines; sometimes I might light humouredly suggest something.

I've never been called a spammer and am quite offended at the suggestion. I started this by simply asking a question of whether I can ascertain the status of a URL I have suggested to the directory.

You've answered with a no, so I'll just have to wait.

>I can't see the purpose of this forum if we can't enquire about the status of a URL;

It may not serve any purpose you'd care about. (That's life: the same statement would be true for almost every website and every surfer on earth. It's just that the small group of sites that do serve one person's purposes may not be the ones that serve the next guy's.)

>I would have thought that was one of the forums main aims.

It was, originally, one of the aims. (Maybe not one of the main ones.) We proved--from practical experience--how useless that information was for all honest webmasters, and how badly the dishonest ones wanted it--not to mention how much many in both camps resented the truth when they got it.

So that aim was consciously abandoned. There's a FAQ record about it.

I started this by simply asking a question

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it was a question that is answered in the very aptly named Frequently Asked Questions which are linked at the top of every page (and also in a zillion other threads here), so you can understand that volunteers get a little frustrated when people don't do just a little reading first.

It was not so much that he did not read our FAQ and other threads.
This post was spilt from another thread. He reacted to a message of jimnoble in which jim just had stated that mentioning of urls was not allowed and that we would not provide status anymore.
I copied Jim's text and to make sure that it would be read I made it big and red.
And now it shows that David did read the original text but he must have thought "rules are OK for other people but they do not apply to me". I hope for him that he did not break the DMOZ guidelines as he has broken those on R-Z.

I'd like to thank you all for the feedback to my question - I feel properly chastised, when I set about the initial question I had no intention of rocking the boat, I will in future, endeavour to read all forum FAQs and threads before wasting other forum participants time.

Thanks. This thread seems to have run its course so closing.