Delays on URL submissions and payments to expedite

I realize this is a totally volunteer driven resource and totally respect that, but was wondering if it is possible to pay to have a submission review, expedited?

I would more than happily pay for someone to look at it, but am not sure this is an option. If it is not an option, I would like to suggest it to the powers that be - how can I do this?

As a FYI, I submitted a URL to the following category almost a year ago and there only about 40 entries in it, so I'm wondering if there is a problem or something? Basically I'm looking for any way in which I can speed up the approval process? Is there anyway to see if I am still pending review?

[Category]

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation/Self-Catering/

http://www.holidayhomerental.co.uk Cheers, Andy

Offering to pay is, guaranteed, a way to keep the site from EVER being listed.

There is no way to expedite. And, if you'll think about it a moment, that is the way it must be. The "expedition" you talk about so blithely can only translate into "forcing a volunteer to work on your priorities rather than some less self-centered person's priorities" -- and thus is a good thing (for the sake of the non-peremptory webmasters and all of society) not to allow.

(Hutch beat me to it.)

Re. Paying to expedite

My apologies for asking the question, purely seeking information as a new business owner, I was not aware of all the rules. Just wondered if you might offer a similar service similar to that of Yahoo and Microsoft Small Business Directory etc.

Thanks for the clarification,

Andy

Understandable -- as you say, other sites do offer such services. But ... it is pretty important that the volunteer editors both don't, and are known not to.

It's just a pity that a lot of users don't know that some directories ask site owners to pay if they want their websites included.

I mean, there is an enormous difference between a pay per inclusion directory and a free directory - when you search something in a paid directory you basically search through websites that have enough funds to pay - which are just a few - automatically excluding websites where people work hard all day to offer their free services.

I just hope that in the future this will change; even though there are many companies that are trying desperately to put the Net in chains - pay for inclusion directories are obviously also a way to limit the freedom of the Internet, in my opinion.

can someone explain me how one subcategory has not even one site submitted from 2 year. the category is :
http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Bulgaria/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/

>can someone explain me

What you say may not be true at all. For all you know, an editor has been visiting the category daily, reviewing all submittals, deleting spam (the majority of all submittals) and redirecting missubmittals (the vast majority of all submittals in that category.)

But whether what you say is so or no, or why it might be so as it is, are not your business unless you make it your business by volunteering to help (and being accepted.)

10x for the answer
I already tried to be a volunteer, but i was rejected
Have a nice day

Re: Delays on URL submissions

Since I submitted by URL to DMOZ, nearly 2 years have passed. It's doubtful there's anyone at all editing collectible antique & vintage costume jewelry links.

Meantime, my site has been accepted in other directories through link exchanges, as well as exchanged links with high ranking websites in the same field. So, finally my URL is in the search engines, with good ranking in some cases.

DMOZ is nothing but a welfare department of directories, unable to really do anything except treat the welfare applicants like they are so much flotsam. For one thing, the editors and moderators aren't earning a thing, not even a link exchange. Yet so many of them somehow think they have power over others. They have become haughty, too full of themselves to be helpful to anyone.

And as the haughty moderators say, DMOZ doesn't have to add any URL, or do anything. In fact, they've had this attitude so long they have actually BECOME as useless as a beached whale floundering helplessly on the beach. Conceited beached whales are stupid, aren't they?

So it follows that DMOZ, being useless and stupid, is not necessary. Busy webmasters would do well to avoid wasting time submitting URLs or searching DMOZ. There are plenty of better, useful directories. Best of luck to all of you.
:sun:

Best,

Rebecca Fransway

Though the logic is somewhat debatable, the poster has grasped the message we have been labouring to get across which is:

Submit and forget. There are more important things to do than worry about the status of your submission.

Well done Rebecca.

DMOZ may be nothing to you but that -- and that is OK. It doesn't have to be anything to you at all.

But whatever it is to anyone, it's not commercial welfare for anyone. So people who are looking for commercial welfare tend to get very frustrated...

Is that OK? I'd prefer not to frustrate honest people unnecessarily. So that's why we are so eager to tell people what we do (building topics for surfers) and what we DON'T do (welfare for webmasters). That way, people who can read and think, can avoid that kind of frustration.

As for thinking we have power -- a lot of ill-informed webmasters think we have power. But that's just wilful ignorance of all the information we make freely available. We can't take responsibility for that.

And a lot of malevolent people think we think we have power. But that's just nonsense. I've been an editor since 1999. And what power does that give me? I'm still limited by what I do on my own keyboard. If you count all my work since the beginning, what I've done is equivalent to about a week's worth of total ODP development work. And all the rest of the ODP -- I have no power, no influence, over it. And I COULDN'T have had -- I can only use one keyboard at a time. And sometimes it's being used for something else.

That's fine with me, I'm not looking for power over anyone, and if I were, I'd be out generating doorway-website or e-mail spam like the other e-power freaks.

Free Willy!

Rebecca,

Even though I doubt you'll be back to these forums after that oh so self-centered and self gratifying flame you posted (must have felt nice to say that but within the same breath you made yourself a hypocrite of course, who's the conceited whale?) this goes twoards people of a like mind who might view this thread.

I've heard editors say numerous times: You don't submit a site to the ODP, you suggest a site.

Is this conceited? Is this the verbage of power-mongers?

No. Its the underlying philosophy of the ODP as a NON-COMMERCIAL tool to help web USERS. Not site owners.

Those who view the ODP as just another directory to get their site they are trying to promote on typically misinterpret the ODP. They just don't get it.

Time goes by, they are still not listed. They got listed here and there and don't forget the great listing over there too! Why not the ODP? I've looked at the category where my site "should" be listed and my site has more and better content than any of those sites. There's something wrong with the ODP!

No, there isn't. There's something wrong with your perspective of the ODP. It is not designed to help you promote your site. Sites suggested to editors are just a small fraction of the methods editors use to add sites to their categories. Perhaps you think you can do a better job, congradulations! After you tell the ODP how to run itself, please call the leader of your country and the coach of your favorite sports team and enlighten them as well, I'm sure they are dying waiting for your superior take on their situations.

So why don't you spend the time you have used in the last 2 years checking on your "submission", thinking about your "submission", complaining about your "submission" and so forth and use that time doing something that the ODP actually has ANY relavance to - volunteer.

Best,
:sun:

NiV23

I understand the nature of the ODP as a non-commercial service to help users. However, you must understand the frustration of business owners. I too have been trying to get my company's site listed in the ODP for two years. My company manufactures equipment that is sold all over the world. We're small, and although we produce machinery for a niche market, we have competition. We're always trying to gain market share to stay in business.

It's frustrating for me to see my competitors prominently listed in the ODP and other sites that use ODP data, while my site seems to be arbitrarily excluded despite all my efforts over the last two years. I feel that I'm losing sales to the competition because of this. Most of our new business comes from people finding our website, and to that end omission from the ODP is harmful.

But it's not just our omission that hurts, it's the fact that our competition is not. If the ODP is indeed designed for users and not commerce, why are some companies listed? Wouldn't it be in the nature of the ODP to exclude all commercial sites? How does it help anyone to include some companies but not their competition?

I understand the viewpoint of ODP editors, but please try to understand my perspective. I think the ODP has become integral to commercial sites, since sites listed in the ODP directory also appear on Google, Yahoo, AOL and other directories. For many companies, Web exposure means sales. Not being included in the ODP hurts exposure and hurts sales.

I would humbly suggest either removing all commercial sites, or exercising more equality as to their inclusion. If you provide a link for a company that makes widgets, wouldn't it be in the interest of the user to find ALL companies that make widgets? One company may provide more or different information, offer better prices, or any number of things that could benefit a user. How does arbitrariliy providing an exposure monopoly to one company help anyone?

What makes you think that your website has been actively excluded from ODP? Unless it's the type of website that we don't list, it's far more likely that nobody has yet volunteered to evaluate it.

monopoly?

muddymoose, are you seriously suggesting that the ODP, which does not do commercial site promotion services at ALL, has a MONOPOLY on commercial site promotion services?

Reality check time.

And are you seriously suggesting that my refusal to do something for you, causes you harm? If that were true, I just starved everybody on earth, since I haven't given away a single meal in the past two weeks.

That's nonsense. I am allowed not to help you, and only a vicious egocentricism would presume to interpret that as harm to you.

But suppose you tried to hold everyone else to this standard?

Dear Verizon: I just ordered a new phone, please withdraw all Yellow Pages from circulation until I am represented there. (And note, Verizon is charging you for this service, so you'd have more reason to bug them than to bug the ODP.

Dear Google: I have a website, please do not permit any other site to appear #1 on any search unless my site also appears #1 on my choice of search.

Dear New York Times: There was an article about one of my competitors yesterday. I would humbly suggest that you never mention any corporation in your pages unless you comprehensively report on all the earth's economic activity. After all, publicity for any of my competitors actively harms me.

NOBODY would say things like that to anyone else. Why do they say that to ODP editors?

It may not have been actively excluded, but by not yet being reviewed it's still not included. Poor choice of words. Still, two years is a long time for a competitor to benefit from exposure while I am not.

Again, I understand the volunteer nature of the ODP. I understand it can take two years. Still, after two years, how do I know if it will *ever* be included?

Regardless of the ODP's intentions, it's undeniable that the ODP serves as free, relatively prominent advertising for the companies that do get listed. Surely you must realize that you are impacting commerce and have a responsibility to both users and businesses. Users need to be able to find competing companies to get the most information about a product, the best price, and get the best deal. Companies with websites of similar quality need equality of exposure, since they cannot pay for it.

I've seen it said that the ODP is better than paid advertising because it doesn't just list the sites that can afford to pay. It's supposed to list quality sites based on content that can be helpful or informative. This is a noble ideal. However, my site is of similar design, content, and quality to other sites I've submitted that were approved must faster. Listings may not be based on who can pay, but instead they're based on waiting, perhaps forever. How is that any better? A quality site may not get listed in pay-for-advertising if they don't have the money, but with the ODP a quality site may not get listed because no one is editing that category, or they're too busy? Either way, quality sites don't get listed.

Within their permissions, our volunteer editors set their own priorities. Surely nobody is suggesting that some volunteers should be setting other volunteers' priorities or that our volunteers aren't volunteering hard enough.

>Who, exactly, sets priorities for reviewing and possibly listing sites?

Each editor sets priorities for his own work.

>And if you don't mind me asking, just what are some of the priorities?

You can see exactly what has been a priority for some editor, by seeing what categories have been created and developed. There are about 600,000 of them. You can get a complete list by downloading the RDF.

>And who judges which person is "less self-centered" and which is more so?

I'd think anyone who ISN'T telling five thousand OTHER people what THEY should be permitted to choose as a mission, and how THEY should be permitted to pursue that mission, in order to avoid accidentally causing insufficient economic gain to himself, is lagging behind the self-centeredness leaders in ANYONE'S book.