Discontinuation of site status check

Hi,

It was over 6 months ago that I patiently enquired about the status of my submission, I was told to get back in around 6 months.

This I have done, only to find that I am no longer allowed access to the information I need, i.e. is my site listed (it appears not to be) and if not why not ?

I can quite understand the rationale of discontinuing this feedback in terms of overworked and underpaid editors, but how on earth do we, the apparently rejected and worthless underclass, get our act together, in your terms, unless we know the reasons for our rejection ?

I am quite sure that we all try our very best, which is why we probably came to you for verification in the first place feeling that we have done okay, but maybe we have failed in some small, but to you at DMOZ, significant way?

What is that failing, and how can we meet your standards unless you educate us by informing us about what it is that you feel we have done 'wrong', or at least informing us in what way you feel we have failed to meet your standards??

Surely, maintaining good web standards is about informing us where you think we are going wrong ? If you do not do this then how are you able to ensure that web standards are going to be maintained and improved and that we on the delivery end can 'deliver' to you acceptable material? Is 'education' not a part of the DMOZ remit, or do you just want to leave 'acceptability' to the pot-luck scenario ?

I am now in the position where I have patiently waited for at least 9 months and it seems that my site is rejected, because I can't find it, and I have no way to find out why. This means that I have no way of knowing what it is that I have done 'wrong', in your terms, and so I cannot rectify my site and bring it up to the standards that you think are acceptable.

So, how does this square with the idea of propagating the web standards that you want to inspire us to produce ? Do I simply try this and then that until I 'stumble' upon the correct formula for DMOZ ?

I am sure that we could all say that we have followed your written guidelines, but 'guidelines' can be interpreted in many different ways depending upon who is doing the interpreting and the substance of our submissions ?

Okay, so what do I do now, after over 9 months I am not showing on your directory, which I guess means that my site does not meet your criteria, but in what way and how do I improve it? Do you want me to really improve it to your standards, or do you want me to just keep on 'stabbing' at it until I stumble upon the 'correct' formula, in your terms?

I think that there are some inconsistencies here ?

Kind regards.

Ray

Why is a listing, or not, in the ODP any measure of when you should start improving the content and coding of your site?

I see no correlation between the two things, unless the aim is to simply "do the bare minimum to get a listing".

Wow. Ummm. There are so many misconceptions in your post that I hardly know where to start.
First, I think you are giving way too much credit to an ODP listing. I can tell you first hand that a website can be seen just fine through many other means without an ODP listing.

Depending on the category, 9 months could be a very short time to wait. It can take anywhere from 10 min to 3 years for a suggested site to be reviewed.

What we look for; easy to find unique content. Does the site offer something not already found in the directory?

giz is right. You should always try to improve your site regardless of an ODP listing.

Finally, you know your site had been received. That is all you would ever find out in the old status check forum that has been discontinued. So there is nothing else for you to do. I have always said that once you have submitted a site, it’s best just to let it go and move on to other methods of promoting your site. Either it will or will not get listed.

Do I simply try this and then that until I 'stumble' upon the correct formula for DMOZ ?

Click to expand...

Is see this concept so many times, I don't know where it started. There is no magic formula that gets you into DMOZ.

It's not a web design contest, so we don't really care what colors you use. We don't care about fancy webdesign tricks..

The bottom line is - if you provide information that is useful to the consumer then it improves the site's value to be listed. Adding that information in order to get into DMOZ means you missed out entirely when you created the site, because it should have been there in the first place.

I review many many terrible looking sites, and accept them, because the information is there and findable. I also reject sites that must have cost thousands of $ for a high quailty design, because they fail to provide very basic information - such as where a store is located. It's probably my major complaint - putting up a web site and assuming everyone whol looks at it assumes when they see the name of the city, that they will know the state, or province or country the business is located in.

Get someone to look at your site and pretend they are an editor looking to find info - have them tell you what their impressions are of your site.

>Is 'education' not a part of the DMOZ remit?

I think that is the key question. And the answer is: No, it's really not.

I teach what I know -- which isn't building businesses or creating art or discovering new knowledge. Other ODP editors may (or may not) teach at all. So if you're looking for an education, the ODP lists millions of websites purporting to teach almost everything from Aardvark assassination to Zyzygy zeroing -- but the ODP mission absolutely doesn't include "unique content development training."

And "not publishing unique relevant information" is for all practical purposes the only reason websites don't get listed. And that is not a failure -- those webmasters never meant to publish unique relevant information, and in most cases simply didn't have any to publish. They did their best at what they meant to do (typically commission-based marketing) -- which was something that the ODP wasn't interested in.

'Education' etc.

Hi,

Thanks for your replies.

First, I do not rely upon DMOZ for my web education, nor do I view you as the be all and end all of SEO, you are however one other significant avenue which many of us, quite obviously, want to be registered with. Nor do I rely upon you to teach me how to make a good web site or how to make a site which achieves good web standards. As some of you rightly point out this is something I should do anyway, and it is soemthing which I constantly try and achieve, for example by making the transitions from html to xhtml and, as I'm currently doing working towards CSS.

This was not my point. You obviously know that there are a great number of us who would like to be registered with you, and we know that there are other avenues for SEO but saying that is both ignoring your own status and stating the obvious.

As several of you have explained, you have certain criteria that you bring to bear upon sites that you review. It is really important, (and very standard practice with any application procedure) for the applicant to be informed about reasons for any faiulure should they desire; so that they can fully understand the reasons and then review their modus operandi accordingly if they feel it is necessary. It may not be necessary, we may not agree and we may decide not to apply again, but to be left in the dark is not something which I applaude in any area of life and with any application, not just DMOZ.

This is a very simple kind of 'education' that I'm talking about, not web site design or SEO.

Cheers.

Ray

As others have already said, we don't have a secret formula. Instead, we have publicly available, very detailed guidelines that we work to. You might like to consider reading them at http://dmoz.org/add.html and http://dmoz.org/guidelines/.

If you prefer not to read their entire bulk, the http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html section should help you to check right now if your site is listable or not. We won't know until we review it and there's no defined timescale for that.

If you find that it's not currently listable but fixable, I suggest that you fix it. If you do that, suggesting it again to cover the possibliity that it's already declined won't make you a spammer.

Bottom line is this:
If your website is listable, we'll list it in time.
If it isn't, we won't.

I cannot imagine a single bit of relevant information on the subject that the editor could possibly know, that you don't already know much better.

Is your content unique? You HAVE to know that, you know where you got it!

What else are you imagining that could possibly matter?

Here are a couple of posts from a webmaster in another forum:

"I'm listed in DMOZ ... YAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOO!#@!#$! ... after years of submiting my site, and waiting ... Finally got listed for something completely unexpected (quite original content on the page that got listed though, go figure huh? ;-) )"

and again:

"I actually don't think any of my submiting to DMOZ had any effect on me getting listed. The page that got listed was a subpage, only added a month ago .... I searched DMOZ and found my subpage in a category I never thought about submiting to. There was no tricks involved, I wasnt even thinking about DMOZ when I created the page, just seemed like a cool thing to provide for my visitors. Nobody else was providing it in the local area."

You see the trick? The trick is, there was no trick! The dude forgot all about DMOZ and went to work to provide something nobody else was doing. Go figure, huh?

And you know what? Speaking from experience, I bet the ODP editor was probably as happy to find that page, as the webmaster was to find his ODP listing.

Okay

Hi Guys,

Okay, I can see that I am quite obviously wrong in everything I say. Not one of you have even made the slightest effort or hint that you might see what I'm getting at; you of course have nothing to learn and can do no wrong - unlike the rest of us.

I have always considered myself to be a reasonable person and at times I have been told that I have some reasonable things to say. Obviously on this occasion I have to bow to the superior knowledge and intellect of the DMOZ editors; and I cannot possibly have anything constructive to offer.

I apologise for taking up your valuable time.

Kind regards

Ray

Well, you are trying to find out how you should change your site so that it will get listed in the ODP. Each of the editors have given you plenty of information, along with the suggetion quidelines, for you to determine any criteria for listing. The truth is, this forum is not here to do what you are asking for. We do not tell webmasters how to build their sites or what content to use. That is their prerogative and freedom.

It's very simple. Look at the category you think the site should be listed in. Look at the content, information, what ever you want to call it and ask yourself "if I was someone surfing the internet, does my site offer any significant unique information that cant be found in the rest of the ODP directory? Is it easy to locate on my site? Does it add anything new to the directory?"

No tricks.

We will never evaluate a site in this forum.
Good luck.

Well, you're the expert on your own website, that's for sure. Nothing you do can sneak by you, that's for sure. Nothing that you add of your own knowledge will be unknown by you, that's for sure. And nothing that you copy from some other website will slip by you, that's for sure. There really is nothing we can teach you about that.

Beyond that, I've probably looked at over a hundred thousand websites. There have been a handful -- a few dozen, at most -- of that something could have been done to make them listable. And even those are usually brain-dead stuff -- make the HTML standards-compliant enough to work on a real browser; tell what city your Elks lodge is in, so I can move it to the right regional category; and I'm not sure I can think of anything else.

Torture me, threaten me, "use use... sarcasm...all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire." There is no more to tell.

Anyone else who shares this mass faith in the omniscience of ODP editors ... would one of you kindly tell us what it is that we know and you don't? Because I'd love to know just what it is -- and you all obviously know and are keeping it a secret!

Perhaps it's an inability to understand that the ODP operates in a totally different way than search engines. With search engines -the plan is to find out the latest trick to get listed, shall I tweak my keywords so that the target keyword occurs 2.5 times on every page. Shall I put in a keywords meta tag or not, shall I cloak the URL, how many sites have to point it me to increase my PR? Can I get away with putting in invisible text? Is it important that my keywords are contained in my URL?

Since ODP is human edited there are really no tricks. Some sites are by their very nature disallowed, the rest - see above.

There is some useful insight into the processes elsewhere.

Html, xhtml, css, who cares? The only thing about site construction that matters to me is that a site loads in my browsers. I don't look for indications of the design tools when I browse a site. I'm not evaluating W3C compliance or awarding artistic prizes.

The methodology behind the pages is, and should be, the webmaster's choice, as is what he/she puts on those technically-perfected pages. I don't care how you arrange it, color it, or what type-face you use. Nor can I or will I or should I provide a critique.

However, if I look at these pretty webpages and learn nothing, can't determine the subject, or, worst of all, find nothing but more links and dozens of ads, I move on. If you don't tell me what I need / want to know, I can't use your website. An ugly page is not going to bother me nearly as much as a webpage that doesn't tell me anything.

That's true whether I'm wearing my editor's hat or my consumer's hat. Bad content is just bad content.

DJ

Amen bro.

Not one of you have even made the slightest effort or hint that you might see what I'm getting at; you of course have nothing to learn and can do no wrong - unlike the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I think we do see what you are getting at. You want us to tell you the specific reasons why a site get rejected so you can redesign. We are telling you in reply how to get listed and skipping why we won't tell you point by point the reasons for a rejection.

The first thing is that a rejection is made for one of two reasons - it breaks one of our submission policies, or next to sites on a similar theme it does not pass a quality bar for copious quantities of material not found elsewhere on the Internet. That bar varies from category to category depending on the competition. A one page guide to a small town might pass, a one page guide to a major city won't. So referring you to the guidelines for inclusion tells you what not to do if you want the site to be seriously considered.

As for the other side - spelling out the faults on a site so they can be corrected. First it would take a lot of manpower to respond to that if it became a service; second it would lead to all manner of abuse being heaped on editors - we've had it here when people were told of a rejection and why; third releasing specific information helps spammers to break our automatic and manual quality control processes - we don't want that, you as an honest webmaster don't want that. Imagine - we found a clue to your site being an affiliate drop-shipper via the text in this paragraph. Tomorrow, same site new URL is submitted minus that paragraph.

Before becoming an editor I had a site I wanted to submit. I started then read the guidelines. I went back and redesigned the site, added a lot more original information. Then submitted. Put it on my editor application actually. The secret that isn't a secret was to study other sites that had been accepted and go one more step than any of them. Impossible to reject then. The information I was prompted by the guidelines to add has had a lot more influence on the success of the site than the listing in DMOZ the site got.

Does that answer it?

jimnoble said:

As others have already said, we don't have a secret formula. Instead, we have publicly available, very detailed guidelines that we work to. You might like to consider reading them at http://dmoz.org/add.html and http://dmoz.org/guidelines/.

Click to expand...

Nice to see some old fellas in here like myself Jim, I see you don't mind putting a picture up like these young fellas. I am disapointed that the site status was discontinued I found it helpful in getting a dmoz listing.

Cheers, Stanley

Stanly said:

I am disapointed that the site status was discontinued I found it helpful in getting a dmoz listing.

Cheers, Stanley

Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity, how did a status check help you get a site listed?