Discrepancy in time taken to review

Hi

One of my sites ( http://www.sethlovis.co.uk/ ) just got a listing after approx. 2 months wait.

Another site ( http://www.innocentinjured.co.uk/ ) has been waiting for 6+ months now.

They're both under:

http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Legal_Services/

With the first being listed in 'Lawyers and Law Firms' and the second waiting to be listed in 'Claims Services'. Neither category has an editor and therefore relies on editors further up the directory.

I'm puzzled why one has been waiting for 6 months without review and yet another that I submitted 4 months later is already listed.

Have I done something wrong? Is the site not meeting criteria?

I've resubmitted http://www.innocentinjured.co.uk/ today with a revised title and description in the hope of some response, but any help, suggestions or reassurance gratefully received.

Regards

David.

P.S. This is a sort of follow-on to my post here of 20/05 - 'Another baffled submitter!'.

I'll bet it's "luck of the draw" combined with the possibility that one site was easier to review than the other.

Hi

"luck of the draw"?!! Is there not a queueing system for reviews? First one in, first one out?

If reviews are performed randomly it's rather disappointing and doesn't do much for the credibility of the ODP IMHO.

Regards

David.

The two categories you mentioned have very large backlogs of submissions, however, work is being done to reduce them.

The UK B&E categories are under constant strain from submissions, and although we are working to reduce the number waiting, it does require more keen editors, which is something we're lacking.

Is there not a queueing system for reviews? First one in, first one out?

There is, although editors have the ability to sort the unreviewed queue in alphabetical order, and by URL.

When submissions stand out from the crowd by having what appear to be guideline conforming titles and descriptions, I do have a terribly unfair habit of editing them first /images/icons/smile.gif.

Other than that, I sort by url, kill the duplicates, sort by date and edit the oldest first.

jimnoble,

<<When submissions stand out from the crowd by having what appear to be guideline conforming titles and descriptions, I do have a terribly unfair habit of editing them first>>

As I believe it should be. If someone cannot take the 10-20 minutes to submit to the correct category and/or uses a promotional/spammy description etc I think they should wait longer for review. It would leave the impression that they don't care - why should the editors.

My 2-cents /images/icons/smile.gif

Hi Jim

Understandable that you're drawn to the 'easy kills' first, but it still seems like a *big* discrepancy that one site gets in after 2 months and another is still waiting after 6+ months.

This isn't intended as a moan - I appreciate that the editors are volunteers so it'd be a bit churlish of me to complain (!) - but it does get frustrating, especially when I have a client nagging me every month!

As mentioned earlier I've rewritten title and description for the site and resubmitted. I think the description is terse and is exactly what is required by ODP. If you see www.innocentinjured.co.uk on your list, let me know where to send the envelope of used fivers (I've just had a message from someone suggesting I'll get banned for offering a bribe! Just in case there is any doubt - the 'used fivers' thing is a j o k e ! ! !).

Thanks for your time... and thanks to everyone else for their input.

Regards

David.

<<If someone cannot take the 10-20 minutes to submit to the correct category and/or uses a promotional/spammy description etc I think they should wait longer for review. It would leave the impression that they don't care...>>

I think that is rather hard and unfair. There are so many categories that could be suitable for many sites and for someone with zero editorial experience it's really a case of taking a best guess at times.

As way of example, I submitted the solicitors site ( www.sethlovis.co.uk ) to a regional directory for Westminster, London. An editor moved it to UK, Business and Economy, etc. Just because I got it 'wrong' (subjective) doesn't mean I don't care and didn't spend some time reading the guidelines.

I think penalising sites for what is very often subjective 'errors' is quite unfair - especially as the site owner / web designer has no means of responding.

As for writing a 'good' description, that's really open for interpretation IMHO.

OK - I'm off my soap box now. /images/icons/wink.gif

Keep up the good work all - I've submitted an application to join the merry band!

Regards

David.

I handled your "update" request, but the other site is still there. I cleared some of the backlog in the area (duplicate submissions, etc.) but didn't have time to try to tackle a big area which I don't know much about.

I just saw that the update had been done - and I only submtited it today! Thanks very much for such a quick response.

I can understand people might not be queueing up to edit a category like 'Claims Services' - not the most exciting!

I suppose there's no point in asking for an estimate on how long it might be before this category is tackled?

Thanks

David.

David_1cog,
<< I think that is rather hard and unfair. There are so many categories that could be suitable for many sites and for someone with zero editorial experience it's really a case of taking a best guess at times. >>

I was not speaking of your submission /images/icons/smile.gif
I was echoing Jim's post. I have read in these forums that many editors actually spend more time going through the spam and intentional duplicate submissions (like in mirror sites) then being able to include legitimate submissions. So who's being unfair to who? The spammers, people that just submit thinking the editors will work it out, or the person who takes the time to ask questions if they have any. There are and have been many places/forums on the net before this forum to ask questions relating to DMOZ/ODP (just do a search in your favorite SE). I would lay money that the editors spend more time analyzing a submission for the correct category than the average user that is submitting.

Again, my post had "nothing" to do with yours /images/icons/smile.gif

Hi

I didn't think it was aimed directly at me - nor was my reply aimed directly at you! I was just giving my opinion that it's unfair to penalise some sites because the owner made a mistake / lacked experience. On the other hand, obvious spammers should be penalised - *big* time!

Thanks for your help. /images/icons/smile.gif

Regards

David.

>>I would lay money that the editors spend more time analyzing a submission for the correct category than the average user that is submitting

That's *very* true. Aside from the spamming issue, actually most editors spend a lot of time analyzing a submission and trying to find the best description (most descriptive as per our guidelines) and the most suitable category/s.

This is one of the many advantages of having non-paid editors dealing with submissions: we aren't "paid-by-the quantity" (or time, or have to meet company "productivity" schedules, etc.), but we can and should focuse on *quality*. Thus, finding a good place and a good description for a site - any site - is what makes an editor prouf od his/her job, it's a personal achievement, no matter whether we spent 10 mins or 1 hour reviewing a site and wading through categories, or discussing the correct placement in the internal Forums with fellow editors. If we were paid for doing this -- as someone sometimes suggests -- we would probably have a faster submission process, but less focus on where a site should go, how should it be described, how to keep the categoiries spam-free, etc. (that is, what currently happens in most pay-per-listing directories)

Yes, all this coupled with the quantity of misplaced submissions and spam in some categories, sometimes produces more delay in processing submissions. In a perfect world (with no spammy submission, at least), we could speed up even this quality-oriented process, but having to choose between quality and quantity we opt for the first, which we think the final user (the surfer) will benefit most. Webmasters will in turn benefit from a quality-oriented, no-hurry-evaluation approach having their sites placed in a (potential) spam-free and quality-rich environment.

"guideline conforming titles and descriptions, I do have a terribly unfair habit of editing them first..."

So true.. /images/icons/smile.gif

And you can bet that they guy that submitted his Collectable Wine Bottle site to the /Wire Rope and Cable/ category is not going to taken care of right away...

This is an example of a site that was submitted a bit ago - and this is not unusual - but it shows why it often takes a while to go through categories that get a lot of submissions. Submissions like this, coupled with the continual spam ( I got 9 submissions from just one site today, all identical deep links) slows things down for what editors SHOULD be doing - putting sites in their proper place.
Add to that the recent spate of expiring domains being taken over by spam engines and porno sites - which all have to be cleaned out by hand - and you begin to see where the time goes.

BTW, from the description they submitted I defy anyone to tell me what they are selling...:

"Our specially selected distributor representatives are professionals, skilled in the proper selection and use of our products and materials. The are backed by factory representatives to give you the additional expertise required to solve your unique needs. We will be happy to meet with you to review your needs - and recommend approriate solutions. Samples are available for evalutation. SPC is an ongoing process at zzz Products. If desired, we can provide SPC charts of critical dimensions on all orders shipped. Accurate quality assurance using statistical methods underlines our goal of continuous improvement. We combine competitive prices with on-time shipments -and our slogan speaks for itself..."