DMOZ is Dead...Long Live the Open Directory Movement!
- Thread starter June Bugeye
- Start date
yay, my site was added 
I guess that yelling here for 2 weeks proved more useful than waiting for 12 months for someone to check it
The Simulated Pets category should have more than just Horse category.
There are quite a lot of dog sim games that could go in their own category.
I actually attempted to become an editor on that area about 8 months ago or so, but I guess I got rejected, though it was unclear why.
I guess that yelling here for 2 weeks proved more useful than waiting for 12 months for someone to check it
The Simulated Pets category should have more than just Horse category.
There are quite a lot of dog sim games that could go in their own category.
I actually attempted to become an editor on that area about 8 months ago or so, but I guess I got rejected, though it was unclear why.
Actually, telling us about how messed up that category was, is what got the action going, not any yelling you did. The first is constructive, the second isn't.
As we don't know your URL, if it happened to get listed during the cleanup, it was purely accidental, not intentional, .
If you really want to help, reapply to be an editor for that category, looks like you'd enjoy it, .
Thanks, gboisseau and lmocr, I don't have editing permissions over there.
As we don't know your URL, if it happened to get listed during the cleanup, it was purely accidental, not intentional,
.If you really want to help, reapply to be an editor for that category, looks like you'd enjoy it,
.Thanks, gboisseau and lmocr, I don't have editing permissions over there.
gboisseau
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,016
When I go into a category to remove link rot, I will correct/remove the problems and then try to add some new links to replace those that I removed.
It is unfortunate that sites, like these sim pet ones are created by well intentioned webmasters. When they do not get the activity they want, they are abandoned.
I happened to find a really good page that had some great links, so I added a few I found. IMO, this is a really good category for a new editor to work in.
It is unfortunate that sites, like these sim pet ones are created by well intentioned webmasters. When they do not get the activity they want, they are abandoned.
I happened to find a really good page that had some great links, so I added a few I found. IMO, this is a really good category for a new editor to work in.
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
Every unsuccessful applicant receives an email providing a list of the common reasons why they may have been unsuccessful, and often includes individual comments or suggestions from the reviewing meta as well. Unless advised not to, an applicant is always welcome to re-apply (after giving some honest thought to the rejection comments of course
), and many current editors were accepted only after improving on their initial application(s).If you did not receive a rejection explanation it most likely means one of 2 things:
- your application was not received. Did you reply to the automatic confirmation screen? Did you ask here whether it had been received?
- your spam filter blocked the letter you were sent. Did you check your filters and change them to allow ODP/DMOZ mail through?
So we hope that when editor applications are once again accepted, you will re-apply and in the meantime read through all the available resources to help you prepare a successful application.
There are no "automatic" e-mails. "Automatic" implies that no human touched the application when in fact every application is process by someone. If one or more of the default reasons applies to the application in question, the reviewing meta will frequently just send the default email without any additional comments.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Irrelevant post removed
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
avh said:
If you only get one of the standard replies without specific comments it means you made one or more of the common mistakes in your application. You can see it as an extra test for you to find and correct these mistakes.
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
In my post above, I mentioned "giving some honest thought to the rejection comments". In other words, carefully and honestly review the list of reasons, and decide which one(s) applied to your application, because the reviewing meta or catmod certainly thought one or more of them did.
Well, it does sound like an enlightenment journey
I guess i could have been suspected of wanting to list my site there, but in the end that would have been beneficial for the category.. well in this particular case, anyway
I guess i could have been suspected of wanting to list my site there, but in the end that would have been beneficial for the category.. well in this particular case, anyway
makrhod said:In my post above, I mentioned "giving some honest thought to the rejection comments". In other words, carefully and honestly review the list of reasons, and decide which one(s) applied to your application, because the reviewing meta or catmod certainly thought one or more of them did.
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
LOL Good to see a sense of humour. Always an essential quality in any volunteer.
Just to make things perfectly clear: there is no problem at all with applying to a category where your site would be listed, provided you are honest about disclosing your affiliations on the application. An application would not be unsuccessful solely because the applicant suggested their own site, unless there were an indication that the Guidelines on Self-interest may be compromised. The reason the standard reply contains a list of possible reasons is because more than one often applies.
Just to make things perfectly clear: there is no problem at all with applying to a category where your site would be listed, provided you are honest about disclosing your affiliations on the application. An application would not be unsuccessful solely because the applicant suggested their own site, unless there were an indication that the Guidelines on Self-interest may be compromised. The reason the standard reply contains a list of possible reasons is because more than one often applies.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
If you are speeking of the time between a site being suggested and it being reviewed this is partly true.
I have reviewed sites that were suggested more than 4 years before.
I have also reviewed sites before they were suggested.
And that is no problem at all as there is no relation between the time a site is suggested and when the same site is reviewed.
I have reviewed sites that were suggested more than 4 years before.
I have also reviewed sites before they were suggested.
And that is no problem at all as there is no relation between the time a site is suggested and when the same site is reviewed.
Then again, June Bugeye may be wrong.
What is the industry standard average time (from site creation to directory listing) across all free-for-listing directories that have the same order of magnitude entries (say over 2 million) as the ODP?
Without that statistic, we can't begin to make comparisons.
Yes, but what does "average" mean? The "average" site isn't listed in ANY directory -- even the FFA link farms don't include all websites. So the "average" length of time to get listed, in ANY directory, is infinity (althought the rules of transfinite arithmetic are not that complex, but they aren't intuitive.)
The only statistic that matters in this context is size--and that's a finite number. Everything else is derived from that.
Now, usefulness for a surfer -- that's a different matter. But its correlation with "webmaster satisfaction" is negative, not positive. Think of the ODP as transferring information from websites to surfers, saving the surfers time and money (but at the expense of webmasters.) Webmasters understandably don't like it. Editors equally understandably do.
The only statistic that matters in this context is size--and that's a finite number. Everything else is derived from that.
Now, usefulness for a surfer -- that's a different matter. But its correlation with "webmaster satisfaction" is negative, not positive. Think of the ODP as transferring information from websites to surfers, saving the surfers time and money (but at the expense of webmasters.) Webmasters understandably don't like it. Editors equally understandably do.
I completely agree.
After all, I didn't say with that statistic alone, we can begin to make comparisons.
We really need a comparable set of meaningful measurements before we can begin. But few discussions on the efficacy (or otherwise) of the ODP start with anything other than anecdotes (My site is unlisted after X days).
A bit more rigor from the critics would surely be welcome all round.
After all, I didn't say with that statistic alone, we can begin to make comparisons.
We really need a comparable set of meaningful measurements before we can begin. But few discussions on the efficacy (or otherwise) of the ODP start with anything other than anecdotes (My site is unlisted after X days).
A bit more rigor from the critics would surely be welcome all round.