dmoz.org submission guidelines suggestion

Sorry this is so long, I can't figure out how to shorten it.
Actually, I can't even figure out how to start a new thread, so I posted it here as the best shot...sorry, very non-techie...

On http://dmoz.org/, if you pick ‘suggest URL’, under the heading ‘Procedure After Your Site Is Submitted’ it says, “…it may take several weeks or more before your submission is reviewed.”

:icon_idea I think this sets people up to think (mea culpa!) a review could happen in a month, or two. I read somewhere to expect six weeks, so that’s why I checked today (submitted 12/22/05) and then began searching all over dmoz.org to figure out what might be going on: had I submitted it wrong, could I get any kind of feedback, did my submission get lost, did I submit to the wrong category, etc., etc., and found out things are very different than what I thought.

:icon_excl I think it could save many volunteers, on this forum for sure, but maybe even many of the others, if the dmoz.org ‘guidelines’ wording was changed to something like, “…it can very reasonably take anywhere from several weeks to six months or even longer before your submission is reviewed”. This way unrealistic expectations aren’t set up from the beginning and you wouldn’t get so many questions about the same topic over and over.

Also, it could be a good service for people who suggest websites so they don’t spend hours like I just did trying to figure out if I did something wrong. Not your primary mission, but it seems like a little rewording could save a lot of time for a lot of people.

I’d also suggest that a clear statement on resubmissions, such as waiting six or twelve months or something, would be to everyone’s benefit. Maybe even a different form specifically for a resubmission, maybe including a requirement to explain, among some guidelines, why you are resubmitting. Maybe people who have waited ‘patiently’ are more serious, have more seriously appropriate websites, etc. I don’t know. Just a thought.

Thank you for considering this.
Michael Undlin

Whatever value is stated can lead to the wrong assumptions. People who are lead to believe it will take at least six weeks, go ahead and submit their site, hoping to finish it off before it gets reviewed (I know I used to do that before I was an editor).

Well, surprise, I tend to pre-review new submissions within a few days, and if they are under construction I delete them.

If we say it takes over a year (which may sometimes be true) then many will not bother submitting, because it seems like a waste of time, and that would be too bad, cause if they did they might be reviewed next week.

Yeah... sometimes you can't win for losin'!!
I kind of get what you are saying though...
By the way, I spent a lot of time selling in the I/T arena and a big point of virtually any discussion was how to improve 'the backlog' - you may be the only 'I/T' org (at least sort of) in the world that has figured out how to not have one!!! (from your 'no queue....' line).

I've seen a couple of comments suggesting I wouldn't be thought of as a spammer / knocked out forever / etc., if I submitted again after six months or more...I honestly was so dumb that I can't remember which of about five very reasonable categories I ended up submitting to so I would probaby end up different than I thought (actually, Yahoo! placed me better than I did when I submitted there and I thought I was being very careful!)...would I be safe in this regard? (if you can't answer I understand...and then I'll just crawl under my blankie ))
Michael

A couple of submissions does not a spammer make.

Just because spam doesn't a backlog make ... doesn't mean we don't have a backlog. It just has nothing to do with site suggestions.

Basic queueing theory says -- any genuine backlog is best addressed by improving efficiency of service. You'd be amazed how many people make vapid proposals imposing all kinds of unproductive or counterproductive work on editors -- in the name of "dealing with the backlog."