Editor contact

I have read that I am not able to check on status of dmoz submission, but I have read all the information on how to use dmoz. It says if you want to contact an editor to send a polite request within the category. I have looked all over and cannot find how to do this.
I have submitted www.cashregisterdiscount.com to http://dmoz.org/Business/Retail_Trade/Technology/Point_of_Sale/Hardware/Cash_Registers/ category.
Can somebody let me know why it has not been listed or let me know how to contact the editor staff for that category?

denver53 said:

Can somebody let me know why it has not been listed or

Click to expand...

Very probably because no editor has looked at the suggestion yet. Please read the FAQ for more and longer answers.

denver53 said:

let me know how to contact the editor staff for that category?

Click to expand...

You are allowed to contact any editor. But most probably won't recieve an answer. Based on previous exoeriences we recommend not to answer mail. And please don't ask for status or a quick review in your mail. You will be seen a spamming jerk.

Conclusion: If you have suggested the site to what you think is the one best category you have done all you can do. One day (we can't predict when) an editor will review the suggestion and decide if it will be listed.

if you re wanting to contact an editor for the purpose of finding out the status of your submission, or to attempt to micromanage their volunteer work by inappropriately suggesting that they pay attention to your suggestion, then your best best is not to bother.

If you want to contact the editor to tell him/her that there is a bad link or an inapproprite lising in a given category, then we have a tread specifically for that purpose in this forum, and it is probably better than contacting the editor.

Further, no one here will give you a status report -- we no longer do that. We do have an excellent FAQ that addresses that issue.

Finally, there is no editor with specific rights to that category; ther are more than 200 active editors who can edit there, so guessing which editor to contact is a bit of an exercise in futility.

I'm sorry if these are not the answers you wanted to hear.

There are basically two reasons why it might not have been listed. (1) Inadequate unique content -- which, for a business site, would take the form of "who are you, what do you know, what have you done now, what would you do for money?" -- and anyone who doesn't believe his business reputation is important enough to make that a significant part of his website, is probably running a scam anyway! (2) OR: nobody has reviewed the site yet.

It doesn't really matter which case is yours, now, does it? In one case the site won't be listed, in the other case the site may be listed (or may not, who knows which? And if it will be listed, who knows when? In either cases -- whatever business advantage you were hoping to have from a listing is not something you can depend on, at least on any specific schedule.

So what would you do differently in one case than the other? How would your business plan be different? How would you design, build, package, or repair cash registers differently? How would you even promote your site differently?

See? There is nothing, absolutely nothing, of any practical use that we could tell you.

Which is one reason that, whether in public or private venues, editors are strongly encouraged not to give that kind of useless information. (The second reason is that such a large minority of webmasters are such absolute jerks -- several times a year someone even goes to the point of physically stalking an editor! And even though most webmasters aren't that bad, talking to them in private is like playing Russian Roulette with your family's health. It's not worth doing except in very very rare circumstances. Site rejections -- we do thousands of them daily, those AREN'T rational circumstances. Sites pending review -- hundreds of thousands, again not a rational time to respond.

The very very rare exceptions would typically be cases where an editor was very interested in a particular topic, and it was obvious that the webmaster was involved out of love for the topic, not greed for financial gain. And (I speak from personal experience here) even those cases are not absolutely safe.

So: you're looking for something that we don't know, that we can't safely tell you, and that you couldn't use.

Put that way, it looks absolutely insane. But it's a common form of insanity. I've been talking to afflicted people for years, trying to figure out just what it is they think we know about their site that they don't, and just what they could possibly do with the information. I'm sure underneath there's some concept completely alien to the ODP: and if I could figure out what it is, I'd explain why it DOESN'T apply to the ODP. But it's one of those deep dark webmaster secrets that nobody will ever tell an editor. (I could accuse you all of being part of a vicious conspiracy of silence ... but I don't think that's it. I think it's probably something more like "Those editors can't possibly exist up there above the aquasphere, their gills wouldn't work. They're holding out on us--there's some other secret lake that they're keeping for themselves" and we're not realizing "Oh, they're FISH! they don't know about the atmosphere and all. Somebody needs to write an article on respiration...."

Or something like that.

respectfully submitted

I have read the above threads, and well, it seems to me that us poor slobs who are trying to offer a decent product, and perhaps turn a profit, are thought of as lower than the amoeba. How is it a scam to put up a good comercial site, selling quality products, and desire to profit from it? And why do you editors find that so offensive? And why is there such a bias against selling something? I was under the impression that this was America, home of freedom and capitolism. If it were not for items being bought and sold, there would be no economy. Now, if someone is selling second rate products, and overinflating the price (a scheme often found in MLM's) i could understand editorial judgement falling against them. But to arbitrarily weed out anything that smacks of comercialism, with no thought as to the fact that the poor shmoe may be just trying to make a decent living, or that he/she is simply trying to suplement household income in order to not have to work more hours away from his/her family, it just doesnt make sense.

And as for my second point (i know i ramble) the inability to ask someone the simple question, why? Why is my site being rejected? It seems the editorial staff are able to do what they want, when they want, and have to answer to noone about it. They are, in essence, above the law. If they do not want to list a site, they don't, end of discussion, no explaination, and the poor guy who is trying his best run a quality website, and needs exposure, is out of luck, all because of someones editorial judgement, with no ability to appeal.There is no contact us phone number, email, etc. So, we the owners of those sites that have been rejected, or just ignored, well, we are just out of luck. If this post offends someone, i am sorry. But, those of us who are trying to the right thing, submit a good product, and get it listed, and improve our page rank, in order to be noticed by the people who just might want what we have to sell, we are offended by the apparent ambiguity of the whole process. Well, i suppose i have said enough, and will probably be black listed for doing so, but someone has to say it, even if it does no good.
I hope someone is listening.

Interesting response. OK, so I know that you cannot and will not give a status of a site. There should not be any reason for it, but based on the lack of presence on the internet, I am wondering if the site was penalized for some reason. I have read that you have notes about submissions on your site, can you tell me if there are notes about my site?

I have read that you have notes about submissions on your site, can you tell me if there are notes about my site?

Click to expand...

We're not allowed to tell you that, sorry - it's specifically covered in our guidelines. See http://dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy .

The overwhelmingly most likely reason for your site not being listed, provided it is listable, is that it hasn't been reviewed yet.

pmhayes, it would be easier to respond to what you say if you gave us anything to respond to. Are we anti-commerdcial sites? No. We have listed millions of them. Are we againist trying to make a profit on or off the web? No, we don't care one way or the other. Is this America? Matter of definition

It seems the editorial staff are able to do what they want, when they want, and have to answer to noone about it.

Click to expand...

1. What they want? Yes, as long as they don't break the guidelines.
2. When they want? Most emphatically yes. Imposing time restrictions (other than the one that says that your editor account times out if you don't do anything in four months) would be destructive and counterproductive.
3. Answer to noone? Equally emphatically no. We answer to the editing community, which is pretty much the strictest community there is to answer to.

We find this works very well.

denver53 said:

Interesting response. OK, so I know that you cannot and will not give a status of a site. There should not be any reason for it, but based on the lack of presence on the internet, I am wondering if the site was penalized for some reason. I have read that you have notes about submissions on your site, can you tell me if there are notes about my site?

Click to expand...

If there are any notes about your domain or your site, we may not tell you about them. However, if any actions involving your site suggestions were improper or done by mistake, they will be investigated. That's about all we can say.

Well, i suppose i have said enough, and will probably be black listed for doing so, but someone has to say it, even if it does no good.

Click to expand...

To add to what nea has said above, I want to stress that nothing anyone posts here in this forum will cause the black listing of a site -- rude and abusive behaviour could result in a member getting banned from this forum but sites are not judged listable or not listable based on the behaviour of their owners here. It would be great if people would stop spreading that little rumour.

Motsa is right, if we blacklisted every webmaster who came in here and acted like a putz, ther would be a sharp downward spike in the number of listed sites.

The problem is that many small-minded people come in here and project their behavior onto us. They would certainly blacklist anyone who acted the way they do, so they assume we would do the same. They would screw their competitors if we gave them the keys to edit a category, so they assume that we would as well.

Many of us take great personal pride in this volunteer work that we do, and we act in an honorable manner because we cannot imagine the same involved in acting unethically and being removed from our positions of trust. And that also explains why some of us are very deeply offended when people come in here, and after 3 posts, decide they know everything about the ODP, and are in a position to challenge our ethics -- usually because we have not listed their website on some timeline known only to them.

And why do you editors find that so offensive

Click to expand...

We don't, we find spamming quite offensive though and only commercial webmasters seem to be into that. Thus some editors prefer to work only in non-commercial sections of the directory - their choice and right. Others work in commercial categories. It is entirely up to them.

I was under the impression that this was America, home of freedom and capitolism

Click to expand...

No, it's Canada, England, Australia, Sweden, Russia, China, Netherlands, France, and America and a hundred or more other countries. We all have our own ideas of freedom and capitalism, but universally we find it quite offensive for people to think they have the right to tell us what we should do and when with our own free time.

But to arbitrarily weed out anything that smacks of comercialism, with no thought as to the fact that the poor shmoe may be just trying to make a decent living

Click to expand...

We don't weed out anything commercial - if it is listable then we list it at our own pace. As to the webmaster's motives in terms of personal circumstances they really are of no consequence to the decision as to whether to list and when. The only thing that matters is the listability of the site. What we can say is that webmasters who think a DMOZ listing is a pot of gold are kidding themselves big time. And plenty of sites have been top performers in search engines and never been listed. The link between DMOZ and search engine results is certainly not enough to make or break a site.

They are, in essence, above the law

Click to expand...

There is no law that says how I must spend my personal free time - DMOZ is entirely voluntary. That is a key element of the concept.

But, those of us who are trying to the right thing, submit a good product, and get it listed, and improve our page rank

Click to expand...

Your objective is as far distant from ours as it is possible to be. Our objective, as a volunteer project is to catalogue the best unique content on the Internet. We are not a listing service or marketing tool and it offends us when people treat us as such.

we are offended by the apparent ambiguity of the whole process

Click to expand...

Why? We have no duty to you or any other website owner. We don't charge for any service, we don't provide any service to webmasters. In return for nothing we don't guarantee to give anything. If you are fortunate that an editor takes an interest in your subject and reviews your site and lists it, that is a bonus for you in terms of marketing but it is an unintentional effect of what we do, not our reason d'etre. For us it is just another piece in the billion piece jigsaw we are putting together as and when work and family commitments allow.

When people actually understand what DMOZ is and how it works in reality they might get a little less frustrated. If you are looking for marketing services then we are not the right place but Yahoo and Overture will happily talk business with you.

pmhayes, it is indeed about freedom. You're free to build a site to meet your goals, even if it doesn't meet mine. Editors are free to build their site with complete disregard for your goals. And -- it doesn't matter whether your goals (or my goals) are exemplary or dispicable. (Everyone has goals that the ODP doesn't meet: that fact alone doesn't make them dispicable!)

So -- that's pretty simple, isn't it? In a free country, if you "need" a service, go find someone who will offer to do it for you. But it is a free country, and you can't just barge into someone else's place of business and demand they provide the service, for free, no less! They'll call the police, or security guards, to protect them from that kind of abuse.

Goodbye. It's a free country, and I'm protecting my freedom.

There should not be any reason for it

Click to expand...

I can think of another reason. Being listed already under another URL. That is pretty serious stuff. That is what you wanted to know wasn't it? Whether you had been caught? The answer is yes you have been caught. The question is whether the existing listing should be removed as per the penalties provided for in the guidelines. The answer to that is that it is final warning time. No more submissions or update requests of any kind and reveal here all the URLs you currently have for this business so we can make sure you no longer are a spam concern - full disclosure would be in your interests at this point.

Now you will want to know how you got caught. Simple answer - editors are remarkably experienced in spotting any and every scam out there in webmaster world. With 4000 odd variations on spam received a day there is very little that gets past us.

Oh dear, I've given a status report. Sorry about that. But I thought that given the discussion had veered into the realms of poor innocent commercial webmasters being discriminated against by big bad DMOZ it was worth exposing the poor innocent webmasters' biggest enemies - those who waste tremendous amounts of editor time by submitting spam to us. Not once but time and time again. Dealing with these people takes time away from reviewing and listing truly original sites.