how long takes it to be registered at dmoz?
- Thread starter norwin
- Start date
You can't tell whether your website has been rejected. One of the most important reasons for that is: if it was rejected, we would very very much like for it NOT to be submitted again. Thank you for complying with the submittal policies!
The "how long" question is meaningless. A suggestion does not set priorities or deadlines or create queues. In fact, it can't even SUGGEST any work that an editor wouldn't have done without the suggestion!
It just helps an editor find the site at the moment when that editor is looking for that kind of site. We think that sometimes that means a site would be listed faster than if it weren't suggested, and therefore weren't found so quickly. But we don't ever know exactly when that will be, in either case.
The "how long" question is meaningless. A suggestion does not set priorities or deadlines or create queues. In fact, it can't even SUGGEST any work that an editor wouldn't have done without the suggestion!
It just helps an editor find the site at the moment when that editor is looking for that kind of site. We think that sometimes that means a site would be listed faster than if it weren't suggested, and therefore weren't found so quickly. But we don't ever know exactly when that will be, in either case.
I would like to know when http://www.askblax.com will be listed. Also, since dmoz does not let you know why a site was not included, how would you know what deficiencies need correction? I would think that the submitter already thought they had met the criteria in the guidelines the first time, so re-submitting a "corrected" site could cut down on submitter frustration and on the editor's work. Wouldn't it?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
As DMOZ editors are not able to look into the fututr this question can not be answered.Askme]I would like to know when [url]http://www.askblax.com[/url said:
A site will not be listed if it eitherAskme said:
- violates the DMOZ guidelines (you can read them yourself)
- does not have (enough) unique content
That's the theory. In practice we receive a lot of sites that do not meet the guidelines.Askme said:
pvgool said:
Thank you pvgool for the quick reply. The DMOZ Guidelines are the first step. If a suggested link is a news or news commentary site, how can uniqueness be determined? News is generally repeated over and over again in order to increase its chances of getting to particular audiences and the public.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Define news.
No, I'm not trying to be rude, but I am making a point.
If one's definition of news is: stuff about my product, and only my product, and it will be repeated until the end of time in an effort to drive you to my site until you buy something -- we only want to see one site with that content. Period.
If you are talking about new as in current events, then yes, we will consider duplicate content, but expect a degree of uniqueness in the presentation of that content. We don't want 600 sites with identical Reuters feeds. we would consider 600 sites that include a Reuters feed as part of their content if the presentation of that content (and the ownership of that site) is unique.
For example, we might consider (and consider is the key word here -- there are no guaranteed listings) a site in Manila that takes just the Philippine-based reuters fcontent from their feed, and presents it on a province-by province basis. We would also consider a Bangkok site that takes the same feed, and just uses the Thailand and Laos content. We might also consider a site basedin New Jersey that takes only the political content and wraps it with their own opinion-based content. A site in Pittsburgh that takes the sports feed and features local sports teams such as the soon-to-be Super Bowl Champion Steelers.
Same basic content, different presentation, and often a case of the shared content being mixed with unique content developed for the site.
So, based on this, can you start building and submitting a series of sites based on the top 250 metropolitan cities in the US and use the identical content, customizing it just enough to be different for each city. You can do that, but we probably won't list it -- unless the customization is very unique, very, very unique.
No, I'm not trying to be rude, but I am making a point.
If one's definition of news is: stuff about my product, and only my product, and it will be repeated until the end of time in an effort to drive you to my site until you buy something -- we only want to see one site with that content. Period.
If you are talking about new as in current events, then yes, we will consider duplicate content, but expect a degree of uniqueness in the presentation of that content. We don't want 600 sites with identical Reuters feeds. we would consider 600 sites that include a Reuters feed as part of their content if the presentation of that content (and the ownership of that site) is unique.
For example, we might consider (and consider is the key word here -- there are no guaranteed listings) a site in Manila that takes just the Philippine-based reuters fcontent from their feed, and presents it on a province-by province basis. We would also consider a Bangkok site that takes the same feed, and just uses the Thailand and Laos content. We might also consider a site basedin New Jersey that takes only the political content and wraps it with their own opinion-based content. A site in Pittsburgh that takes the sports feed and features local sports teams such as the soon-to-be Super Bowl Champion Steelers.
Same basic content, different presentation, and often a case of the shared content being mixed with unique content developed for the site.
So, based on this, can you start building and submitting a series of sites based on the top 250 metropolitan cities in the US and use the identical content, customizing it just enough to be different for each city. You can do that, but we probably won't list it -- unless the customization is very unique, very, very unique.
>how would you know what deficiencies need correction?
In the real universe, this situation simply doesn't occur often enough to matter. You create a site for your purposes. It is not "deficient" by definition -- it suits your purposes. Now, does your purpose have anything to do with the ODP mission? Maybe, maybe not. If not, then who are you trying to fool? If so, then ... why are you concerned about rejection? Why would it be rejected?
You mention "news" -- many people write news. And there is "news" from all sorts of different perspectives. The ODP lists many news-related websites: of dinosaur-dead-tree reporters and bloggers and news-creating organizations. Any real reporter, any real blogger, knows what's unique in his content and is proud of it: surfers who visit his site will know what he's about. And so that's not an issue either -- it's not difficult to detect unique content. Newsfeeds are, at best, agglomerated content: they will be judged much much more strictly -- and no offsite campaigning will be tolerated.
In the real universe, this situation simply doesn't occur often enough to matter. You create a site for your purposes. It is not "deficient" by definition -- it suits your purposes. Now, does your purpose have anything to do with the ODP mission? Maybe, maybe not. If not, then who are you trying to fool? If so, then ... why are you concerned about rejection? Why would it be rejected?
You mention "news" -- many people write news. And there is "news" from all sorts of different perspectives. The ODP lists many news-related websites: of dinosaur-dead-tree reporters and bloggers and news-creating organizations. Any real reporter, any real blogger, knows what's unique in his content and is proud of it: surfers who visit his site will know what he's about. And so that's not an issue either -- it's not difficult to detect unique content. Newsfeeds are, at best, agglomerated content: they will be judged much much more strictly -- and no offsite campaigning will be tolerated.
hutcheson said:
Right. Not deficient in my view, but deficient per dmoz because it did not get listed. I also read that the backlog is about two years, so...
hutcheson said:
I beg your pardon? If there are guidelines and people follow them, who cares whether we have the same mission?
hutcheson said:
My site's been awaiting review for over a year. I can't say that I've been overly concerned about rejection because the search engines listed the site long ago. But each attempt to do something (such as add your listing to dmoz) ought to result in a better result, yes? No. I'm not saying to resubmit and then resubmit. I'm saying if you don't at least spend a minute trying to know what went wrong, you can only expect to repeat the same mistakes.
hutcheson said:
That's good to hear about the newsfeeds. I do not have any idea what offsite campaigning is, so...
Thanks for your response.
spectregunner said:
News = current event, even when that current event is a remembrance of historical events (such as the recent MLK Bday celebration).
spectregunner said:
I didn't take it as rude. I can visualize exactly the sites you are talking about and I really don't care for lengthy product news either. I haven't seen too much of that any more except when people are trying to be funny or when there is more than one big money site that is already listed. The little guys get excited about their products, think everyone else will be just as excited, and the excitement makes 'em over do it is all.
spectregunner said:
Ha ha! You mean like all those SEO "get 8 gazillion hits with these few new tricks" websites that not only use the same layout and interface, they don't even bother to change the links? I feel for ya in that regard. Take care.
