How will I know when my site is reviewed.

First, one major error that non-editors make is viewing ODP as a listing service. We aren't and have never claimed to be one. We gather sites from a number of sources, the suggestions, Google other search engines, directories and portals, real life. And frankly, the suggestions are frequently the worst source of sites. Yes, it might take years before a site is reviewed. I remember the days before the spammers found us. I was delighted when I found a new suggestion. Today, in some categories, one out of a hundred suggestions might be eligible for a listing. New editors are frequently stunned when they first take a look at the suggestion pool.

In the early days of this forum, we did give status checks. We thought that it would be helpful if people knew that their suggestion was waiting in the suggestion pool, or that someone had taken a look at it. If it wasn't listable, we told people why it wasn't. I, among others, thought it would be very helpful to the public and that when we saw how to work it best, that we'd make a request to AOL that it be included. Oh boy, was I wrong. People wanted to argue. They didn't want to know that we didn't list drop-ship sites, or SMC sites, MLM sites, sites with content blatantly copied from an authoritative site or fraternal mirrors of a site that was already listed. They wanted to argue that we should list those sites. Their site in particular. It was quite rare to actually explain why a site was not eligible for a listing and have that person find it to be helpful. We also told spammers and similar people exactly how we figured out that their site wasn't listable and inadvertently helped them to make "better" sites.

Gloria, I appreciate what you said, I can totally understand the type of abuse you and others (editors) must have taken.

It seems as the shoe is on the other foot now, in a sense.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my biggest gripe, with this forum in particular, is how some of the questions are answered. I was, and still am, shocked at the rude and ignorant way in which some of the editors/mods choose to interact with us.

It's not my fault that what you wrote has happened. However, I feel like I'm, and others, are bearing the backlash of it, undeservedly. (not by you)

Have you read any of the posts? Most, not all, are just polite people looking for polite answers, but instead they get anything but. I also realize there are some very rude people on my end also, and there is no excuse for that either.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the way it is is not working.

Yes, I read every post in every thread in the General, Submission, and Becoming an Editor forums and also in most of the others.

You would probably be amazed at how many posters are people we indirectly know from their submissions, etc. We've had people come here and say "I have submitted my site 3 times." Um, it was closer to 100 or even more, and was also to several dozen categories. We've had people continue to suggest sites, even though we've directly asked them not to suggest their site again. You'd be amazed at how many "polite" people are actively trying to abuse the system.

Also, much of the tone in posts is in the eye of the beholder. English is not the first language for many of the posters here, both editor and non-editor. I've learned not to place too much emphasis on the tone of posts here and elsewhere in forums.

As to the comments about the "truth" vs a "lie" ...

Quite frequently, when a non-editor does not get the answer they are looking for, they want to agrue. When they don't hear what they want to hear, they suggest or even demand that the rules change. They simply refuse to accept the legitimate answers. Hence the question, "Would you rather have a lie?" i.e. What you want to hear even if it's not true?

It seems to me, with all the time you have spent arguing with everyone, (just on this one thread), you could have been doing much more productive things.

Click to expand...

We don't see it as "arguing". We see it as "education". Only when it becomes obvious that the student is intractable does education become "unproductive".

Well, this has been a fascinating discussion. Gloria's comments have been the most helpful to me, and what she has said confirms what I have suspected all along:

1. Yes, some of the editors have been very short with legitimate content providers and others who have suggested sites, but
2. The main reason for such behavior is the enormous burden of noisy demands placed upon those editors by spammers, which has caused Open Directory editors to choke down communications with suggesters to a bare minimum

I also think that some editors secretly feel bad about the legitimate suggesters who have been inadvertently harmed by policies intended to screen out spammers, and so have developed a kind of ideological shell that comes off as very dogmatic, including things like denying that a DMOZ listing has any effect upon content providers, and claiming that information about the status of a request can have no legitimate value to those requesting it. And I do think that it would be possible to provide a simple system for letting people know one way or the other about a listing decision, as I have suggested earlier in this thread, and I believe that resistance to that idea is just part of the hard shell that the editors have had to develop in order to deal with the spammers.

But anyway, I do empathize with the editors quite a bit, and feel that suggesters and editors are both victims of a common enemy, namely, Internet noisemakers (spammers).

And that about wraps it up for me. Suggesters will just have to deal with the decisions of the editors, but I hope that the editors will eventually do the few little things that can be done to make it easier for legitimate suggesters without making it easier for the spammers or harder for the editors.

... denying that a DMOZ listing has any effect upon content providers ...

Click to expand...

Denying it has nothing to do with it as far as DMOZ is concerned. If some third party wants to lend credibility or value to a DMOZ listing, that is the business and concern of that party. Questions or comments about that would best be taken up with that party, would they not?

Would you give credit to the cow because the farmer chooses to make use of the cow's waste? The cow cares not at all for the benefits gained by the farmer for having done so.

feel that suggesters and editors are both victims of a common enemy, namely, Internet noisemakers (spammers).

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

If I submit a listing to a catagory, my submission goes in a que. Now if that catagory has no editor, I have to wait until there is an editor for my listing to get reviewed. Also, I will not get any type of notification, If how or when My listing is rejected or approved.
So what this tells me is that If I need my site listed, I should become an editor then list my site, then quit. Is this a correct description on how DMOZ works? To me that seems to make the integrity of the database pretty corruptible. They need to rethink how this works.. It is unfair to a legit busnisess!!!!

No category has no editor. Over 200 of us can edit anywhere we wish - and we do.

Your proposed strategy indicates that you're missing the point of this directory and of editing within it. You seem to be merely seeking an advantage over your competitors. Now that's unfair to a legit busnisess!!!!

I disagree. I am mearly describing how unfair the process is to site owners. I would think there would be a more efficent method for DMOZ

The process is extremely fair. Everybody has the same chance to get their website reviewed. Even those websites that are not suggested at all.
And that is good as we do not provide any service to wesbsite owners.