I have a complaint

I am delighted that my site, the Global Property Guide, is listed on DMOZ, but alas, it is inappropriately listed in a ‘national’ category, not in an ‘international’ category. The Global Property Guide has built up a Google PR of 6, and is recognized as a leading site in its field. The only reason that we are listed under some individual countries is that several years ago, a DMOZ Baltics editor was kind enough to recognize the quality of our descriptions of his countries. But these countries are only 3, among the 120 countries we cover.

I first suggested revising the listing category 4-5 years ago, but the revision was not taken up, so I now venture to re-submit the site.

The appropriate category is either:
http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Guides_and_Directories/
Or
http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Residential/Directories/

I today re-submitted our site under the first category, because the list contains more names I recognize.

I am not optimistic, having been through this process before. I don't want to seem ungrateful for an entirely laudable project, but it is quite frustrating. We have built a site which everyone in our field recognizes and (frankly) admires. But we cannot get DMOZ to look at it! We've been trying for 5-6 years, and nothing has happened.

In my experience, there are a number of topics that are tedious and/or painful to edit in the directory (primarily because of spamming and inappropriate submissions), resulting in few editors choosing to edit there. Business/Real_Estate (and its subcategories) would be one of those. If you've re-suggested your site for inclusion in the Business/Real_Estate/Guides_and_Directories category, then you've really done all you can. Eventually someone *will* choose to edit there, but it could be awhile.

I run a large international residential real estate information site, providing only objective information. We are immensely well-respected in the industry. We cover valuation, taxation, and law as it affects buyers of residential property outside their own countries. We have a team of dedicated researchers. I receive emails commending us for our work very frequently. We suffer no commercial influence, and are trusted as objective. We have a Page Rank of 6, and receive around 110,000 unique visitors per month.

Our residential time-series, the industry’s standard, are bought by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and several private institutions.

Nevertheless we have not managed to gain a listing from DMOZ, in 6 years of publication. I have followed the listings guidelines, and submitted no more than 3 times, the 2nd because it seemed that DMOZ had suffered some kind of hard disk problem, and the 3rd time last week.

So I submitted again last week. Why? The last time I wrote to DMOZ (in June) I pointed out we had been mis-categorized. We had been put in the sections Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by an enthusiastic DMOZ editor covering the Baltics, who (as he later told me) so much admired our housing coverage that he felt impelled to put us in

In June I wrote to DMOZ pointing out that while this was great, our site really belongs in the international category, under: http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Residential/Directories/

The result? We were removed from the Baltics pages - but we were not placed in the top level pages, where we should be.

I am sorry, I must complain. This is unfair and sloppy. We are the industry leader, and we are generally recognized as the best in the field. We deserve to be placed in the general international category. We do not deserve, either, that our re-categorization suggestion, which was intended to be helpful to DMOZ, should be used to our gross disadvantage in this sloppy manner.

Threads merged for the convenience of our editors and other readers.

There's nothing specific that we can add to motsa's response to you in June.

You might have misunderstood our objectives and how we operate here. ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby. Editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not primarily a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them.

Some volunteer will process your listing suggestion in time but we can't predict who or when that might be. Elapsed times can range from a few days to a few years. There is no need to re-suggest your website and doing so could be counter-productive because a later suggestion overwrites any earlier one.

I have followed the listings guidelines, and submitted no more than 3 times

Click to expand...

6 times actually, to 3 different categories .

Matthew Pollock said:

The result? We were removed from the Baltics pages - but we were not placed in the top level pages, where we should be.

Click to expand...

The most probably thing that will have happened is that an editor noticed your request and moved the website to the category you mentioned.
That editor probably does not have rights to publish websites in that category so it ended up in te pool of sites to be reviewed and is now waiting for an other editor to look at it.
Normal procedure. Nothing to worry about

> We are the industry leader, and we are generally recognized as the best in the field.
These are things that we at DMOZ do not care about.

> We deserve to be placed in the general international category.
No website deserves a listing.

> We do not deserve, either, that our re-categorization suggestion, which was intended to be helpful to DMOZ, should be used to our gross disadvantage in this sloppy manner.
There was no advantage so there also can not be a disadvantage.
And it was not sloppy, just the way DMOZ works. Not something you can change.

Clearly I am not well-informed as to the objectives of the OPD and DMOZ, but the general understanding in the web community is that you make an effort to objectively reflect sites that are relatively important, serious in their approach, and which make a contribution to the community. This understanding, indeed, is why other sites frequently use your listings as a basis for their listings.

On the contrary, you seem to suggest, sites are selected for DMOZ as a mere 'hobby', according to the subjective preferences of its editors. I must say, I am very surprised, but you would know better than me. However as a matter of interest, could you refer me to an official OPD text where the OPD renounces any suggestion that it has a public service function, and asserts that its sole purpose is to serve the hobbyistic whims of its editors?

You take me up on the number of our submissions. I apologize if I have submitted 6 times, I was not aware of this. I do not spend my time submitting to DMOZ, and I do not track my own submissions. But I would suggest that many cases of multiple submissions may be accidental (as in our case). Since you seem to dislike multiple submissions, I would also suggest that making the record of previous submissions available to the registered users who made the submission, would help.

Matthew Pollock said:

On the contrary, you seem to suggest, sites are selected for DMOZ as a mere 'hobby', according to the subjective preferences of its editors.

Click to expand...

Yes and No.

Yes.
An editor can work in categories he does want to work in. He will not be forced to work in categoires he does not want to.
An editor can look at suggested and non-suggested websites of hiw own choice. He will not be forced to look at spcific websites.

No.
An editor can not decide to list or reject a website on his own preferences. DMOZ has guidelines which types of websites that can be listed and which must be rejected.

However as a matter of interest, could you refer me to an official OPD text where the OPD renounces any suggestion that it has a public service function, and asserts that its sole purpose is to serve the hobbyistic whims of its editors?

Click to expand...

No, we can't as it is not true.
DMOZ does provide a public service. Everybody is allowed to use DMOZ data. That is the only service DMOZ does provide.
DMOZ does not provide a service to people who suggest websites or who in any other way want their webiste to be listed.
See http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/about.html for more detailed information.

I quote jimnoble: "ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby. Editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions"

I asked: "...as a matter of interest, could you refer me to an official OPD text where the OPD...asserts that its sole purpose is to serve the hobbyistic whims of its editors?"

PVgool answered: "No, we can't as it is not true." He goes on to say: "DMOZ does provide a public service. Everybody is allowed to use DMOZ data. That is the only service DMOZ does provide."

These are frankly amazing and scandalous statements! Shame on you! They suggest that DMOZ and the OPD have strayed far from their original intentions and ideals, and are betraying the high trust and confidence the wider web community places in them.

I quote the 'About' page:

"The Definitive Catalog of the Web

The Open Directory follows in the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the 20th century. Just as the Oxford English Dictionary became the definitive word on words through the efforts of volunteers, the Open Directory follows in its footsteps to become the definitive catalog of the Web."

THIS is what you have committed yourself to... to become the definitive catalogue, adding the important and valuable sites, and disregarding the unimportant, merely commercial or self-promoting sites.

I quote again from the Open Directory Editing Guidelines:

"Consider the relative value of a resource in comparison to other information resources available on your particular topic. Relative value refers not only to the quality of the site, but also to its ability to contribute important, unique information on a topic.

"In general, ODP editors should enter sites that represent the following:

* Original, unique and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject.
* Contrasting points of view on major issues. The ODP attempts to cover the full breadth and depth of human knowledge, representing all topics and points of view on those topics.

Editors should consider the following for each site:
Is the site's content/information identical to other sites?
A site should not mirror content available on other sites."

Etc, etc....

"In short, we ask that editors maintain editorial integrity, keep the ODP's broader goals and mission in mind, and always employ good common sense."

It is surely obvious that these statements encourage you, the editors, in good faith and with a high sense of your duty, to consider what sites are valuable, objective, and important, and to include those sites in a directory which you have likened to the Oxford Dictionary of the Web.

Yet you deny this! Not our duty! Nothing to do with our purpose! What we approve is entirely a matter of our whim! Our only duty is to allow others to reproduce that whimsicality!

Shame on you!

When, as a publisher of such a valuable and unique site, I protest my site's non-inclusion, you treat me with contempt. Of course, I have a self-interest as a publisher, but also I am particularly liable to notice that my site has not been included - and I think it is clear that not only my self-interest lies in pointing out that DMOZ is not meeting its own standards, but also, my duty lies in that same direction. But you treat my pointing out that an important, valued, and well-respected site has not been included, as merely a vulgar attempt at self-promotion.

Shame on you!

You seem not to have read/understood post #5 in this thread and are determined to attack the volunteers here who are doing their best to explain to you how we operate.

This thread is going nowhere and we'll have to agree to differ I'm afraid. Closing. Do not start yet another thread on the same topic.

<added> Instead, he chose to start bumping old threads with incorrect advice. Bad advice deleted and account suspended. </added>