I must be a dim-wit

Alexone · Dec 29, 2006

I must be doing something utterly wrong with my submission.

Firstly, I found a listing where two similar sites have been successfully list
Secondly, I submitted my URL some 4 months ago

Then I wait....and nothing. No way to check what is going on, no way to help the process move along a bit. Nothing.

It's pretty frustrating as I know listing would be of a great help to what we do and by the same tolken, the free parts of our site give something back to the web-user.

But being that I have no way of knowing what is going on I don't know whether to re-add my site or just sit here growing old while waiting.

Any thoughts?

old_crone · Dec 29, 2006

Please read this FAQ.

Since you can't resubmit because that function is not available at this time, then I think waiting is all you can do unless you'd like to spend your time more productively by adding to your site or some other less frustrating activity.

hutcheson · Dec 29, 2006

You'll grow old whether you sit and wait, or get on with doing something constructive.

You can always read about how the ODP works (the FAQ here, and the editors' guidelines at dmoz.org) or doesn't work (see the Announcements thread here).

But basically, there is no micromanagement of editors at the individual site level -- and a good thing too: even the most experienced and knowledgeable editor simply couldn't add anything constructive to what most editors are already doing.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 29, 2006

Start browsing the DMOZ directory and try to buy a domain off of everybody. Eventually you'll land. You can 301 redirect that domain's index page and you'll forward the Google value.

brmehlman · Dec 30, 2006

You posted that bad advice in how many different threads? I dunno, maybe I'll count as I delete. This seems like the right place to leave one copy and answer it.

Better not pay too much for any name you get for that purpose. We will catch it, and the seller likely won't refund your money when the listing disappears.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

We will catch it

Do you know how many years creepycleveland.neopages.net has been down and still listed in DMOZ? This is a 301 redirect, something far more difficult to notice.

The ODP needs more editors. More to the point, it treats editor applicants like dogs.

*edit:
If getting listed wasn't such an inhumane and ridiculous process, I'd never suggest what I did. Since it is, I only suggest out of pure sympathy. It's the only humane way to get a website with genuine quality content listed.

motsa · Dec 30, 2006

Do you know how many years creepycleveland.neopages.net has been down and still listed in DMOZ? This is a 301 redirect, something far more difficult to notice.

Actually, it's not a 301 redirect, it's an empty directory listing because the site is gone. But thanks for pointing it out. We appreciate all QA efforts.

If getting listed wasn't such an inhumane and ridiculous process, I'd never suggest what I did. Since it is, I only suggest out of pure sympathy. It's the only humane way to get a website with genuine quality content listed.

How is it humane to suggest someone do something that will eventually give them far more trouble than a lack of an ODP listing ever would?

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

motsa said:
Actually, it's not a 301 redirect, it's an empty directory listing because the site is gone. But thanks for pointing it out. We appreciate all QA efforts.

"This" was referring to my original example.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

motsa said:
How is it humane to suggest someone do something that will eventually give them far more trouble than a lack of an ODP listing ever would?

Well, the answer is rather simple. If years passed and a dysfunctional site altogether was still listed, the odds of catching the average 301 redirect seem small.
As far as humane, I'm not posting links to FAQ/guidelines hundreds of times. I'm giving a real (and possibly the first real) answer to people because I realize they don't deserve to be insulted with a link to what they're repeatedly read.

pvgool · Dec 30, 2006

301 redirects are easely spotted by a very simple program

The only thing you have done (except violating the fourm guidelines) is giving people misleading information. And if people would follow your advise their site could get in trouble with all major search engines. Is that what you want?

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

pvgool said:
301 redirects are easely spotted by a very simple program

The only thing you have done (except violating the fourm guidelines) is giving people misleading information. And if people would follow your advise their site could get in trouble with all major search engines. Is that what you want?

Please cite where Google, Yahoo!, or MSN has declared it as a violation.

croatiankid · Dec 30, 2006

copying and pasting a response is more humane than copying and pasting a reply with a link?
If people really did read the FAQ then they wouldn't be asking questions that are clearly answered in it, especially regarding site submission status.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

croatiankid said:
copying and pasting a response is more humane than copying and pasting a reply with a link?

It sure is. They can read the guidelines or FAQ anytime they want (and probably have several times).

croatiankid said:
If people really did read the FAQ then they wouldn't be asking questions that are clearly answered in it, especially regarding site submission status.

Plenty of people are obviously not happy with what the FAQ/guidelines information is offering them.

pvgool · Dec 30, 2006

hypnoticvibe said:
Plenty of people are obviously not happy with what the FAQ/guidelines information is offering them.

Yes, we know that kind of people.
Just keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
Only one small problem.
What if the answer they want isn't the correct answer for their question.
Do you want us to give them the real answer or some fake answer we make up to please them.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

Maybe if they knew whether they could expect to wait an extra year or were rejected and require site revision, it would give them some peace of mind.
Maybe they think their site does meet guidelines and it actually doesn't. Then ODP gives them no answer when they ask and now they're lost thinking, "Wow. I was honest, did everything I knew how, and 2 years later I'm still not listed. What on Earth is going on here?"
But of course, they'll never know the truth because they did ask and received the same link to the guidelines they read the previous year.

pvgool · Dec 30, 2006

Ahh, I see. You live under the impression that when a site is rejected it is possible to change the site to make it listable. From years of eperience with and many 100,000's of reviews we know that this is almost impossible. Unless you dump the current and create a completely different one.
Sites that are nearly listable (like not enough content yet) can be kept (as I do) in unreviewed to see if they change, if they don't change within 4 to 6 months I am sorry but then it is goodby for them.

makrhod · Dec 30, 2006

Perhaps you have not had time to read and consider the reasons why site suggestion status reports were stopped? It might be an instructive use of your time, and give you some idea why your persistent haranguing is being treated the way it is. Your comments and demands are not in the least original, and have been expressed countless times by other people who similarly failed to understand what the ODP is about.

Yes we do get tired of repeating the same thing over and over to people who simply do not want to listen. If they are not going to listen or read the responses, there is very little point spending our leisure time in answering their frequently offensive questions.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

pvgool said:
Ahh, I see. You live under the impression that when a site is rejected it is possible to change the site to make it listable. From years of eperience with and many 100,000's of reviews we know that this is almost impossible. Unless you dump the current and create a completely different one.
Sites that are nearly listable (like not enough content yet) can be kept (as I do) in unreviewed to see if they change, if they don't change within 4 to 6 months I am sorry but then it is goodby for them.

You can argue the semantics of my one example but the central point of it is untouched.
How does the webmaster know whether they need to revise the whole thing?
How does the webmaster know their site is "nearly listable" and they must revise before it is "listable"? How do they know when that 4-6 month period began and what time limit they're up against? How do they know if there even is a 4-6 month period they should expect to wait?
How does the webmaster know whether they need to "dump the current and create a completely different one"?

jimnoble · Dec 30, 2006

'nearly listable' is as useful a concept as 'slightly pregnant'

. In the main, a website's listability is a function of its unique information content, not its presentation. It's highly unlikely that a website can be made listable without changing it's entire business model.

As a frinstance, an informational site consisting of extracts from the CIA Fact Book surrounded by Google Ads is never going to be listable.

As another frinstance, Bill the butcher's website describing his opening hours and product range with a few recipes will usually be listable. The layout and spelling don't matter. The content does.

How does the webmaster know whether they need to revise the whole thing?

By reading the guidelines, as you have already done.

old_crone · Dec 30, 2006

hypnoticvibe, the editors review and determine the listability of a site following guidelines that you have access to. If you, as the site owner, can not determine a sites listability after reading all the guidelines, then perhaps the editor can't either. You're wanting answeres to questions you should be able to answer yourself.

Why do you insist that editors explain a well documented process to you or any webmaster?

I must be a dim-wit

Alexone

Member

old_crone

Member

hutcheson

hypnoticvibe

Member

brmehlman

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

motsa

hypnoticvibe

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hypnoticvibe

Member

croatiankid

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hypnoticvibe

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

makrhod

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

old_crone

Member