I must be a dim-wit

"old_crone" said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't consider the word "pending", "declined", or "unreviewed" to be "a well documented process" at all.
Also, it would be really easy (in comparison to manual forum posts) to set a system so a web page form can check status.

"jimnoble said:

hypnoticvibe" said:

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

Click to expand...

By reading the guidelines, as you have already done.

Click to expand...

Of course this is a hypothetical example after my criticism, but I'm a perfect example that guidelines don't solve the mystery and more information is necessary:
The website I submitted has a fair amount of content collected from other websites, but unlike those sites it has no doorway pages and offers cleaner access. It also has a lot of content that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. It is 100% non-profit, non-affiliate, and advertisement-free. I'd imagine it would be listed but I don't know for sure. I don't know if it was declined or not.

I think that all this waiting some people do while the DMOZ processes it's backlog, new submissions, submissions in the wrong categories, and link rot could be better spent by doing one of two things.

1.) Whittling Wood
2.) Improving your website with clean coding, meeting standards for design and accessibility, and creating beneificial links and relationships with other web sites and organizations, and being original.

I have one client's website right now, with NO DMOZ LISTING and I haven't even submitted it to the DMOZ showing up in the top ten (typically 4-8) results for it's keywords on google, and is in the 2-6th results on MSN and Yahoo. 4 months ago, for it's given keywords, it ranked at #385 in google and nothing in Yahoo and MSN - That's a damned dramatic rise right there.
The DMOZ doesn't help its ranking in any, way, shape or form.

I'm not a SEO "expert" (if there is such a thing, sounds made up to me), I'm just a web designer and graphic artist who takes the time to research how to improve my client's website and search results - something anyone with some time and dedication can do.

Plus, I would love to see what these hucksters and carpet baggers that call themselves "SEO Experts" (bleh.) will blame if the DMOZ ever shut down for their lack of talent and expertise. Maybe video games? communists? athiests in the foxholes?

and I'm sorry again, if this comes off as inflammatory, I just can't express my rage at people who refuse to take responibilities for their lack of creative thinking and spread nasty rumors, lies, and other torts in its place.

Azselendor said:

I think that all this waiting some people do while the DMOZ processes it's backlog, new submissions, submissions in the wrong categories, and link rot could be better spent by doing one of two things.

1.) Whittling Wood
2.) Improving your website with clean coding, meeting standards for design and accessibility, and creating beneificial links and relationships with other web sites and organizations, and being original.

Click to expand...

Thanks for for the theory, but my website has been tested by uncommon browsers including JAWS, Lynx, Netscape 4, etc. for accessibility and is fine. It possesses valid XHTML 1.1, no tables, indented/clean source, links by high quality pages, and the CSS validates too. I'm weak in areas of development and I don't want to sound pretentious with that but jimnoble just clearly said content matters most.

Azselendor said:

I have one client's website right now, with NO DMOZ LISTING and I haven't even submitted it to the DMOZ showing up in the top ten (typically 4-8) results for it's keywords on google, and is in the 2-6th results on MSN and Yahoo.

Click to expand...

Mine shows up #1 for about 30 key phrases, but nobody ever searches for them so it means nothing. Maybe you can share what key phrase you're talking about.

Azselendor said:

4 months ago, for it's given keywords

Click to expand...

What keywords? What website? That tells me nothing.

Azselendor said:

The DMOZ doesn't help its ranking in any, way, shape or form.

Click to expand...

The Google guidelines recommend it.

Azselendor said:

Plus, I would love to see what these hucksters and carpet baggers that call themselves "SEO Experts" (bleh.)

Click to expand...

Actually, Google also says that there are legit ones.

Azselendor said:

will blame if the DMOZ ever shut down for their lack of talent and expertise. Maybe video games? communists? athiests in the foxholes?

Click to expand...

Where did that come from?

Azselendor said:

and I'm sorry again, if this comes off as inflammatory, I just can't express my rage at people who refuse to take responibilities for their lack of creative thinking and spread nasty rumors, lies, and other torts in its place.

Click to expand...

I don't recall claiming I'm creative (or my website). Will you quote me?

I don't think I made myself clear, basically by stating "Being original" is all about content. Original Content really matters because how else will anyone care or know about your website.

As for rankings, I don't think it's allowed to post the keywords here, I'm not 100% sure so hopefully someone can answer that, I know website links can't be posted here unless it meets certain requirements. When I select keywords for a website to target, I try to pick the 5 more natural topics of the website and what people would type in to find that website.

As for Google, Google recommends a lot of stuff. Like their spreadsheets, their mail, their desktop search etc. But that's beside the point, Google does provide a lot of valuable tips and hints for web masters, but web masters don't need to worship Google's words as the word of god itself. Google recommends the DMOZ because it is a proven tool, but not because you must have it. To me, a lot of people seem to believe in this mythic commandant that to be great in search listings, one must be in the DMOZ, that's not true. It's not even a theory. It's a myth.

SEO Experts, yes there are real ones out there. I read their columns for ideas and recommendations, but when every 5th piece of spam inbox and 3rd comment in my blog is from an "SEO Spammer", I tend to think a lot are fakes. Not to mention I've had former clients come back to begging for help after an so-called SEO expert got their site banned on google's index for black hat SEO moves.

My video games comment, to those following the news, is related to the anti-video game crusaders who blame video games for all the world's evil it seems. Much like how a lot of the basing against the DMOZ is done by people who seem to always blame their search engine woes on these good folk working here at the DMOZ instead of realizing that maybe their web site's promotion isn't the DMOZ's job, but their own responsibility.

I wasn't accusing you specifically for having a lack of creativity, I'm sorry you took it that way. I'm talking about people in general. To me, creative thinking in content, design, and advertising and promotion is the key to a website getting noticed.

---Edit

I just noticed that your post was made after I started writing my rant. Yes, It took me a while to write that rant because I kept wandering away

Also, it would be really easy (in comparison to manual forum posts) to set a system so a web page form can check status.

Click to expand...

While it might be easy to setup something for checking status, why should the odp do that? How would someting like that help the project and its users?

old_crone said:

While it might be easy to setup something for checking status, why should the odp do that? How would someting like that help the project and its users?

Click to expand...

When a group has substantial power and knows people are begging for help (in this case it's just a status check), they should use power to help (with exceptions like helping evil). It's uncool to say, "Having the power was never our intent so it's not our fault you need our help. We're justified if we blow you off."

But to answer your question, here are a couple weak answers I came up with:

• It would cut down on webmasters resubmitting.
• There are allegedly many cases where webmasters apply for editing, list themselves, and leave. If the webmasters feel they were treated fairly, there would likely be more loyalty and dedication.

There are probably other benefits I haven't thought of.

I don't feel the DMOZ should be obligated to giving site status checks. In large part due to how time consuming such an act would be, I mean most of these people are volunteers contributing their own time at the discretions of their personal life and jobs. You're asking to take what time they have and devote it to your needs instead of the DMOZ ans a whole, and by extention, the internet at large.

It wouldn't cut down on resubmission, it would just make people more impatient because now they will be asking "Why hasn't my site, submitted 2 days ago, 11 hours, 32 minutes, and 8 seconds ago isn't processed?!"

And those alleged cases of editors going in, then ditching, should they exist, deserve to have their contributions purged as a penalty for not contributing.

I don't think a submission checker would help, except give people more reasons to whittle away time.

Azselendor said:

I don't feel the DMOZ should be obligated to giving site status checks.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't require unreasonable effort, I certainly do.

Azselendor said:

In large part due to how time consuming such an act would be, I mean most of these people are volunteers contributing their own time at the discretions of their personal life and jobs.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it wouldn't be that exaggerated with a web form that checks.

Azselendor said:

It wouldn't cut down on resubmission, it would just make people more impatient because now they will be asking "Why hasn't my site, submitted 2 days ago, 11 hours, 32 minutes, and 8 seconds ago isn't processed?!"

Click to expand...

Well, it would do both but no direct contact would be involved with a web form. In any case, it's cold to leave the webmasters in the dark.

Azselendor said:

And those alleged cases of editors going in, then ditching, should they exist, deserve to have their contributions purged as a penalty for not contributing.

Click to expand...

I agree but what does that have to do with the impact I said it would have?

Azselendor said:

You're asking to take what time they have and devote it to your needs

Click to expand...

My needs? Do you think I'm the only one it would benefit?

hypnoticvibe said:

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"?

Click to expand...

The term "nearly listable" is only something I personaly use if I see a site that has potential but at this moment has not enough content to be listed. If the potential I see in the site is realised by the owner in a few months I will list it. If the siteowner didn't bother to improve his site why would I spend more time on it.

hypnoticvibe said:

When a group has substantial power and knows people are begging for help (in this case it's just a status check), they should use power to help (with exceptions like helping evil). It's uncool to say, "Having the power was never our intent so it's not our fault you need our help. We're justified if we blow you off."

Click to expand...

Let's see what is wrong with this
- DMOZ has substantial power ; it is a usefull tool for finding sites but power not to mention substantial power, no that is the DMOZ we (the editors) are working on
- people are begging for help ; yes, but they are asking for help with a service we don't provide (didn't you read that DMOZ does not provide a listing service or any other service to webmasters)

What you describe is completely the opposite of what DMOZ is.
This is the real situation
DMOZ is building a directory and to do so we ask for help. "If you know a good site please suggest it to us so that we might include it in the directory."

hypnoticvibe,
from what I've seen, it appears that the DMOZ is very proud about their no-meddlesome-automation-script. lol There is something about that personal contact with a human, and not a program's scripted response that has value.

What I was pointing out is that a form or script to check the status of submissions is useless because then people will come to this forum and start rattling off days and hours and minutes until their submission is processed like chattering doomsday clocks. Then we'll all be back at the beginning of the problem proposing forms to get them to stop chattering.

I don't think it's cold to leave webmasters in the dark, because we webmasters shouldn't be waiting on the DMOZ to act, we should working on improving our content and sites and developing relationships with other, like-minded websites.

Now you brouth up cases that suppossedly exist about editors signing up to add their own site, then leaving. It's a simple problem with a very simple solution and I don't think it's related to the topic at hand.

As for your needs, no I don't think you're the only one that would benefit. But I think the DMOZ as a whole wouldn't benefit from it. The editors time is best suited processing websites and improving the directory -- as every minute they aren't putting their volunteer time to good use means someone is coming to this forum to ask why they aren't doing that.

Azselendor said:

What I was pointing out is that a form or script to check the status of submissions is useless because then people will come to this forum and start rattling off days and hours and minutes until their submission is processed like chattering doomsday clocks.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. What motive would someone have to post in this forum if there is a form separate from this forum to check status? Why would they be rattling to a person when they can keep checking status like a doomsday clock without rattling any human?

Azselendor said:

Then we'll all be back at the beginning of the problem proposing forms to get them to stop chattering.

Click to expand...

Have you been watching The Butterfly Effect?

Azselendor said:

I don't think it's cold to leave webmasters in the dark, because we webmasters shouldn't be waiting on the DMOZ to act, we should working on improving our content and sites and developing relationships with other, like-minded websites.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect you to. You claimed earlier in this thread that DMOZ has no impact on Google.

Azselendor said:

Now you brouth up cases that suppossedly exist about editors signing up to add their own site, then leaving. It's a simple problem with a very simple solution and I don't think it's related to the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

OK, I just didn't know if there was an intended relation to the topic.

Azselendor said:

As for your needs, no I don't think you're the only one that would benefit. But I think the DMOZ as a whole wouldn't benefit from it.

Click to expand...

Why thank you.
Just kidding
I know what you meant.

Azselendor said:

The editors time is best suited processing websites and improving the directory

Click to expand...

For a standpoint with a 1-track goal that disregards webmasters' wishes, that's true.

Azselendor said:

as every minute they aren't putting their volunteer time to good use means someone is coming to this forum to ask why they aren't doing that.

Click to expand...

Why aren't you putting your time to good use!?!?

Thanks for for the theory, but my website has been tested by uncommon browsers including JAWS, Lynx, Netscape 4, etc. for accessibility and is fine. It possesses valid XHTML 1.1, no tables, indented/clean source, links by high quality pages, and the CSS validates too. I'm weak in areas of development and I don't want to sound pretentious with that but jimnoble just clearly said content matters most.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that non sequitur shows that you entirely misunderstood my comment.

• Presentation doesn't affect listability (unless its extremely user hostile).
• Standards compliance doesn't affect listability (though I personally applaud your stance on this).
• Spelling and grammar don't affect listability.

We ask but one thing of a website - that it contains unique information.

This thread (and others that you are participating in) are merely repeating old discussions. The educational task that several editors have undertaken here isn't showing any sign of success so I'm closing the thread. Do not continue similar arguments elsewhere in this forum.

>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.

OK, let's simplify things a bit. If we gave status reports, those two things are two things that we would never say.

See how easy that was? That's two more possibilities you simply won't ever have to worry about.

>Maybe they think their site does meet guidelines and it actually doesn't.

Any information givien to someone who can't understand the concept of "unique content" isn't going to be productive. Webmasters already know where their content comes from. They know whether their knowledge comes from personal experience, or cribbed from some other website.

And they either care to generate unique content (and it will show), or they don't (and that will show also.)

In practice, this is also something we don't ever have to tell anyone. Because they already know the answer better than I can know it.

All we have to teach people is this: the ODP tries to list sites with significant unique content.