I won't ask why my site has not been listed but......

I have read many threads concerning the reason or lack thereof as to why website owners have had major delays (up to 5 years) in seeing their submittals listed in DMOZ. I myself am still waiting after over a year. I have attempted to email the editor of the category I have submitted to but the proxy server seems to be down and has been for the past several days. I also complied with every submission rule and regulation so there is no problem on my end.

It is obvious that there are not near enough editors to handle the load of submissions forwarded to DMOZ on a daily basis and I'm sure that at least some of these volunteers are as distressed about their inability to keep up with the volume as website owners are frustrated in their attempts to get their urls listed.

Here's a question for the DMOZ staff: Being that what I have written above is certainly the case, why don't you loosen some of your guidelines for accepting new editors? I understand that we are relying on volunteers however, if you accept volunteers that are not really making an effort to tend to their duties then what good are they? Do you think that allowing someone the leisure of taking 1 to 5 years to get to list a url is in anyway productive?

On a side note, I did submit to becoming an editor quite some time ago but was rejected. Mind you, I had the time, inclination, and a fair amount of intelligence to devote to editing when I did apply. Just think, if you would have allowed me and others like me to have helped with the endless stream of submittals you receive on a daily basis; there would be far less people complaining on this list. Just a thought.

You're expecting a service from us that isn't one of our objectives and that we don't attempt to provide. You might as well complain that your local supermarket runs a terrible airline service .

As to accepting more editors, I achieved a personal goal today and joined my 2000th.

I, like any other meta editor, will accept anybody who is honest, can communicate (in the language of the category), has requested a suitable category (not too big and not a spam magnet) and can find and describe suitable examples for it.

Do you thing we should accept the dishonest? Those who can't spell or understand the questions on the application form? Those who only suggest their own or irrelevent websites as examples?

Dmozy said:

I have attempted to email the editor of the category I have submitted to but the proxy server seems to be down and has been for the past several days.

Click to expand...

This is a known bug. Despite the error the email is delivered.
But we advise our editors not to answer any emails from people who inquire about their suggested sites.

It is obvious that there are not near enough editors to handle the load of submissions forwarded to DMOZ on a daily basis and I'm sure that at least some of these volunteers are as distressed about their inability to keep up with the volume as website owners are frustrated in their attempts to get their urls listed.

Click to expand...

This would be true if it was an editors taks to review suggested sites. It is not. And certainly not within a given timeframe.

Here's a question for the DMOZ staff: Being that what I have written above is certainly the case, why don't you loosen some of your guidelines for accepting new editors?

Click to expand...

These guidelines are already very loose. Everyone can become an editor as long as he is honest and complete in his application and he is willing to work according to DMOZ guidelines. As it happens a lot of people are either not honest, not capabale or willing of writing a complete application or not willing to work according to the guidelines.

On a side note, I did submit to becoming an editor quite some time ago but was rejected. Mind you, I had the time, inclination, and a fair amount of intelligence to devote to editing when I did apply.

Click to expand...

In the email you received the reason(s) for the rejecting will have been mentioned. Being able to understand these reasons and solving them is part of the application process.

Greetings Jimnoble and PVGOOL,

I'm afraid that you misunderstood my comment or perhaps I could have worded it a little better. I did not mean to imply that you should hire dishonest, people who can't spell, etc....What I am saying is that when you choose to volunteer for anything from choosing to deliver little old ladies to their doctors appointments to online editing, you need to devote a decent amount of time to that activity. Shouldn't that be a requirement of any volunteer? Plus you have a huge amount of categories that do not have volunteer editors, why would you reject a perfectly good applicant when there is no one designated to that position? Remember, I'm not talking about those who are incapable of perfoming.

The reason I was rejected was because I was told that the category was too big. At the time there were no editors designated to this category so what I came away from that experience with was that DMOZ would rather have nobody in the position rather than someone who would need to spend a some time acquainting themselves with the duties necessary.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Shouldn't that be a requirement of any volunteer?

Click to expand...

Within ODP, putting requirement and volunteer in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

why would you reject a perfectly good applicant

Click to expand...

We don't.

I was rejected was because I was told that the category was too big.

Click to expand...

Bitter experience has taught us that joining new editors to large categories is rarely successful and can cause a lot of damage. That's why the application form recommends choosing one with fewer than 100 listings. Sadly, many folks are in too much of a hurry to read it.

At the time there were no editors designated to this category

Click to expand...

Over 200 editors can edit in any category they choose - and they do.

When your application was declined on category size grounds, you were invited to try for a smaller one. Did you?

I was rejected was because I was told that the category was too big.

Click to expand...

It is very important to note that there is nothing personal in that reason, and, unless the entire note said anything different, it is implied that you are welcome to try again with a smaller category.

A lot of very successful, long-term editors went though the application process multiple times.