Information about site
- Thread starter ruicatela
- Start date
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
That would be pretty rare in my experience. Usually, either a website is a fount of useful and unique content or it isn't; it's based upon a model in harmony with our guidelines or it isn't.
Since our guidelines are pretty clear and in the public domain, you can already work out whether or not your site is eligible for an ODP listing.
What would be the point of an editor diverting from directory productive tasks to tell you what you already know?
I'm an exception by the way. On those rare occasions where a simple change, such as the addition of a street address, will make a listing possible, I say so.
Since our guidelines are pretty clear and in the public domain, you can already work out whether or not your site is eligible for an ODP listing.
What would be the point of an editor diverting from directory productive tasks to tell you what you already know?
I'm an exception by the way. On those rare occasions where a simple change, such as the addition of a street address, will make a listing possible, I say so.
This is one of the most common, and perhaps most pernicious ODP myths. And I've asked, over and over again, just WHAT people think might be missing that we could tell them about?
Nobody has ever even tried to answer. The only answer that would make sense, of course, is "unique content." But there's nobody on earth who is in a better position to know what is unique about the site's contents -- than the webmaster.
Does the site have unique content, but the navigation fails to make it prominent enough for the reviewer to find? Does the webmaster have any unique content to post, but perhaps hadn't posted it yet? Does the webmaster have no unique content to grace his name? WE CAN'T KNOW. But the webmaster does. So, what are people asking us for, and why?
Nobody has ever even tried to answer. The only answer that would make sense, of course, is "unique content." But there's nobody on earth who is in a better position to know what is unique about the site's contents -- than the webmaster.
Does the site have unique content, but the navigation fails to make it prominent enough for the reviewer to find? Does the webmaster have any unique content to post, but perhaps hadn't posted it yet? Does the webmaster have no unique content to grace his name? WE CAN'T KNOW. But the webmaster does. So, what are people asking us for, and why?
Some editors do make suggestions via email and via this forum in the past. Only when the change required is very minor though. Their choice.
One of the reasons we stopped doing status reports here is that when the report was that the site had been rejected an almighty argument often broke out. And it never ever not even once changed the decision that the site was rejected. More often than not it did lead to more indepth examination of the questioner's submission practices and removal of other sites that had somehow slipped by. So if we routinely gave feedback on rejections it would lead to mayhem. So it ain't gonna happen.
These days we don't give any information on a site's review status. You cannot know that your site has been rejected so the question of why it has been rejected should never arise. Incidentally, spam sites are sometimes not rejected. You can read on this site that a repeat submission overwrites one already waiting. So with this type of spamming we can just leave the submission there and let the submitter overwrite it from now to eternity, inadvertently deleting their own crap. Just one option.
One thing you might consider - there are a million plus sites that have been suggested for inclusion and have not been reviewed yet, hundreds of millions of sites that we might also look at (potentially) as possible candidates. We cannot give feedback on all those we consider not eligible.
More or less all editors want to list sites, that is our reason to edit. So we will give every site we review due consideration. If it is a rejection it must be for legitimate reasons which the submitter could have discovered for themselves in the Guidelines.
One of the reasons we stopped doing status reports here is that when the report was that the site had been rejected an almighty argument often broke out. And it never ever not even once changed the decision that the site was rejected. More often than not it did lead to more indepth examination of the questioner's submission practices and removal of other sites that had somehow slipped by. So if we routinely gave feedback on rejections it would lead to mayhem. So it ain't gonna happen.
These days we don't give any information on a site's review status. You cannot know that your site has been rejected so the question of why it has been rejected should never arise. Incidentally, spam sites are sometimes not rejected. You can read on this site that a repeat submission overwrites one already waiting. So with this type of spamming we can just leave the submission there and let the submitter overwrite it from now to eternity, inadvertently deleting their own crap. Just one option.
One thing you might consider - there are a million plus sites that have been suggested for inclusion and have not been reviewed yet, hundreds of millions of sites that we might also look at (potentially) as possible candidates. We cannot give feedback on all those we consider not eligible.
More or less all editors want to list sites, that is our reason to edit. So we will give every site we review due consideration. If it is a rejection it must be for legitimate reasons which the submitter could have discovered for themselves in the Guidelines.