Is it partiality?

Hello Sir,
I have submitted my site twice in 6 months. But the site is not included. while some of the compietors site are listed in two catgories.

My site: http://www.indiawebsolutions.com

The site which is listed twice, i found is indiaaccess.com

No.

Sites are not reviewed in any particular order.

Many sites have been waiting in excess of four years for an editor to show enough interest to edit them.

Many editors rarely look at the submitted sites when editing, preferring instead to find sites on their own.

Funny, how when people allege "unfairness", they always compare their site with a listed site: it would be just as rational to compare with one of the many equivalent but unlisted sites and ask, "how could it EVER be fair to list my site when so many similar sites aren't listed?"

I commend that line of reasoning to submitters. Editors, of course, shouldn't waste time with EITHER flavor of irrelevancy. If you're reviewing a site, and it's listable, you can (and ought to) list it without wondering "is there somewhere else a better site that's not listed yet?" If you're reviewing a spam site, you can (and ought to) reject it without wondering "is it possible that an equally worthless site has somehow gotten listed somewhere in the ODP?"

Seeing that this is the way we work, and the way we MUST work, someone else asking the same questions we can't usefully ask, doesn't make any sense at all.

All that is useful is -- if listed sites AREN'T listable, report them in the "Quality Feedback" forum. And if unlisted sites ARE listable, suggest them through "suggest URL."

Spectregunner's statement "Many editors rarely look at the submitted sites when editing, preferring instead to find sites on their own." seems like a "Catch-22". "About" dmoz.org is a resource for search engines not the contrary.

If you can learn to think about an ODP listing as a recognition of site value, not a way to create it, then ... you'd be thinking the same way an editor does. "Catch-22" is not a concern -- because an editor CAN list a site that isn't featured in the search engines, if it contains significant unique content. And people who are capable of generating unique content, can generate it without ANY search engine visibility! (People who can't generate unique content are simply invisible to the ODP perspective.)

There's no "catch-22" there: if you maintain your own website, you are responsible (to yourself) for whatever content creation AND whatever promotion it needs. Nobody else has any responsibility in the matter, to anyone. You are the only one who determines whether it is a failure or a success. If it fails, it is entirely your failure and your failure alone; the fault and the consequences are yours alone.

So if YOU can't do what needs to be done, and it's not worth it to YOU to pay people who will help you do it, then ... it'll save us time not to review the site in the first place, doesn't it? If you won't take responsibility for it site, then just take it down: why leave it to encumber the internet?

>"About" dmoz.org is a resource for search engines not the contrary.

On the contrary. Woo-HOO, on the contrary! On BOTH contraries, in fact.

You significantly misunderstood the import of the only sentence in "about DMOZ" that mentions search engines and the ODP: "The Open Directory POWERS THE CORE DIRECTORY SERVICES for ... search engines AND PORTALS." That is, of course, talking about sites (some of which also contain search engines) posting copies of the Open Directory. DIRECTORY. There is nothing in that about how search engine spiders, indexers, or rankers use the ODP. They may, or they may not. They may have done it yesterday, or not. And they may do it tomorrow, or not. We give the ODP content away, and ANYONE may use it without cost and with very little obligation. It is their choice; they do not ask us for permission beforehand, and they do not tell us about it afterwards. But the ODP is a resource for surfers. What search engines make of it is ... creative abuse. We don't design for them, we don't implement for them, we don't plan for them, we don't try to stop them. As surfers, we merely enjoy the fruits of our editorial labor in improved search results.

As for the fallacy of the other hand: the ODP has ALWAYS encouraged editors to use as many different resources as possible, to experiment, and to share good resources with other editors. A corollary is that the ODP has NEVER RESTRICTED editors' use of resources. And today ... might I be permitted to suspect, out loud, that your unsupported personal assertion may not be QUITE influential enough to reverse six years of history for thousands of people?