Is there a reason why editors don't communicate status?

I understand that this site is run by volunteers and that they approve/decline your site at their leisure, etc... but is there a reason why there is no communication? 99% of the posts on this forum would not exist if there were any communication at all to the user who has submitted their site. Such communications could include:

1. Whether there is an editor assigned to the category you submitted.
2. Approximate time-frame until site review.
3. Acceptance/Rejection notice.

Such notices would take less than a minute of time for the editor and would be very helpful to the user. DMOZ is obviously a very good SEO resource, and that is why people come to submit their sites. The problem is that they properly fill out the information DMOZ requests, and then that information essentially goes down a black hole for all the user knows. I think a little communication could improve DMOZ and get rid of the vibe I'm getting from a lot of posts where *insert Cartman voice* "Whatever…Ill do what I want! We're volunteers, we don't have to try hard. I can do what I want, biatch! Yeah, I have sex, and I don’t use protection! It’s my hot body; I’ll do what I want! I don’t go to school and I kill people! What-evah! I’ll do what I want!”

One of the things we initially did when this forum started was to provide site updates and if a site had been reviewed and not listed, to explain why it hadn't been listed. We anticipated asking that it be added to the ODP. Boy, were we wrong. It was a huge, huge time sink and many site owners were more interested in arguing. It also gave spammers far too much information and made our hobby more difficult.

So we explain that we aren't a listing service and that only one site suggestion is needed since site suggestions don't expire. The most time efficient thing for a site owner to do is to suggest a site once and to move onto other ways to promote a site.

And there is no way to know an approximate time frame until a site is reviewed. There are many editors who can edit in a category, and we don't know what they'll be doing today, tomorrow or next week. We don't even know if they'll be looking at suggestions, because there are multiple sources of site listings.

gloria said:

One of the things we initially did when this forum started was to provide site updates and if a site had been reviewed and not listed, to explain why it hadn't been listed. We anticipated asking that it be added to the ODP. Boy, were we wrong. It was a huge, huge time sink and many site owners were more interested in arguing. It also gave spammers far too much information and made our hobby more difficult.

So we explain that we aren't a listing service and that only one site suggestion is needed since site suggestions don't expire. The most time efficient thing for a site owner to do is to suggest a site once and to move onto other ways to promote a site.

And there is no way to know an approximate time frame until a site is reviewed. There are many editors who can edit in a category, and we don't know what they'll be doing today, tomorrow or next week. We don't even know if they'll be looking at suggestions, because there are multiple sources of site listings.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that happening (arguing and wasting time). I think your initial intentions were good though. You just didn't strike that balance between too much info, and not enough info. I think it would be more than satisfactory to simply give a yes or no to whether the site was approved, and to give a general timeline (or limit) of when it will be reviewed. That wouldn't be a time waste as long as the editors don't draw themselves into a huge debate with site-owners. Just post the info and move on. Would take less than a minute.

Part of the issue, as a site-owner myself, is that DMOZ doesn't want sites under construction. That's all fine and well if you know _when_ your site will be reviewed. But if you are interested in keeping your site fresh and attractive, depending on the business, that might mean your site is under construction once a year or so. What if the editor reviews my site then?

Also, many people try to get listed on DMOZ, but if it doesn't work out, they may consider paying for Yahoo. It's nice to have a yes or no answer in some sort of reasonable time frame in order to make a decision. In the "submission policies and instructions" section, it says that review may take several weeks or more. It would be nice if DMOZ had some sort of self-imposed time limit so that no one is sitting around wondering if they were rejected or not. It's just a few minutes of communication that would make this project 100x better for the site owners. After all, what site-owner would volunteer to be an editor if they perceive the project to be poorly run and not respectful enough of site-submitters to communicate with them at all?

ryanjm said:

Yes, I can see that happening (arguing and wasting time). I think your initial intentions were good though. You just didn't strike that balance between too much info, and not enough info. I think it would be more than satisfactory to simply give a yes or no to whether the site was approved, and to give a general timeline (or limit) of when it will be reviewed. That wouldn't be a time waste as long as the editors don't draw themselves into a huge debate with site-owners. Just post the info and move on. Would take less than a minute.

Click to expand...

If an owner wants to see if their site is approved, they can use the search function and search for "mysite.com", leaving the "http://www." off. Search usually lags behind the directory by a week, but it can be much longer. They can see if their site qualifies for a listing by looking at our Guidelines.

And as I previously said, there is absolutely no way to predict when a site will be reviewed. Editors aren't assigned to categories. They choose where to edit within their permissions, and choose when to do that. They can decide to add listings or do other work within a category, or do myriad other things.

Part of the issue, as a site-owner myself, is that DMOZ doesn't want sites under construction. That's all fine and well if you know _when_ your site will be reviewed. But if you are interested in keeping your site fresh and attractive, depending on the business, that might mean your site is under construction once a year or so. What if the editor reviews my site then?

Click to expand...

The same thing that happens when a web surfer tries to look at your site when it is under construction - they move on. If there is enough unique content on a site when it is under construction, it will be listed, since there will be enough content for a regular user to find useful.

Also, many people try to get listed on DMOZ, but if it doesn't work out, they may consider paying for Yahoo. It's nice to have a yes or no answer in some sort of reasonable time frame in order to make a decision. In the "submission policies and instructions" section, it says that review may take several weeks or more. It would be nice if DMOZ had some sort of self-imposed time limit so that no one is sitting around wondering if they were rejected or not. It's just a few minutes of communication that would make this project 100x better for the site owners. After all, what site-owner would volunteer to be an editor if they perceive the project to be poorly run and not respectful enough of site-submitters to communicate with them at all?

Click to expand...

If someone views the ODP as a listing service for site owners, they very well might find us to be poorly run. But the site owners who found their site listed without even suggesting it probably find us to be incredibly well run. And we hope that web surfers find us to be helpful, and they are the ones we serve.

We don't mind or care if someone goes to Yahoo and pays them to list their site. We aren't in competition with Yahoo. As I said before, we aren't a listing service!

I don't know how long you've been using the Internet, but I remember in the very early days, people posted lists of their bookmarks online. And if you found someone with similar interests, you were in heaven! This evolved into people posting links of sites that they that others would find useful, usually on specialized subjects. I had a site like that about critical care nursing. I was updating my URL and found my site already listed on ODP. Hey! This place was doing exactly what I was doing. So I applied and was accepted. My site is long, long gone, but the principle is still the same. I list sites that others will find helpful. Sometimes they've been suggested, very frequently I find useful sites elsewhere. Who are we trying to help? The Internet user. We don't see the site owner as the client. Making ODP better for site owners is not the priority, making it better for surfers is the primary goal.

Perhaps you didn't notice Announcement: Discontinuation of site status checks at the top of this forum. It explains why we stopped giving them and I've seen nothing since then that convinces me that we should restart.

It's just a few minutes of communication

Click to expand...

...for each of millions of listing suggestions . We just don't have that number of spare man years.

jimnoble said:

Perhaps you didn't notice Announcement: Discontinuation of site status checks at the top of this forum. It explains why we stopped giving them and I've seen nothing since then that convinces me that we should restart.


...for each of millions of listing suggestions . We just don't have that number of spare man years.

Click to expand...

You say that as if Dmoz is run by a handful of people. Per the site's home page, there are 86,000+ editors.
If 1 million sites are submitted each week:
1M / 86,493 editors = Approx 15 minutes per week of work to e-mail the site owners. Then you wouldn't even need this particular forum for the vast majority of these posts.

To Gloria,

You may not consider yourself to be a listing service, but going back to the Cartman references (so weird that it fits again), "I'm not fat, I'm big boned!" Your perception of what you are, and what people perceive you to be, are probably 2 different things. By "not a listing service," I take that to mean that you aren't _obligated_ to list a site, or that you don't list every site submitted. However, do you really think the people who submit their sites don't view you as an alternative to submitting and paying for Yahoo?

I guess I just don't see the usefulness to the user here. These listing services (or bookmarking if that's the term you prefer) have gone the way of the dinosaur for a reason--they're less useful than a search engine like Google for 99.9% of searches. I'd never even heard of DMOZ until I read SEO books that suggest it as a means to increase site visibility, because it acts the same as a paid index such as Yahoo. I guess this place is just kinda "retro?" Maybe for people who prefer Atari instead of PS3?

I can barely remember the days before search engines. I'm sure AOL had some sort of listing similar to this, but I can only vaguely remember it. I agree that it is useful to list sites in the way that happened to yours back in the day. However, many of the regional categories on dmoz around where I live are empty, or sparse. If there are really so many sites being submitted here, where is the content? It's like someone is asleep at the switch, and if it takes years for a site to be considered, how is that going to help a user who is looking for a particular business or site, and nothing is even listed in the category because no one has gotten around to looking at that category in years?

Anyway, I don't want to poop in anybody's tea (any more than I already have) by continuing to advocate a position which is not about to be considered anytime soon, so I'll just move on now. My main point was, and still is, that communication is never a bad thing, and with minimal effort dmoz could gain the respect of a lot more people who would volunteer to be an editor, but decide not to because of the bad taste left from their own experience with site submission.

My main point was, and still is, that communication is never a bad thing, ...

Click to expand...

Ah, that's the problem. You're just wrong.

Spam is communication. Spam is A Bad Thing.

Spam is, in fact, the single biggest problem faced by people trying to get information off the internet.

And communication with spammers is the single best tool spammers need to make their bad activities more effective.

So, the conclusion is obvious, isn't it? Be very very careful with communication until you're sure it's not going to a spammer, or (at least) won't help him spam your fellow-volunteers.

Of course, the only time you know a site suggester isn't a spammer is when you review the suggestion....then, if it's not spam, you just list it.

Before that point, you don't know anything about the suggestion -- if it's any good, how long it will take, where it should go -- you know NOTHING. There's nothing to communicate.