Is there a way to confirm that my site suggestion was in fact received?

I guess my Topic Title says it all.

My website is getting decent search engine rankings without DMOZ, so this is not a distress call, but...

I have certainly read the advisement that it could take several months or even years for the site to be listed. But I would like to know that I clicked the right buttons and in fact have made a valid submission! So, if my submission is in fact in the database but not yet reviewed, couldn't the DMOZ search engine, instead of saying "not found", say "pending review" or something like that? Once the php is written, it wouldn't require any volunteer effort to make it happen. :~)

thx for ev'rything

If you have submitted it than it has been received there is no confirmation if you read the TOS they explain that but most people do not bother to do that.

Directly after you suggested a website a confirmation is shown on screen.
That is all the confirmation you will get.

Your proposal has been discussed before. It is just that it has no high priority and that the few resources we have for development are spend on more imporatant improvements.

pvgool said:

Directly after you suggested a website a confirmation is shown on screen.
That is all the confirmation you will get.

Your proposal has been discussed before. It is just that it has no high priority and that the few resources we have for development are spend on more imporatant improvements.

Click to expand...

Okay, but how about all the resources spent here in this forum answering all these (dumb, perhaps) questions, especially the one posted here recently "How can I tell if our URL was submitted before I started working here?" - possibly submitted by someone no longer at the company? What I see is that you editors are spending a lot of time answering these questions, and that the "resources" for changing the dmoz search engine to return "pending review" for URLs that are in your database but not yet reviewed and/or listed would be minuscule in comparison. You keep on spending time answering these annoying questions, but the change I'm suggesting would take (me, anyway) about a half hour...and would need to be done only once.

What I see is that you editors are spending a lot of time answering these questions

Click to expand...

Nope. You're seeing just a few of our thousands of editors taking the time out to respond to questioners who haven't read or haven't believed the documentation. They don't get the answers they're hoping for because the questions are against this forum's T&C. We tried it once and it was a miserable failure.

As to the half hour coding change, I think you're making too many assumptions. The code is labyrinthine, not in PHP. The database isn't in a form that can be readily queried and only AOL staff have the permissions to amend the system anyway.

strBean said:

Okay, but how about all the resources spent here in this forum

Click to expand...

Those are other resources.
The people answering questions here a few editors of DMOZ.
Most editors do never visit R-Z or answer questions here.
Change the coding of DMOZ can only be done by AOL programmers. And they are busy with other tasks for DMOZ or AOL.
Editors have no access to the code at all.

jimnoble said:

We tried it once and it was a miserable failure.

Click to expand...

You tried having the search engine return a string that contains something like "pending review"? And it was a big disaster? Not sure if I understand correctly, but that's okay; I don't need to. Just a suggestion for a programmatic solution to save time, not my place to argue about it.

Thx for taking the time. All the best to you.

No, what Jim ment was that we tried once to telll people here at RZ what the status of their suggested website was.

pvgool said:

No, what Jim ment was that we tried once to telll people here at RZ what the status of their suggested website was.

Click to expand...

Also remember: a computer is just an automaton doing some mathematical task that a human could do better. If it is impossible to define a task (like, reporting site suggestion status) so that humans can do it successfully, how much more impossible would it be for a computer to do it successfully?

And some of us (including me) were thinking in terms of using our experience with manual status checks to determine what could safely be done automatically.

But experience isn't big on determining what people want to have determined. It keeps giving evidence about reality. And, after thousands of status checks, the reality was clear: status checks were not a good thing to do, and were a very good thing not to do. They didn't help honest website owners; they were extremely important (and helpful) to spammers--and, which is most important, they didn't help get the Open Directory built.