Make Peace With Not Being Listed

I write this on the heels of submitting a site (that I am president of) for the second time in over a year just for the heck of it. Thought I'd check out the forum and see if anything had changed in this broken system... alas, it seems it has not. (Incidentally, I launched a very successful site about 6 years ago and had no problems getting listed in DMOZ at that time.)

The new site I run is the real deal with exclusive content, built with the most current technology and supported by corporate advertisers unlike any of the other homemade outdated sites listed in my category, some consisting only of text links. In other words, it's laughable to not list it. And yet...

How outdated and careless is DMOZ? Let's see, ELECTION 2008 is coming up. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama's sites are listed in DMOZ. Yikes.

Let's not kid ourselves. Sadly, if Google/AOL/MSN didn't use this directory no one would care at all about getting listed or this forum. The editors would have to find other ways to spend their time - maybe a couple enterprising ones with real passion for contributing to the health of web searches would start a new volunteer directory!

SOME GOOD NEWS: After soft-launching our site last year, we have officially launched this January (we couldn't launch until we got our traffic situation sorted out). Although the site was never listed in DMOZ (and i guess probably never will be) I am thrilled to report that we have finally cracked both google and MSN and are now inching up towards first placement under most of our popular search terms. Google now accounts for 38.5% of our traffic, MSN around 9%.

WHY? BECAUSE THE SITE HAS SUPERIOR CONTENT and the users keep coming back. The crappy sites that used to be listed in the first few positions (thanks to DMOZ) are falling down into the muck as they should.

How did the users even find us in the first place? When we first launched, Yahoo listed us quickly but we were on the 230 page of Google under the simplest keywords. So we bought Google Ads. Yes, we paid about $150/month for sponsored keyword google ads so users could find the site, bookmark it, and return. This built up a solid user base. The more they came back, the higher Google started ranking us naturally (without ODP)... until we are finally properly ranked. Yay, Google. I guess the system really does work. If you can afford the ads.

So $1500 later and a happy ending to the story. Our Google rank is nearly there, our traffic is growing exponentially now and we'll never be at the mercy of a single individual who decides the fate of our site or the users who need the information that it provides.

The moral of the story: If your site has great content and you have a few bucks to spend on keyword ads (even a dollar a day), you WILL eventually rise in the search engines that DMOZ controls... there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The End

Thanks for sharing that positive story.

you WILL eventually rise in the search engines that DMOZ controls

Click to expand...

Just one thing though, we don't control any search engines. Their ranking algorithms are entirely their affairs.

BTW Who's Barack Obama? Is he somebody I should have heard of (note my locality) ?

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama's sites are listed in DMOZ

Click to expand...

A statement that is patently false. It took about 15 seconds to disprove it.

Go to DMOZ.org and search on obama and you wll find his main campaign site is listed, along with his senate election site, along with subdomains for the major primary states.

A similar search for Hillary Clinton not only shows that her site is listed, but it has been "cooled" by an editor.

I hope the rest of your statistics are better researched.

When I searched both "Hillary Clinton" and www.hillaryclinton.com. and neither came up under the main page of Open Directory sites. I now see her site is listed in another category. Why her site isn't listed as #1 in the main directory I'm not sure?

Of course, when I search under "www.johnmccain.com" (her opponent) he is listed #1 on the main page... interesting

I admit, I may not have been as thorough as I could have been in searching deeper in the effort to make a point that many times the placement of listings or lack thereof are outdated.

Jim, in saying DMOZ "controlled" the search engines I was referring to the uphill battle of being found if you are not represented in the directory they rely on to provide relevant sites. It seems the algorithms do work eventually though.

Also, Barack Obama is a newer democratic senator running for US President that has gained quite a bit of press attention in the last few months.

neither came up under the main page of Open Directory sites. I now see her site is listed in another category. Why her site isn't listed as #1 in the main directory I'm not sure?

Click to expand...

Ummmm, there is no "main page" with listings. There are about 700,000 different categories, and sites are placed based upon where they best fit.

also, when searching, leave off the www in order to obtain better results.

Good lord, by getting into it you're proving my point. IMO, the core of the ODP lacks consistency which is why you have thousands of frustrated posters wailing about not being listed.

EX: I understand there are categories and yes, when I type "Hillary Clinton" she is listed in a subdirectory, that's why I didn't see it. However, if I type "John McCain" into the search box his site comes up on the "main page" or first page after I hit SUBMIT. Most people only look at the first page.

I'm sorry, but you can't defend the fact that after typing in Hillary Clinton the first result is some old CNN article. I'm happy she's listed, but why is her own site not listed first? Or even on that first page? Why is her site less relevant than a year old CNN article about her announcing her bid? Why is that old article even listed under her name as a general search term? What if I started a new pro-Hillary Clinton website this week and Hillary Clinton endorsed it and wrote an article for it? If it takes years to get listed, Hillary Clinton would be in her 2 term in office or a retired senator by the time it's even considered. Meanwhile that old CNN article will be there for years to come.

I apologize for stirring you up. I didn't post this to attack the individual editors in any way, just comment from personal experience on a strained system that too many people are dependent on.

Contrary to most 'search engines' the ODP search is designed to find categories related to the search term, and not individual listings. It is not a search engine in any way, shape, or form.

Categories are listed at the top of the page, which is the important thing that anyone using a directory should be looking for. Individual listings are also shown where the search term match is within the title or description. Note no search of the sites content is ever performed.Additionally the sites returned are not ranked in any particular order, merely the order found by the search program.

If you want a better search use Google

hillary clinton site:www.dmoz.org

Click to expand...

but even then the return isn't going to rank PR1 or Official sites above others. I can only reiterate that DMOZ is not a search engine.

I'm sorry, but you can't defend the fact that after typing in Hillary Clinton the first result is some old CNN article.

Click to expand...

I can, I just did. If you want a search engine, use one, don't blame us for not being something we never tried to be.

I can't cure you of your delusions.

I am not a doctor.

Thanks for the more in depth explanation, Gimmster, my surface perceptions are all I have to go on as I am not deeply involved with DMOZ as you all are. I guess I was confused by the button that says "Search" on DMOZ home page.

This has dragged way off my original topic that the system is broken, and will be, unless they can find another 100,000 honest volunteers to handle the volume and to clean up and overhaul this directory. Or maybe the search engines will stop solely relying on it which would be the best thing IMO. Years ago, DMOZ served as an elite directory, containing only the best of the best. Now that the whole world feels dependent on getting listed, it's too much pressure on the editors, frustrating webmasters, it's bad for everybody.

But there is a way to still get your website properly placed in the engines with a little time and a little money IF it has great content. Rather than waiting around and airing the same complaints over and over on this board, people should be proactive and they'll get results.

Thanks for listening. It's been fun but I'm off to search for Hillary Clinton

fhbug15 said:

This has dragged way off my original topic that the system is broken, and will be, unless they can find another 100,000 honest volunteers to handle the volume and to clean up and overhaul this directory.

Click to expand...

The system is not broken, it just doesn't respond/behave in the way you want it to. Unfortunately the volume will be continue to increase, until the web stops producing unique websites. Unless by volume you are indicating public suggestions, in which case that is not a problem. Site suggestions are an abundant resource but not the sole or even the most useful one we have available.

fhbug15 said:

Or maybe the search engines will stop solely relying on it which would be the best thing IMO.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, none of the bigger or more popular search engines solely rely on data procured from only one source to fuel their results. Even Google who admittedly clones dmoz for their own directory, doesn't solely rely on DMOZ for search results. In fact there is plenty of evidence that they don't even consider it any more important than any other quality link in their own algorithms. But that would be a question only they could answer.

fhbug15 said:

Years ago, DMOZ served as an elite directory, containing only the best of the best. Now that the whole world feels dependent on getting listed, it's too much pressure on the editors, frustrating webmasters, it's bad for everybody.

Click to expand...

Again only the those without real knowledge as to how search engines (and business for that matter) work, share the fantasy that dmoz is more important than any other quality link. The whole world isn't worried about DMOZ at all, I would guess that vast majority of the world either have never heard of it or have no opinion at all.

fhbug15 said:

But there is a way to still get your website properly placed in the engines with a little time and a little money IF it has great content. Rather than waiting around and airing the same complaints over and over on this board, people should be proactive and they'll get results.

Click to expand...

Bingo. That is what the editors on this and most every other similar forum have been saying for years. A listing isn't the important thing, it serving the customers targeted by the content. If the site has great, unique content it serves the customers well and likely will meet the criteria for a DMOZ listing (icing on the cake) as well. Airing the same complaints that have been explained ad nauseam here, in the FAQ and other related forums does no one any good.

Years ago, DMOZ served as an elite directory, containing only the best of the best.

Click to expand...

That has never been true. Yes, we have minimum listability requirements and, no, we don't list every site, but we have never endeavoured to list only the best sites on the Web. Never.

One should always keep in mind that this is a human-edited directory which is manned by volunteers, so what makes it great also makes it subjective and imperfect so don't take it personally or believe that your website is inferior if it's not included.

Case in point: a while back we submitted a professionally-designed site which showcases a home-automation/security related product that also serves disabled and hearing-impaired users; while that's not the product's primary market, I believe it's the only product of its type which is remotely accessible by the hearing-impaired. The Open Directory does in fact have a few lower-end competing products listed; they are not as sophisticated nor do they serve hearing-impaired users, yet those sites are listed and ours is not.

With that in mind, it's pretty clear that not being listed doesn't mean that your site, product or service isn't necessarily as good as or even better than other sites which are included; it more likely means that the reviewer who happened to look at your site didn't like it for some reason, was not an expert on the subject matter of the site, was just having a bad day, or perhaps hasn't gotten around to reviewing it at all. Again, it's quite subjective and the "luck of the draw" is going to be a factor here. Since DMOZ has one or more disability-related categories, I'm sure it's not their policy to exclude or discriminate against a site that has such content so it probably fell into one of the traps above.

While this situation is far from ideal for webmasters or surfers, you have to remember that these are volunteers trying to do their best to add value to the directory and, for the most part, they do a pretty decent job. Unfortunately, they will sometimes miss the mark.

If you think you can do better, you should probably apply to be an editor. I have no such delusions of grandeur.

Phil Quesinberry

or perhaps hasn't gotten around to reviewing it at all

Click to expand...

That's by far the most common reason for a listable site not being listed yet. Editors are told not to make subjective decisions so sites should not be declined because they're ugly or because the editor is having a bad day. Most that are declined are declined because they don't have sufficient unique content. MFA sites are a case in point.

All editing actions are logged and a website can't be declined without giving reason.

What Jim said, plus:

There are a couple of cultural things within the ODP process that help smooth this all out.

Editors who are struggling over the listability of a given site are strongly enouraged to make a posting in our internal discussion areas seeking help. I've seen hundreds of such postings and never one has the person seeking assistance been criticized for asking for help. some seemingly simple requests for assitnace have even spawned debates that transcend the given site and have driftedinto editing policy reviews. I realize that sometimes, from the outside, it appears that the ODP is some huge unchanging creation -- but in reality, lots and lots of changes occur on a regular basis, sometimes generated by the simplest of things.

Second, newer editors (or even editors who have recently received permission to edit in differnt parts of the directory) are strongly encouraged to ask for a "cat check". This is a public request (to the editing community, not the public at large) to have anyone come in an review/comment-upon the editing in a given category. When doing cat checks, experienced editors look at titles, descripions, completeness, edit logs, taxonomy and other issues. The object is not to fillet the editor, but rather to provide a thorough quality control check that is presented in a teaching manner. We use cat checks to help editors grow to where they can eventally take on new responsibilities.

For example, I've promised to do a cat check for an editor in Europe, who is editing in an English language category, but english is not his first language. He is concerned withhis descriptions, so I will spend a lot of time there, and less on his decision-making because he has several thousand edits under his belt.

Of course, editors have to ask for help, and they have to be willing to accept what advice they are given. Editors who know everything about everything often have a difficult time finding success within ODP. A sense of humor and thick skin also helps.

Spectregunner,

I would like to become an editor or help in some way. I just submitted my application today and I hop that they say yes. I liked how you explained it by the way. I should probably get to bed now because it is my birthday today and I have plans in the morning, but I could spend hours here just trying to learn so that I will be a good editor for the ODP.

Compatibility

motsa said:

...but we have never endeavoured to list only the best sites on the Web. Never.

Click to expand...

The last entry at
http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_site_questions#faq_no_editor
states

"If you wish your site to be listed in a particular category, it should be better than the best site already listed and offer content not offered by any other site already in the category. Don't aim to be second worst, aim to be best."

This seems a direct contradiction to Motsa's comment

This seems a direct contradiction to Motsa's comment

Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Mosta was specifically addressing our listing guidelines, the FAQ is addressing webmasters who are suggesting sites. We are searching for quality sites and don't really need or want webmasters to suggest sites that barely meet the minimum. We would rather have webmaster suggest sites that are overflowing with rich content.