my catagory hasn't been updated in over 2 years

You have all made very good points but any claims that dmoz isn't slow are shorly a bit optimistic. If sites take a long time to review then you can increase speed simply by getting more editors . I don't understand why you are so reluctant to do this - I mean when I tried to volunteer for one of the smaller(then unedited) categories, despite a decent application I was rejected within hours (if only sites were processed as fast as applilcation forms)

"I'd fight for it tooth and nail....or I would if i hadn't lost my teeth and nails on mars and saturn respectively"

Please then define what is slow and what is fast.

It seems it's all in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who submits his site, thinks DMOZ is slow until his site is added.

But the editor who added 50 sites to that same category thinks things are going just fine.

There is no reluctance to aprove as many editors as apply, providing they can contribute, and edit properly. There is absolutley no point in lowering the admission standards in order to reduce the perceived backlog. Doing so just results in more bad reviews and descriptions and lowers the quality of the editing. In the end it just makes more work for other editors and reduces the number of sites added. Fixing up another editors mistakes can take longer than adding a site that was never reviewed.

Editor applications that get refused very fast are uusally due to some very obvious errors. There are new editors added all the time, and many get accepted on their initial application.

There's no reluctance to have more editors.

A good many of the ideas that people have about the management of the ODP are rejected because (in our judgment, based on our knowledge of the editors, who are also us) they would impact the number of editors.

When you come to realize just why your application, while not positively lascivious, wasn't actually good -- then you're welcome to apply again.