My Site is Not in the Category Where ODP Says It Should Be

I run NetSweat.com - http://www.netsweat.com.

According to DMOZ, my site should be listed under "Health:Fitnessersonal Training:Online". (http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=netsweat ). The problem is my site is not listed in that category.

This "bug" occurred last week after I submitted a request to have my description updated. While, I would like to get the description updated, the first thing, obviously, is figure out why my site isn't in the category DMOZ says it is in. (On a side note, the are other Fitness subcategories that would be more accurate for my site than "Online Personal Training and I would be happy to work with any editor on providing updated and accurate information).

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

You cannot rely on the ODP search in this way. For one thing, it lags behind the actual directory by days or weeks. (If you look at the bottom of the search page it says: Search database last updated on: Thu Jun 9 10:00:40 EDT 2005)

So, the only reliable way to see what's in a category is...to look in the category.

Unfortunately, we cannot discuss why your site isn't listed in that category, as that would constitute a status request and we just don't do those.

There are many reasons why it might no longer be listed there:

1. No longer listable (due to either change of site or change of guidelines)
2. Was never listable and added in error
3. In a general review was found to be non-functional
4. Was moved to a more appropriate category for review

There are others, but those are the most likely.

This is definitely not a quality control issue, at least, not a new one. We know that search lags by a significant period of time.

So what I am supposed to do? If the answer is wait, then how long am I supposed to wait?

You say that is the wrong forum to post in. What forum should I be discussing this in? From the descriptions, it's not clear to me what is the proper forum would be.

All you can do is wait. We cannot reliably say if/when something might happen. It's the nature of a volunteer project.

I didn't say this wasn't the proper forum. There is no forum for status checks. We used to do them here but they have been discontinued.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. I wouldn't say "wait". I'd say "get on with life" -- you've done all that you can do and are willing to do to help us.

So -- you have a business that needs attention, a website that needs promoting? Get to work. Need a vacation? Take it. Do what you should be doing, not worrying about what you'd like someone else to be doing. Your next actions -- your actions for the duration of your life -- do not in any way depend on the ODP.

hutcheson said:

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. I wouldn't say "wait". I'd say "get on with life" -- you've done all that you can do and are willing to do to help us.

So -- you have a business that needs attention, a website that needs promoting? Get to work. Need a vacation? Take it. Do what you should be doing, not worrying about what you'd like someone else to be doing. Your next actions -- your actions for the duration of your life -- do not in any way depend on the ODP.

Click to expand...

There is no excuse for this arrogance, period. How do you know that this is all I'm "willing to do to help us". Have you ever bothered to ask what I'm willing do? The answer is "no".

I understand that DMOZ is comprised of volunteers. Since my wife has held leadership positions in major charities, I understand the inherrent problems of volunteer positions. It can be really hard at times to get a volunteer to do things that need doing.

Nonetheless, webmasters should be able to raise legitimate questions about DMOZ and expect to get timely answers. We shouldn't have to be in a situation where something happens to our listing and when we try to find out why it occurred, nothing but dead-ends appear.

I came here looking for answers, because there is no editor for the category where my site was listed until I requested an updated description last week. It is not unreasonable to expect an answer that offers more clarification than "wait" or "get a life".

sweat,

I don't believe that it is intended to come across as arrogant. I am going to quote you some phrases from the page that you saw when you suggested a site to the ODP - I have emphasised some phrases. Hopefully this will clarify our position....

[quote name='add.html]We may reject, delete, or edit submissions that violate these policies or that we otherwise believe, [b]in our sole discretion[/b'], should not be included in the directory.[/quote]This means that it is completely up to the reviewing editor whether to list a site, and where. Also, it is up to them whether they remove it (temporarily or permanently) or move it.

[quote name='add.html]please remember that we must [b]exercise our discretion[/b] and make numerous judgment calls as to how to make the ODP as useful as possible -- no matter what decision we make, we may not always satisfy everyone.[/quote][quote=add.html]Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to [b]exercise broad editorial discretion[/b] in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time [b']at our sole discretion.[/b][/quote]So this isn't one editor being arrogant - this is hard-coded into the very essence of the ODP. Edits are monitored by other editors to make sure that they fit with the "vision" of what the ODP is. So in a lot of ways editors are accountable to other editors. But as I hope you will see, even from the inception of the ODP, we have made no promises to be accountable to site owners or web marketing professionals. We have put it in the page of information that comes up when you submit a site because this is very very important to understand that this is the nature of the ODP.

Alucard said:

sweat,
I don't believe that it is intended to come across as arrogant.

Click to expand...

What is arrogant is a moderator telling me to "get a life". There is simply no excuse for this, especially in a forum about an "open" directory.

I realize that ODP wants the power to make broad editorial choices. But in this case, I have no idea whether my site is even in the directory or not. It was in the directory last week and apparently I'm being penalized for simply submitting a change.

If a project is going to be described as being "open", there should be at least some way of getting clear responses to basic questions. The way this entire process has been run, from the viewpoint of an outsider, is very, very closed.

I will also point out that I'm not talking about a new site or a new addition to DMOZ. My site has been listed in the directory for years and years. It hasn't changed materially in the past two years, unless of course, DMOZ views the addition of a blog as bad thing.

I'm simply looking for answers and again, if DMOZ is truly an "open" project, then there should be answers.

sweat said:

I will also point out that I'm not talking about a new site or a new addition to DMOZ. My site has been listed in the directory for years and years. It hasn't changed materially in the past two years, unless of course, DMOZ views the addition of a blog as bad thing.

I'm simply looking for answers and again, if DMOZ is truly an "open" project, then there should be answers.

Click to expand...

Reasons for a site to be de-listed are usually one of those two: i) an editor found that the site was not functional at the time he looked at it and decided to remove the listing; ii) an editor came across the listing, had a look at the site and determined that it had been an error to list it, because it did not comply with our Editing Guidelines, specifically if it was one of the types listed in the Sites Generally Not Included section.

Ok, I will take that "Open" issue. This is something that is brought up a lot - "if you are so open why aren't your processes open to ME, because I need answers about my site."

"Open" in the phrase "Open Directory Project" refers to a very specific type of openness. The Social Contract which binds us is available at http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html and I will provide a quote from it for discussion here.

socialcontract.html said:

We promise to keep the distribution of ODP data, and the submission process to this data, entirely free. We will support our data users who choose to add proprietary and revenue generating content, and other non-free value-added functionality upon versions of the ODP in which they download. In turn, data users agree to attribute use back to us per the free use license.

Click to expand...

That - nothing more, nothing less, is the extent to how the directory is open. Its source code is not open, the process for identifying submission spam and abuse is not open, and the documentation of editorial decisions is not open for the public to see.

Again, this may well frustrate you and aggravate you, but this is what the ODP is about, and no secret is made of this.

No-one told you to "get a life" (implying you don't have one) - they told you to "get on with life", implying that your efforts would be better-spent promoting your site elsewhere than trying to get more information on editorial decisions.

Hope this helps.

Alucard,

I appreciate your willingness to offer what help and insight you can.

That doesn't change the case that Hutchinson was plain arrogant. How else do you define a post that claims I have done "all that you...are willing to do to help us". Hutchinson has never met me and has no right to make broad judgements about my character. For Moderator to do this in a public fourm is simply inexcusable.

Sadly, this level of arrogance and the lack of answers is why a lot of people are turned off by DMOZ. It's very ironic that a forum provides the same dead-ends that the web site does.

Again, Alucard, I appreciate your attempts to provide insight. My complaints are not with you, but with DMOZ and this forum.

I suppose my own answer counts for nothing, and that you prefer to go on ranting about the ODP...

Please note that hutcheson said "get on with life" not "get a life" -- two completely different meanings. "Get a life" would indeed have been arrogant. "Get on with life" is a straight forward suggestion of how you should proceed from this point on because, really, from an ODP point of view all you *can* do is get on with life and not worry about whether or not your site will reappear in the ODP.

We can't give you any status information about your site here and that includes explaining why you are no longer seeing the site where it was. But you've been given some common reasons why this type of thing happens. If the site was just moved to another category or was temporarily unavailable, then it will reappear eventually. If the site was deemed to be unlistable (either because the content changed or because it was listed by mistake initially and was never listable), then it won't. There's really nothing that you can do with either potential outcome except wait.

There is no further point in leaving this thread open as the status of your site is not something we can or will provide. NOTE: DO NOT open a new thread to further discuss your site.