My website wont list
- Thread starter gratum
- Start date
reply
i did read all the faq, they informed me i have to waith between 2 min and 2 years to get my website listed.
but how can i find out the editor of that directory
/real estate/spain/canary islands/tenerife
i see 47 sites listed there, but it has been the same number for months, does that mean the editor felt a sleep ? is there something we should do about it, because i heard from more local real estate offices that they have the same problem regarding this.
Is there nothing that can be done to know who is the excact editor
Regards
Sophie
i did read all the faq, they informed me i have to waith between 2 min and 2 years to get my website listed.
but how can i find out the editor of that directory
/real estate/spain/canary islands/tenerife
i see 47 sites listed there, but it has been the same number for months, does that mean the editor felt a sleep ? is there something we should do about it, because i heard from more local real estate offices that they have the same problem regarding this.
Is there nothing that can be done to know who is the excact editor
Regards
Sophie
lmocr
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2005
- Messages
- 730
freefall06
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 4
hi;
Does this forum permit editors to give advice on site status issues?
freefall06
Does this forum permit editors to give advice on site status issues?
freefall06
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
A site is either -
Since we no longer give status we won't give you an answer to the first two, if it's been listed, you can find it by typing in your url (without the www.) in ODP search
If you somehow know that it was refused a listing, it's not something we generally want to start a discussion about.
If you don't see the site listed and have no idea what it's status is, it's most likely that it has not been reviewed.
- waiting to be reviewed
- has been reviewed and refused a listing
- has been listed
Since we no longer give status we won't give you an answer to the first two, if it's been listed, you can find it by typing in your url (without the www.) in ODP search
If you somehow know that it was refused a listing, it's not something we generally want to start a discussion about.
If you don't see the site listed and have no idea what it's status is, it's most likely that it has not been reviewed.
freefall06
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Ok thanks.
9 months later, still nothing
you cannot say i dont have patience !!
we are now 8 months later, i see more and more sites listed, even were able to add estate agents clients from this Author in just 3 weeks time,
but our website doesnt get listed, as we seem to be some "concurent" of the author of this group. it doesnt seem fair to me , as the policy says of DMOZ
it will be 18 months we did try to add our website to a simple estate agent directory on DMOZ.
Strange enough 60% of all estate agents listed are hosted by the same company, rara
Fair rules i would say
you cannot say i dont have patience !!
we are now 8 months later, i see more and more sites listed, even were able to add estate agents clients from this Author in just 3 weeks time,
but our website doesnt get listed, as we seem to be some "concurent" of the author of this group. it doesnt seem fair to me , as the policy says of DMOZ
it will be 18 months we did try to add our website to a simple estate agent directory on DMOZ.
Strange enough 60% of all estate agents listed are hosted by the same company, rara
Fair rules i would say
Ideally, all real estate agents' sites should be judged according to the same criteria. There is no order of reviewing them that is intrinsically "less unfair" (to the real estate agents, that is: it's obviously easy to devise schemes that are systematically UNFAIR to those real estate agents who AREN'T SERP perp professionals--but of course we wouldn't want to do that.)
But your story leaves me puzzled. Of course, I don't know what percentage of the local hosting market this "rara" company has, or why real estate agents might preferentially choose (or avoid) it. And in the absence of that information, the mere fact that "only" 40% of sites listed are NOT hosted there cannot possibly mean anything.
So, can you imagine any reason why an editor (honest or even abusive!) would list all those 40% non-rara-hosted sites, and yet not list your (presumably-non-rara-hosted) site? How does your site differ from those other 40%? Obviously, it is impossible for the the hosting company to have any thing to do with THAT difference!
Given that conclusion is logically indisputable, I can't guess what you imagined the hosting company for the OTHER 60% of sites had to do with anything? If the hosting company demonstrably has nothing to do with 40% of listings, that's pretty strong evidence that it doesn't have anything to do with the other 60%.
You know best whether you've irritated enough people so badly that personal prejudices would prevent or delay the site's review. (I think that's unlikely, but of course I don't know for certain.)
Barring that, it's likely to be a situation of (1) site rejected because of inadequate informational content on the website, or (2) simple lack of volunteer interest in the category itself, preventing the kind of work that would make it comprehensive enough to include your site.
But your story leaves me puzzled. Of course, I don't know what percentage of the local hosting market this "rara" company has, or why real estate agents might preferentially choose (or avoid) it. And in the absence of that information, the mere fact that "only" 40% of sites listed are NOT hosted there cannot possibly mean anything.
So, can you imagine any reason why an editor (honest or even abusive!) would list all those 40% non-rara-hosted sites, and yet not list your (presumably-non-rara-hosted) site? How does your site differ from those other 40%? Obviously, it is impossible for the the hosting company to have any thing to do with THAT difference!
Given that conclusion is logically indisputable, I can't guess what you imagined the hosting company for the OTHER 60% of sites had to do with anything? If the hosting company demonstrably has nothing to do with 40% of listings, that's pretty strong evidence that it doesn't have anything to do with the other 60%.
You know best whether you've irritated enough people so badly that personal prejudices would prevent or delay the site's review. (I think that's unlikely, but of course I don't know for certain.)
Barring that, it's likely to be a situation of (1) site rejected because of inadequate informational content on the website, or (2) simple lack of volunteer interest in the category itself, preventing the kind of work that would make it comprehensive enough to include your site.
More explanations but no results
Well maybe the editor is in contact with those server people, (or maybe its the same person), just check a back IP search on the server of the listed estate agents ,, most of them come from the SAME IP address, that are listed in that group
Well i guess, i never get listed there,, doesnt seem to be like a FAIR bussiness that DMOZ::
we are a respected company with over 80 estate agents connected to use, however, not ONE has been accepted by DMOZ
so dmoz is not really controlling the groups, but the editors choose which ones to add and which ones not,, a bit of a strange powerfull directory listing...
Thanks anyhow for the explainations, i have no idea how to explain such thing to our 80 clients, that are NOT listed because the editor prefers only to list the competion
Well maybe the editor is in contact with those server people, (or maybe its the same person), just check a back IP search on the server of the listed estate agents ,, most of them come from the SAME IP address, that are listed in that group
Well i guess, i never get listed there,, doesnt seem to be like a FAIR bussiness that DMOZ::
we are a respected company with over 80 estate agents connected to use, however, not ONE has been accepted by DMOZ
so dmoz is not really controlling the groups, but the editors choose which ones to add and which ones not,, a bit of a strange powerfull directory listing...
Thanks anyhow for the explainations, i have no idea how to explain such thing to our 80 clients, that are NOT listed because the editor prefers only to list the competion
Well, when I don't understand something, and can't control it, I generally DON'T try to explain it at all. I at least consider the possibility of telling the truth: that I don't understand or control it.
That may not be an option for you. But I don't have an alternative.
That may not be an option for you. But I don't have an alternative.
DesertJules
KEditall/kCatmv
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 196
"gratum" said:
Okay, I'm a tad confused. ". . . the editor prefers only to list the competion [sic]."? Doesn't that mean that the editor is listing everyone who has a listable site?
gratum said:
9 months later, still nothing
gratum said:
From what I can see in your posts Gratum, you expect your longest waiting period to be 2 years, and then decide to air your feelings after 4 months, and then again 8 or 9 months later.
You also cite that new sites have been added to the directory during this period, however, what you do not know, is how long these other site owners had to wait until their sites were added. For all you know they have been waiting for very long periods of time also.
One of the replies to your post(s) mentions the following:
Since there is no guarantee of a listing in the directory, I think it might be fair to assume that complaining about your non-listing would not assist your situation in any way, and the author of that post did point out that it was unlikely to affect the editors viewpoint.
When you consider that the directory is managed by volunteers who give of their spare time, some of your comments are tantamount to suggesting that certain editors are not volunteering enough of their spare time, and I hardly think such comments would help your situation - and I am just a mere observer.
You do not know how many sites that particular editor has to review. In a field such as 'estate agents' I can imagine that must be a HUUUUGE number of sites that need reviewed. It's a very popular and competitive business, although that does not have any bearing on the listing criteria, but it should give you an indication of the work load that is being experienced by the editor(s) of that particular category. I would imagine that every estate agent in the world wants listed in the ODP, and perhaps you should bear this in mind also.
With regards to your comments about 60% of listings having the same IP address, it means nothing other than they all share the same IP address. This is indicative of nothing. Certain presumptions may be drawn from it, but nothing conclusive could be arrived at. One might presume, for example, that the owner of the server at that particular IP address may be someone who specialises in providing hosting services to Estate Agents, or it may be a larger server network that organises their servers into certain category areas where similar sites are all bundled onto one server, but these are only presumptions and not conclusions.
I am not an ODP editor, just an ordinary forum user, and my advice and intent with all of this post is simply this, sit tight, and let the guys do their job. We know for a fact that there are literally BILLIONS of websites out there, and there could well be tens or even hundreds of thousands of Estate Agents amongst that pile. If you have gone down the road of submitting your site for listing on other places as well, you will already know that the process of simply submitting your site can be time consuming. How many places can you get your site listed, or submitted to, in 4 hours, for example? Not many, is the reality, and that is just the submission process. I imagine that the review process is somewhat more time consuming, as the site has to be viewed for accuracy, and I imagine that does not just include the homepage either, after all, ANYTHING could be placed behind a homepage and I am sure the editors would need to check the veracity of the site content and pages. All of this is time consuming. Multiply that by the number of estate agency related sites that would love to be included in the directory, and then account also for the possibility that impatient submitters probably submit their site more than once - thinking it was probably missed or something along those lines. Having done that, I am sure that you would not agree with your own statement:
gratum said:
It might look simple on the outside, but inside, I am pretty certain it is a bit more complex, and there must be a heavy workload to go through.
From a plain old common-sense viewpoint, being critical of any volunteer never won man many friends, and this is a generalisation here. Being appreciative of volunteer assistance encourages the volunteer and creates a much better atmosphere all round.
This is just my personal advice, and I perfectly well understand your frustrations, but bear in mind there are estate agents out there who have been around for years with their websites and are not yet listed in ODP, for whatever reasons that may be. So if you personally have identified a period of 2 years during which your site might be listed, why not wait until the expiry of that period before you air your grievances.
Let me repeat again, this is just a personal piece of advice, and I am not an ODP representative or editor.
>...because the editor prefers only to list the competion
Um, the editor doesn't have a choice here, does he? He CAN'T list only the non-competition, because in real estate sites EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY'S competition!
And every one of the sites that is listed, was listed despite the fact that it was a competitor of every other listed site, as well as a competitor of an indeterminably large number of as-yet-unreviewed sites.
That's OK. That's what we do. We don't stop listing sites because of the danger that one of them will compete with some other site we don't even know about yet. When someone reviews your site, the fact that it (like all the other listed sites) competes against all the other listed sites, will not be held against it -- and as proof of that, we can show you all the other sites that were listed, in spite of the fact that they compete with someone.
Um, the editor doesn't have a choice here, does he? He CAN'T list only the non-competition, because in real estate sites EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY'S competition!
And every one of the sites that is listed, was listed despite the fact that it was a competitor of every other listed site, as well as a competitor of an indeterminably large number of as-yet-unreviewed sites.
That's OK. That's what we do. We don't stop listing sites because of the danger that one of them will compete with some other site we don't even know about yet. When someone reviews your site, the fact that it (like all the other listed sites) competes against all the other listed sites, will not be held against it -- and as proof of that, we can show you all the other sites that were listed, in spite of the fact that they compete with someone.
Thanks for the information
Yes, i see, i have some great responses here
I relize that everyone is the competetion, but check the IP addresses from 70% of the websites that are accepted... those are the same, so its from the same design company.
We tried however to add some other estate agent website, not owned by us, and it was listed in less then 21 days.
However, all the clients we submitted that are hosted and created by gratum are not accepted...
We created websites for approxily 30% of the southern estate agents from Tenerife, (arround 110) we would like to list ALL those estate agents as they have right for that, and NONE of them are accepted , as the editor (same person that did make the other 70% of the websites listed in DMOZ .. tenerife estate agents..) wont accept ANY of our websites...
Our clients ask us why they are not accepted in DMOZ , what do i explain ? that this is the way DMOZ works ?
Regards, and thanks for the detailled replies
Sophie
Yes, i see, i have some great responses here
I relize that everyone is the competetion, but check the IP addresses from 70% of the websites that are accepted... those are the same, so its from the same design company.
We tried however to add some other estate agent website, not owned by us, and it was listed in less then 21 days.
However, all the clients we submitted that are hosted and created by gratum are not accepted...
We created websites for approxily 30% of the southern estate agents from Tenerife, (arround 110) we would like to list ALL those estate agents as they have right for that, and NONE of them are accepted , as the editor (same person that did make the other 70% of the websites listed in DMOZ .. tenerife estate agents..) wont accept ANY of our websites...
Our clients ask us why they are not accepted in DMOZ , what do i explain ? that this is the way DMOZ works ?
Regards, and thanks for the detailled replies
Sophie
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
OK, let's get down to some basics.
The vast majority of real estate websites are devoid of useful content.
It is entirely possible that the ones you are creating are particularly content free, so none slip thorugh in moments of editor weakness. It is also possibld that yours are the exception to the rule, and you are just plagued by bad luck.
Remember:
* links are almost never unique content.
* MLS listings are almost never unique content.
* verbose platitudes about "todays real estate market" are almost never unique content.
* free newsletters and other marketing basura are almost never unique content.
* stock photography is almost never unqiue content.
* pronouncements of "zillion dollar producer" and similar ilk are never unique content.
* rewritten or copied Chamber of Commerce propaganda is never unique content.
* your templates (presuming you sell templated sites) do not contribute to unique content.
I hope that you are seeing a picture here. I'm not aware that I have ever looked at one of the sites you have produced, so don't personalise the above. I can tell you that many of the real estate sites that are presently listed would not be listed today if current standards were applied -- but this is true of many areas of the directory where standards have evolved and sites that were initially listed some time ago when editing practices were less rigid remain, but will eventualy get weeded out.
That is why it is not always possible to tell what it takes to get listed by looking at the listed sites.
It is also why Brother Hutcheson says (paraphrased): Don't try to be better than the worst site in a category; try to be better than the best.
The vast majority of real estate websites are devoid of useful content.
It is entirely possible that the ones you are creating are particularly content free, so none slip thorugh in moments of editor weakness. It is also possibld that yours are the exception to the rule, and you are just plagued by bad luck.
Remember:
* links are almost never unique content.
* MLS listings are almost never unique content.
* verbose platitudes about "todays real estate market" are almost never unique content.
* free newsletters and other marketing basura are almost never unique content.
* stock photography is almost never unqiue content.
* pronouncements of "zillion dollar producer" and similar ilk are never unique content.
* rewritten or copied Chamber of Commerce propaganda is never unique content.
* your templates (presuming you sell templated sites) do not contribute to unique content.
I hope that you are seeing a picture here. I'm not aware that I have ever looked at one of the sites you have produced, so don't personalise the above. I can tell you that many of the real estate sites that are presently listed would not be listed today if current standards were applied -- but this is true of many areas of the directory where standards have evolved and sites that were initially listed some time ago when editing practices were less rigid remain, but will eventualy get weeded out.
That is why it is not always possible to tell what it takes to get listed by looking at the listed sites.
It is also why Brother Hutcheson says (paraphrased): Don't try to be better than the worst site in a category; try to be better than the best.
Ok lets see
It is also why Brother Hutcheson says (paraphrased): Don't try to be better than the worst site in a category; try to be better than the best.
[/QUOTE]
We were able to grow in less then 18 months to the largest estate agent database of the canary islands, In both matthers, Estate Agents AND Property Database (over 9000 properties)
We just uploaded our new website , just place ".com" after my resource-zone username to see the website, and please tell me what is wrong with content.
Our clients are aware of DMOZ, and they are wondering why they are not listed or we are not listed
i heard all different excuses now, and i understand those, however that doesnt change the facht that 70% of all websites listed in estate agents, spain, Tenerife, are comming from the SAME ip address, so are hosted on the same server.. I dont need any other explanation , i found out myself a long time ago who is the editor of this section.
I hoped something could be done because of that cheating, instead of telling me thousands of excuses , why we ar enot listed,, we are a fair company who has the right to be listed there too
Regards
Sophie
It is also why Brother Hutcheson says (paraphrased): Don't try to be better than the worst site in a category; try to be better than the best.
[/QUOTE]
We were able to grow in less then 18 months to the largest estate agent database of the canary islands, In both matthers, Estate Agents AND Property Database (over 9000 properties)
We just uploaded our new website , just place ".com" after my resource-zone username to see the website, and please tell me what is wrong with content.
Our clients are aware of DMOZ, and they are wondering why they are not listed or we are not listed
i heard all different excuses now, and i understand those, however that doesnt change the facht that 70% of all websites listed in estate agents, spain, Tenerife, are comming from the SAME ip address, so are hosted on the same server.. I dont need any other explanation , i found out myself a long time ago who is the editor of this section.
I hoped something could be done because of that cheating, instead of telling me thousands of excuses , why we ar enot listed,, we are a fair company who has the right to be listed there too
Regards
Sophie
Search Engines Rules
Hi spectregunner , thank you for this reply
After showing your email to our development team, they said those rules are applied the same to search engines.. how come then that we are listed in main keywords in top 5 listing in google
like
-real estate tenerife (nr 3)
-property tenerife (nr 4)
-tenerife inmobiliaria (nr 1)
it seems that google does like our content and see's the value of our website for finding property in Tenerife
The same applies for yahoo, msn, etc etc.
The only thing i want to make clear here, is that this not beiing listed in dmoz is more a personal attack to us, i hope you understand
Greetings and thanks again, Sophie
Hi spectregunner , thank you for this reply
After showing your email to our development team, they said those rules are applied the same to search engines.. how come then that we are listed in main keywords in top 5 listing in google
like
-real estate tenerife (nr 3)
-property tenerife (nr 4)
-tenerife inmobiliaria (nr 1)
it seems that google does like our content and see's the value of our website for finding property in Tenerife
The same applies for yahoo, msn, etc etc.
The only thing i want to make clear here, is that this not beiing listed in dmoz is more a personal attack to us, i hope you understand
Greetings and thanks again, Sophie
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
Editor abuse is taken extremely seriously, and all genuine reports are investigated as soon as possible by one or more meta editors, so if you have evidence of abuse by an editor, please use the abuse reporting function as soon as the technical problems with our servers are resolved. There is a link in the top right of every category page.
Note that assumptions based simply on the fact that your own site has not yet been listed are not sufficient for a report, but if you have useful information to support your concerns, I can assure you it will be taken seriously. Thanks.