Never get sites included ?

re:

Not sure where this is going
I have a few websites on totally different themes / Topics that I do not link together and are completely different
As they are of totally different topics I dont really want to link them.
So what you are sayng, if you have more than one website on totally different topics its not worth submiting them.
mrix?

The issue is complex and involves editorial judgment at several different levels: what's good for the surfer, what's necessary to protect the directory from abuse, what's helpful to the editors.

But generally where people are generating multiple websites "of their own", the more websites there are, the less likely ANY of them are to be listable, and the less likely ALL of them together are worthy of even ONE listing.

The public is usually best served by specialized focus and continuous effort. That's true even for medium-sized companies, how much more of individuals.

re:

If this infact is the case it would be useful to add this information to the application as it would have saved me around 4 years trying to get certain sites listed
Cheers
mrix

it would be useful to add this information to the application as it would have saved me around 4 years trying to get certain sites listed

Click to expand...

It's already there. It's in our Submission Guidelines which you acknowledged that you'd read and agreed on several occasions during that 4 years. There's no point adding further info to the suggestion form if folks are in too much of a hurry to read what's already there. More haste, less speed .

Sorry Jim, I have to disagree. The guidelines do not say anything about a person/company not being allowed so suggest more than one site they own when these sites are about different subjects. It only says not to suggest sites with the same or similar content as other sites.
If a person owns a site about their aquarium hobby, a site for their local skydiving club and a site were he runs his small company as a carpenter he can suggest all 3 to their best category and there is no need to link these 3 to each other (I think it would be a good idea to link them but it is not necessary).

Ofcourse we see a lot of people who own tens of sites (if not hundreds) that are totaly not listable. As hutcheson wrote 'But generally where people are generating multiple websites "of their own", the more websites there are, the less likely ANY of them are to be listable, and the less likely ALL of them together are worthy of even ONE listing.' These sites are not listable beacuse they are owned by the same person but because of their content, or to be more precise their lack of enough unique quality content.

re:

I basically have a forum about metal detecting in the UK, in the ODP the catagory for metal detecting forums is not really that big and I thought as my site is UK it would have been a very relevent listing.

I also have a Huxley Game Fansite and there are hardly any listings in that catagory also.

As you can see they are totally different topics and topics I would not want to link at all.

cheers
mrix

re:

Just one thought, what happens if someone becomes an editor and does a great job for a few months and the novelty wears off and never bothers editing again?
Is there something inplace within the ODP that checks for inactive editors?
Cheers
mrix

mrix said:

Just one thought, what happens if someone becomes an editor and does a great job for a few months and the novelty wears off and never bothers editing again?
Is there something inplace within the ODP that checks for inactive editors?

Click to expand...

Editors that have not done an edit in 4 months will be inactivated. They can at all times ask for reinstatements.

This happens a lot. There are 3 kinds of editors.
1) those that leave after a few weeks/months
2) those that stay for a longer time but whose activity is not high and limited to one or a few categories they are interested in
3) those that get addicted, like me they spend way to much time on DMOZ
Editors from all 3 groups are respected for their efforts. Being an editor is an hobby and you can volunteers as much time as you want and for as long as you want.

I have to say that this post from pvgool has something special about it, it goes to show that all efforts, however large or small are respected in the DMOZ community. After all, we all come together here to create a better directory, one that we believe in!

pvgool said:

Editors from all 3 groups are respected for their efforts. Being an editor is an hobby and you can volunteers as much time as you want and for as long as you want.

Click to expand...

fast response

mrix said:

I tend to wait months then try again. The thing is you dont really know if your site has been turned down, no one ever gets emailed.What is a time period you could recommend to resubmit etc?
cheers
mrix

Click to expand...

Hi. This is my first post - I am trying hard not to violate any of the rules.

I did submit my site yesterday clearly in the right category and with sites offering the exact services I offer and have offered for the past 10 years. I was emailed within a day that my site was not accepted. It is difficult to know what to do now as they reasons for non-acceptance are many yet not specified. Is there ever a way to determine the real reason? And if not, how come? I am stymied and disappointed. Can I submit again because perhaps my title was not in accordance with the rules? If someone sells XYZ widgets for example, should the title be "Selling XYZ Widgets" vs. "Selling the best widgets in the world?"

It's very unusual for an editor to write to a website suggester saying it's been declined. I'd appreciate it if you could PM me the complete content of the email including its headers.

We don't decline websites because they've been suggested to the wrong category - we move them.

We don't decline websites because they've been suggested with spammy titles and descriptions - we rewrite them. (Commercial websites are listed with the company name as the title BTW.)

We do decline websites if they fail to meet our Site Selection Criteria.

We also decline websites if they've been flooding us with listing suggestions.

I'm wondering if maybe internetgal stumbled through the "editor application" form when she suggested the site, and didn't fill out THAT application completely, thus getting a rejection on IT.

That would have nothing to do with whether the site was listable.

I am not a DMOZ editor. But if I had the time to be a DMOZ editor I would be committed to ensure to list all relevant websites in a specific sub category and make sure it is:

1. up to date

2. does not contain URLs of websites that are not good (anymore), spammy, have been sold or do contain a parking page

3. errors are corrected in time

4. the most popular websites (e.g. by internet stats) are not missing

5. the categories are correct (e.g. language of the website, target audience or audience by internet stats etc..)

I think as a DMOZ editor I would primarily add websites myself after doing a research...as this is probably the quickest way to do.

I would try to stay as neutral as possible. I would not even care about how "spammy" URLs are suggested to several caregiry by webmasters that might be a bit angry as they were waiting for a long time. This could also be abused anyone. Imagine you know someone is submiiting a website, you could suggest it to thousand other categories and DMOZ editors would think " we will not list him if he is spamming".

I think DMOZ editors should start in a small category. If they do a good job they should be allowed to move up the ranks and edit more.

If they they fail to keep their category clean/up to date, they should be warned an finally banned. This way, all categories would be clean, up-to-date and reflect the current state of the internet better.

I have seen many DMOZ categories with missing websites that are quite big and popular and definitely worth to be listed...independent of the personal opinion of the editor.

I would also think about the people and not by personal opinion when adding websites. If I think others should see/know this website even if I do not like this website for personal reasons, I would add it without a question.

If it would be done this way, nobody could come up with excuses like "we don't mind/care that some categories are outdated and have not been edited for 2 years as it is up to the DMOZ editors and if they don't do it, they don't do it.".

A DMOZ category that has not been edited for a long time or has a long queue should get new editors and old editors should be kicked for not doing their job. It is a voluntary organization, but this does not mean being lazy should be accepted.

If categories lag behind and are unedited, this means too many editors are responsible for too many top-level categories.

I think DMOZ needs less editors with high editing powers and more editors are the bottom of the "pyramid".

I think anyone that can find 5 websites that are missing in a category or 5 outdated links, should automatically become the new editor and the old one should be kicked.

I am not a DMOZ editor. But if I had the time to be a DMOZ editor

Click to expand...

I think that before posting people should read all the posts in a forum to see if topics have been covered several tmes before.

regards

alexa1970 said:

I am not a DMOZ editor. But if I had the time to be a DMOZ editor

Click to expand...

Maybe you first should find some time to understand what DMOZ is and how it operates.

I will only comment on the aspects you are correct on and some that are a total miss.

I think as a DMOZ editor I would primarily add websites myself after doing a research...as this is probably the quickest way to do.

Click to expand...

That is correct.
This ofcourse means that you won´t have the time to look at all the suggested websites.

I think DMOZ editors should start in a small category. If they do a good job they should be allowed to move up the ranks and edit more.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how DMOZ is already handling editor applications.

If they they fail to keep their category clean/up to date, they should be warned an finally banned. This way, all categories would be clean, up-to-date and reflect the current state of the internet better.

Click to expand...

This I do not understand.
If you fire an editor that does not perform like you want him to do there will be no other editor to do the job. So categories will be even less clean and less up-to-date.

A DMOZ category that has not been edited for a long time or has a long queue should get new editors

Click to expand...

Well, let´s those new editors apply. Or do you think we have them stored in some cupboard waiting until a category needs attention. Categories will be edited if someone is interested to do so. If noone is interested it won´t be done.

If categories lag behind and are unedited, this means too many editors are responsible for too many top-level categories.

Click to expand...

Two things are wrong in this statement.
1) no editor is responsible for any category
2) editors with privileges in a top-level categorie can (not must) edit in all categories below

I think DMOZ needs less editors with high editing powers and more editors are the bottom of the "pyramid".

Click to expand...

One of the things we like to see is more editors with higher privileges.

I think anyone that can find 5 websites that are missing in a category or 5 outdated links, should automatically become the new editor

Click to expand...

We don´t think so. It is not about quantity but about quality.

and the old one should be kicked.

Click to expand...

Why. There can be more than one editor working in a category.

"hutcheson" said:

I'm wondering if maybe internetgal stumbled through the "editor application" form

Click to expand...

Indeed that seems to be the case.