Odp Delusion

I don't beleve more that my site http:www.rentit.it will include in the ODP.
It is more than one year that I am waiting for.

I saw FAQ, I checked everything many times and I am sure that the site has all charatteristics to be included.

I understand that editors has a lot of work, but 1 year ....it is not serios.
I am REALY deluse.

Tati

You must have missed this FAQ on how long it can take for as suggested site to be reviewed.

Yes, you were deluded, and I regret that that happened.

One reason ODP editors like me spend times in forums is to try to help people understand the way the ODP works, so they do not form unreasonable and impossible expectations.

The facts are these:

(1) Most search results, many "mined links", and above all, the vast majority of URL suggestions do NOT get ODP listings. Therefore it is not a good idea to wait for a listing. It may never come; or the site review may come only after your competitor has buried you.

(2) There is no way for editors to find site suggestions that have been waiting "over one year" or "over three years." Therefore, as a practical matter it doesn't matter how long a site has waited. (We have had people suggest sites waiting a long time should be rejected automatically, we've had other people suggest that sites waiting a long time should be reviewed first. We can't do either one, and we wouldn't if we could.)

(3) It really doesn't matter when a site was suggested: the date of a site suggestion is meaningless. Completely meaningless. (I've explained why this is true elsewhere -- read the forums a bit.) Therefore, the amount of time a site suggestion has spent waiting, is also meaningless.

(4) Editors edit categories, not sites. Therefore, if a site is not relevant to the category a volunteer is reviewing, it will wait until someone is editing the relevant category.

(5) Editors tend to work where they can be productive -- after all, BUILDING the directory, not reviewing sites, is the point of the exercis. Therefore: if a category is already massively overcrowded with spam, sites are likely to have to wait much much longer than usual for review (whether or not it has ever been suggested). If a category is massively overcrowded with viciously deceptive spam, sites are likely to have to wait much much longer than usual for review.

(6) The ODP is not a site promotion method. We will do nothing for your site that we would not do for all of your competitors. So if you're thinking the ODP will give you the boost you need to get to the top of the search results, ... it can't, and we wouldn't if we could. We'll boost the other sites just as much. Therefore: you need to take the same responsibility for your own site, whether or not the ODP has listed it or ever will list it.

That should give you an idea what you need to do next (promote your own business) and where you need to be doing it (everywhere except the ODP.)

None of the information I gave is secret. You could have read it in these forums a year ago, and in other forums I contributed to at least five years ago. If an SEO forum is at all polite to informed visitors (and sometimes even if it isn't), it probably has one or more ODP editors who are regular participants.

But we may be missing something, and maybe you can help us out here. Where did you go for information about the ODP, that didn't tell you what I just told you?

old_crone]You must have missed this [URL=http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_site_questions#faq_how_long]FAQ[/URL said:

on how long it can take for as suggested site to be reviewed.

Click to expand...

Thank you old crone. I saw this FAQ suddgested by you and definitely realise that my site never will reviewed (it is not a priority of editors to review).

However I am not sure that it was "viewed" the first time when I suggest my site.
Because I can't see the reasons for which the editors should reject it. My site is appropriate for submission to the ODP because respect all of your rules(the following I simply copied from the site http://dmoz.org/add.html):

Do not submit mirror sites. Mirror sites are sites that contain identical content, but have altogether different URLs.
Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory. Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.
Do not disguise your submission and submit the same URL more than once.
Example: http://www.dmoz.org and http://www.dmoz.org/index.html
Do not submit any site with an address that redirects to another address.
The Open Directory has a policy against the inclusion of sites with illegal content. Examples of illegal material include child pornography; libel; material that infringes any intellectual property right; and material that specifically advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence).
Do not submit sites "under construction." Wait until a site is complete before submitting it. Sites that are incomplete, contain "Under Construction" notices, or contain broken graphics or links aren't good candidates for the directory.
Submit pornographic sites to the appropriate category under Adult.
Submit non-English sites to the appropriate category under World.
Don't submit sites consisting largely of affiliate links.

Also I submited it for an exsisting category
http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Ita...calities/Florence/Travel_and_Tourism/Lodging/

That is because I can't understand why it was reject (if it was "viewed" ).

What a pity! Because I think that this site will be usufull for a lot of ODP users who are looking for a lodging in Italy.

I can only wish them to find my site on Yahoo! (on the 1st page) and Google (onthe 6 th page) with key "apartments in florence", because I don't think that in next years some ODP editor would spent his time "inproperly".

Tati
http://www.rentit.it

Tati, there's a large gulf between "when you want" and "never". We've passed "when you want", but we're still a long way from "never" yet.

There's only one reason to accept a site: "significant unique informational content". If it doesn't have that, we don't need a reason to reject: we must reject.

So our reasons and yours are completely different. We have nothing to do with Yahoo or Google search, and being "useful" has nothing to do with our criteria -- it would be arrogant of us to say what would or would not be useful: all that matters is useful content.

As for proper use of ODP editor time, that's something each editor sets for himself: so long as it helps the directory. Nobody else: not ODP administration, not other editors, and a fortieri not anyone else, gets a vote.

At risk of repeating myself quite so quickly. The questioner has misunderstood what we are and what we do. That is reasonable in a world where we are quite unique. The FAQs do indeed provide some answers. So do the official guidelines. But they are clearly not getting the message across.

We are not a webmaster listing service, neither is a suggestion automatically a priority over every other source of material we have to populate our project. There is a fault in the "submission" process. It implies a webmaster is submitting their site as they do to hundreds of other directories. It should clearly state in very plain language that it is a suggestion and nothing more. The webmaster or submitter is a speculative supplier of information for our product. In other directories the webmaster is a customer of some kind. That is the main error in perceptions. Act like a supplier not a customer and your expectations will be tempered accordingly.

The reason why editors can get irritated by this sort of question is for the same reason anyone receiving an unsolicited suggestion from an insurance company to purchase their accident protection policy would not expect a phone call some months later berating them for having taken x months and still not bought the policy and how disgraceful that is. How would you react to such a follow-up call? I would put the phone down. Fortunately for the webmaster who inadvertently offends by thinking of themselves as a customer not a prospective supplier we will receive over 2.5 million prospective suggestions for material to use this year and the chances of that offence being remembered when someone thinks about the offer of that material and whether to accept or not is for all practical purposes zero.

Not disagreeing with your general drift, oneeye, but the big difference is not between the ODP and every other directory, but between the free directories and paid ones.

All directories that accept submissions free will pretty quickly find themselves submerged with same. So there are likely to be lengthy waiting times for review. And if a directory is intended to be useful to the searcher, it certainly won't list everything submitted. Some are far more selective than the ODP, but I notice very similar guidelines for a number of such directories. Some ruthlessly filter out spam in large quantities before even considering review.

It is the paid directories which offer a listing service to webmasters. And the notorious free-for-all, add-your-own-link sites.

On the other hand, hutcheson, we have to admit that some categories are popular for editing (more than one editor per cat) while others are not (no editor at all), and popular editing categories are not necessarily the same as the ones overcrowded with submissions...

shenhemu, what you say is true. But how can that fact be interpreted?

There's only one interpretation that makes sense: too many webmasters are simply not producing the kind of sites that surfers need. They aren't looking at the market, they aren't distinguishing their own goods and services from the commodity providers, they don't have and can't produce any unique content worth the having.

That's not a problem for editors: we edit where the need is (the surfers' need, that is) -- or at least, where our perception of the surfers' needs are. It is a problem for sites that would be found unique, once they're picked out of the ocean of spam. But if editors can't pick them out fo the spam, how can other surfers? Obviously there's a lack of planning here. But that also is a problem only for the business, and not at all for us volunteers.

Category "Lodging"-which is "the useful content"?

hutcheson said:

There's only one reason to accept a site: "significant unique informational content". If it doesn't have that, we don't need a reason to reject: we must reject.

So our reasons and yours are completely different. We have nothing to do with Yahoo or Google search, and being "useful" has nothing to do with our criteria -- it would be arrogant of us to say what would or would not be useful: all that matters is useful content.


Dear Hutcheson,

Could you tell me, on your opinion, which "significant unique informational content" sould have sites that want to submit to the category LODGING of http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Ita...ourism/Lodging/????

And maybe instead of general answers would be more correct (before replay ) visit the site about which we are speaking (http://www.rentit.it) and after that discuss about "useful content".

And it will be very interesting to hear from old crone the answer for this question.

Tati

Click to expand...

tati]Could you tell me said:

http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Ita...ourism/Lodging/????[/url]

Click to expand...

As the description of that category says: Directories, reservation services and individual web sites for temporary accommodations, primarily for travelers.
And because the category is called "Regional: Europe: Italy: Regions: Tuscany: Localities: Florence: Travel_and_Tourism: Lodging" These sites must be about lodgings which are physicaly located in Florence and the sites must be in the English language.

I won't answer specif for your site (this would be a review and we don't do reviews here at R-Z) but can give some general aspects we look for.

Individual websites for accomodations are easy, you are either an accomodation (= unique) or not.
Directories: a little bit more difficult , what do you have to offer other directories (including DMOZ) don't offer
Reservation services: very difficult - you must offer the service yourself to be unique, it must not be a service from someone else you are just promoting or using on your site

We do not do status checks or site reviews so cannot tell you what you want to know about your site. We cannot make it quicker for your site.

If you compare your site to others in the category and similar categories, you can see how 'good' your site is.

If you have checked that it meets the rules, there is nothing more you can do to get it listed except wait. You may be disillusioned to find that there could be a 3 year wait for a listing, but we suggest 'submit and forget'.

If you don't believe that it will be listed, you can work on promoting the site in other ways, making it better, enjoying life...

regards

tati, as you probably know, travel reservations are the deepest-spammed category on the net. So a site needs to offer unique content, and (because there are so many such sites) each one has about 59 seconds to make that offer. Otherwise it's on to the next one. That's only fair....

So how old is the oldest submission waiting to be reviewed?

That's irrelevant. Some things that might conceivably matter:

(1) the age of the oldest listable site (whether submitted or not) not yet reviewed. Which is unknowable. And, for that matter, not really relevant either. Chronological precedence doesn't correlate well with any useful definition of usefulness.

(2) the percentage of listable sites not yet listed. This is also unknowable, but one can do sampling to estimate it. But, when it gets down to it, this doesn't really matter either. What matters is:

(3) The percentage of users who visit the category and don't find what they want (or find it more slowly) because of some omitted site. Which is ... unknowable.

[comment moderated out - motsa]

It is only irrelevant if you know the reason why the question was asked. That last comment is a disgraceful way to answer someone on their first post here.

The answer joy is that editors have reported seeing sites that were submitted as far back as 1999 and 2000. It is likely that somewhere one of those at least remains. There are all sorts of reasons why a site might not be reviewed in that time, the primary one being that DMOZ is not a listing service so doesn't prioritise sites by date suggested nor does a site being suggested give it any priority over all the other listable sites on the same topic, all it does is to possibly bring it to the attention of an editor who might otherwise miss it. I hope the first answer to your question doesn't give you the wrong impression of the vast majority of editors.

oneeye (former editall/catmv)

His last comment (which has been edited out) notwithstanding, the date of the oldest suggestion still sitting in the unreviewed pool *is* irrelevant. It's a bit of useless trivia and that's it.

motsa said:

...notwithstanding, the date of the oldest suggestion still sitting in the unreviewed pool *is* irrelevant. It's a bit of useless trivia and that's it.

Click to expand...

...ya but "if" an appraisal hasn't been completed on a collection of sources how would anyone know if there was evidence not sufficiently related to the matter in issue?

An oxymoron I think!

The fundamental fact is, the DATE of submittal has nothing to do with reality. Some sites never get suggested. Some sites get suggested, and a year later there's no site there. Some sites are suggested months or years after they are published. Some sites are suggested immediately after being published. Some sites are submitted over and over on different dates. Submittal date is not related to site publishing date. And even site publishing date only matters to the project to this extent: is it in the past or in the future?

So you can't look at a submittal date and get ANY information about ANY matter at issue. It is intrinsically irrelevant to all matters.

I totally agree that in the sense that there are absolutely no possible negative conclusions to be drawn from the date of the oldest suggestion in the system the information is merely trivia. Which also means that there is no harm in providing the information and politely explaining why it is just trivia. What is relevant is that the answer to the question is an opportunity to shed light on why the date a suggestion was made is not a factor in when a site might be reviewed - that opportunity to educate people who might have the wrong impression of what ODP is and isn't is, I would have thought, very valuable. You don't educate people by hurling insults at them and belittling them by implying they were stupid to ask the question - all that does is to give the wrong impression of the ODP and of editors and the vast majority are kind, considerate, helpful and polite in correcting incorrect assumptions about the project. Thank you for moderating out the offending comment motsa.

oneeye (former editall/catmv)