ODP Thoughts

ChrisJ · Sep 11, 2005

Hi,

I was in the middle of a conversation between myself and Jim Noble regarding my site submission way back before the Submission Status area was removed and now a year on I have been left without any information. The last thing he said was that I was allowed to re-submit after a month (which I did) I have since resubmitted a few more times. I know this will have affected my submission.

It is a shame that I will most likely miss out on ODP Site Sumission now but I thought I would just write this message as a last resort. My site is perfectly genuine offering Wedding Accessories, but I guess you get lots of people saying that!

Still, the ODP is good thing. I guess I will have to move on.

Kind Regards

jimnoble · Sep 11, 2005

I guess I will have to move on.

Indeed

.

tdjames · Sep 12, 2005

The best thing is to “submit and forget”.

cgispy · Oct 14, 2005

tdjames said:
The best thing is to “submit and forget”.

This should be in the signature of every member here. It's a shame to see people dwell on a submission. IMO complaining and constantly asking about a submission will only lead to it being put at the bottom of the barrel.

In fact, I'm going to add that quote to my signature now.

cgispy · Oct 14, 2005

Nevermind, I see we don't have signatures

motsa · Oct 14, 2005

Because of regular members abusing the feature, signatures are only permitted for editors.

cgispy · Oct 14, 2005

motsa said:
Because of regular members abusing the feature, signatures are only permitted for editors.

No worries, I've run into the same kind of problems on forums I've worked on. Probably better for the board

oneeye · Oct 16, 2005

IMO complaining and constantly asking about a submission will only lead to it being put at the bottom of the barrel.

Just to cover that point, that isn't true. Very few editors come to this forum so the chances that an editor who has seen the complaint reviewing the site are very slim. And so many people come here that if an editor has seen a complaint and does the review it is highly unlikely they will remember. What we have found is those making the complaints often have no real understanding of the DMOZ concept (or they would know that a complaint is futile and unwarranted) and are therefore much more likely to submit unlistable sites.

cgispy · Oct 16, 2005

oneeye said:
What we have found is those making the complaints often have no real understanding of the DMOZ concept (or they would know that a complaint is futile and unwarranted) and are therefore much more likely to submit unlistable sites.

Agreed

riz · Oct 21, 2005

ChrisJ said:
Still, the ODP is good thing. I guess I will have to move on.

It certainly is a “good thing”. And yes, moving on is the best thing you can do to yourself. I wish this was a prevailing notion when it comes to suggesting a website for inclusion in the DMOZ, but for an obvious reason we keep lamenting on what ifs.

mdvaldosta · Oct 22, 2005

Many website owner anxiously submit their site for inclusion once they find out about the DMOZ, and it's only natural for them to make a big deal about it. The DMOZ is likely the most prevalent place they would ever have their site listed, and akin to hitting the lottery for those webmasters wanting to get the word out about their site.

ChrisJ, the advice you were given to "Submit and forget" is the best thing for you to do. Do your best to ensure you have a unique website and can provide valuable information to your category, that's pretty much all you can do on your end. Best of luck.

oneeye · Oct 22, 2005

Before I was an editor I had a site I wanted to submit to the Google directory, which of course turned out to be the DMOZ directory. I did as I was advised and read all the guidelines. It said to me that DMOZ was very selective and not every site would be included. As I read it very few sites would be deemed good enough. There were clues - original content and lots of it. What did that mean? I looked at the other sites listed and realised my site was OK in comparison and it did have some unique content. It might get listed. But looking at those other sites I noticed they had more information than I did but I knew stuff none of them mentioned. So I went back to work on the site. It took a week or so to get it right. Another comparison - at least as good as the rest. There was an invitation to join as an editor so instead of submitting my site I gave it as an example in my application. And so started my career. But I did not improve my site for a DMOZ listing. I improved it for the benefit of people visiting the site because comparing it with sites listed, which met the DMOZ quality criteria, it was lacking something. And hey it worked - I won a contract to supply an international bank even though it was only a hobby business. I didn't need the DMOZ listing - improving the site got the business.

What most webmasters do is entirely different. They don't bother to read guidelines, compare their sites. They notice their competitors listed and want parity with them but don't realise DMOZ isn't interested in competition between webmasters, DMOZ is interested in unique content. I got it, most of them don't. A lottery implies pure random chance and some things about DMOZ might be a lottery - when an editor will next visit and review submitted sites. But a site being listed when it is reviewed is nowhere near a lottery - if you have followed the guidelines to know your site is listable - if you have picked the best fit category - if you have compared your site to what is already listed and it is at least as good as the best already listed - if it includes significant unique information no-one else has. Then your chances of being listed are virtually 100%. Because editors love listing sites - that is why we edit!!!

Submit and forget. That is good advice for someone who was expecting DMOZ to provide some kind of listing service. But for those who have lavished care and love and burnt the candle at both ends to produce their site and are genuinely interested in their users not their page rank, never forget. Keep looking at the other sites that compete. Keep adding new and interesting information only you know. When someone does review it they will find something they can't resist listing. And in the meantime those who find the site by other means will love it too. But there is more. If you are the sort of person who thinks like that you might well make a good editor. Because DMOZ is like that. We add new sites, which is our content, to make it more useful for our users.

skwhirl · Nov 3, 2005

ChrisJ said:
Hi,

I was in the middle of a conversation between myself and Jim Noble regarding my site submission way back before the Submission Status area was removed and now a year on I have been left without any information. The last thing he said was that I was allowed to re-submit after a month (which I did) I have since resubmitted a few more times. I know this will have affected my submission.

Yes, It is a good idea, however I am not too partial to some of the operational procedures on this project. There seems to be stringient guidelines for site submissions, howefver if you ask me there should be even more stringient guidelines for editors, and those who approve those requesting to become an editor.

It is truly sad when someone capable, knowledgable and talented submit an application and then the person who has the power to reject it can do so in minutes without even taking the time to suggest any reasons.

There is quite a bit lacking in the procedural guidelines for the conduct of the editors and administration here, and that is probably one of the reasons why such a respectable company like Google no longer carries this content.

Great idea, I would hate to see this go to the wayside due to corprately lazy administration, as was demonstrated to my in my recent dealings with this organization..

Btw, the category I subitted an application to edit contains sites which have either old out of date information, full of dead links on those sites, etc. I would be highly disappointed browsing to that category to find that selection of links as a standard user! I've encountered this problem on other occasions using the DMOZ product, however after my experience with the people behind it, I find it totally unacceptable!

oneeye · Nov 3, 2005

there should be even more stringient guidelines for editors, and those who approve those requesting to become an editor.

There are very stringent guidelines for editors - check out how many candidates find out they are declined on this site.

It is truly sad when someone capable, knowledgable and talented submit an application and then the person who has the power to reject it can do so in minutes without even taking the time to suggest any reasons.

Editor candidates are given a list of possible reasons for a rejection. And in your list you missed out "honest" which is probably number one on the list of editor attributes required. There would be no point in tutoring a candidate through the process - it would defeat the purpose to test someone's ability and give them the exact answers.

There is quite a bit lacking in the procedural guidelines for the conduct of the editors and administration here, and that is probably one of the reasons why such a respectable company like Google no longer carries this content.

There are very detailed guidelines for editor conduct on the DMOZ site - publicly available if you care to look. Google took an update from us a very short while ago.

I would hate to see this go to the wayside due to corprately lazy administration

It won't don't worry about that, users are up by 17% in the last 3 months. And we're not a corporation so don't worry about corporate laziness either.

skwhirl · Nov 3, 2005

Explain all those dead links and out of date sites in those categories?

oneeye · Nov 3, 2005

Explain all the dead links and out of date sites in Google.

We have automated processes to weed out many dead links. It doesn't run daily. Next time it runs you will see a marked reduction.

Sunanda · Nov 3, 2005

skwhirl said:
Yes, It is a good idea, however I am not too partial to some of the operational procedures on this project.
[snip]
There is quite a bit lacking in the procedural guidelines for the conduct of the editors and administration here, and that is probably one of the reasons why such a respectable company like Google no longer carries this content.

If you don't like the approach DMOZ takes you are completely free to set up your own directory project....You can even seed it using ODP's directory under license.

But you may get few takers if your site contains data as accurate as your post's:
http://www.google.com/dirhp

skwhirl · Nov 3, 2005

oneeye said:
There are very stringent guidelines for editors - check out how many candidates find out they are declined on this site.

Editor candidates are given a list of possible reasons for a rejection. And in your list you missed out "honest" which is probably number one on the list of editor attributes required. There would be no point in tutoring a candidate through the process - it would defeat the purpose to test someone's ability and give them the exact answers.

I find that answer totally unacceptable, esscpecially when the sites in that category are poorly maintained and out of date.

Click to expand...

skwhirl · Nov 3, 2005

Sunanda said:
If you don't like the approach DMOZ takes you are completely free to set up your own directory project....You can even seed it using ODP's directory under license.

But you may get few takers if your site contains data as accurate as your post's:
http://www.google.com/dirhp

Give you a cookie... that's no longer on their front page

motsa · Nov 3, 2005

Presumably you're looking at a category that no one has had an urge to edit in for awhile. Feel free to head over to the Report Hijacks... thread in our Quality Control Feedback and point out the ones you're referring to and I"m sure someone will be happy to fix or remove the dead links.

BTW The category that you applied for only has 3 sites in it, all of which are on topic and working so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "the sites in that category are poorly maintained and out of date".

ODP Thoughts

ChrisJ

Member

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

tdjames

Member

cgispy

Member

cgispy

Member

motsa

cgispy

Member

oneeye

Member

cgispy

Member

riz

Member

mdvaldosta

Member

oneeye

Member

skwhirl

Member

oneeye

Member

skwhirl

Member

oneeye

Member

Sunanda

Member

skwhirl

Member

skwhirl

Member

motsa