One Year to get Noticed - but wait

Hi all
This is not for my benefit...I do not care if I do not get listed...I have enough work as it is..just did it because i came across it on the web...

For those that are scared to talk-back...because they think the site will not get listed if they do (I am sorry editors..but that is the way people are thinking)

Right to the point...Sites are created and built as time goes by...webmaster submit to Dmoz early as they know they could be waiting for a couple of years to get listed...so think they can submit now and build on the site as they know they have a long wait...editor has a quick look...no content...bam..back to submitting...caught me out..looked at my site quicker than expected..bummer...

but with all the users that notify you of bum sites...would it not be fair just to list the site and let users notify you to remove listing as they do...

just my penny's as I know most site submitters are too scared

I am not flaming editors...so if that is what is thought of this post then I am right in posting it...

...would it not be fair just to list the site and let users notify you to remove listing as they do

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here, fmhadmin.

Fairer to list under-construction sites? No, it wouldn't be. Under construction means no content. No content means no listing...until they have sufficient listable content.

Fairer to automatically list sites without a manual review and then let people report sites to be removed? No, that certainly wouldn't be anything close to what we're trying to do here.

Did you mean something else? If so, perhaps you'll clarify.

If I understand this strange posting correctly, you say we should list sites with no content just in case they might have some content in the future?

No, sorry. We build our directory for users - not for webmasters. Sites without content are no benefit to our users, so we won't list them.

Not really sure a what you are trying to say. But of course, if you submit a site before it's ready, hoping I won't review it for a year, than that's not a great idea. Yes, it's said that it takes 10 minutes to two years until a site gets reviewed. But mostly we see here posts about the ones that have been waiting a long time. Don't forget about the ones that get edited fast.

I've reviewed and published at least three sites in the last two days within an hour of them being submitted. And many within a few days.

And heaven help anyone that sends me a site under construction, it could get just as well get deleted within an hour. If submitted again, it will get looked at very closely the second time to make sure it's really worthy - it wont't get the speedy service.

- For those that are scared to talk-back...because they think the site will not get listed if they do (I am sorry editors..but that is the way people are thinking) -

I don't care what people think. The value of the work is what is important to me. I go and find sites on my own every day, ones that are not even submitted and list them in the directory. I do this knowing of the backlog of unreviewed sites. Why? Because dmoz.org is not here as a service to webmasters - it is for web surfers.

- Right to the point...Sites are created and built as time goes by...webmaster submit to Dmoz early as they know they could be waiting for a couple of years to get listed...so think they can submit now and build on the site as they know they have a long wait...editor has a quick look...no content...bam..back to submitting...caught me out..looked at my site quicker than expected..bummer... -

The submission guidelines say to not submit the site until it is done - or don't submit under construction sites. If a webmaster goes against that... well... what can I say... its not like the information was not available to them.

- but with all the users that notify you of bum sites...would it not be fair just to list the site and let users notify you to remove listing as they do... -

Removing dead sites serves the ODP purpose as a benefit to the surfer. Web surfers don't want to go to a directory where there are a bunch of dead links. Adding sites because users ask on the forum is not fair to webmasters who do not know about the forum and is a service to webmasters, serves the webmaster - which is not what ODP is about.

In my opinion.

Thanks to all the editors that posted to this tread..
This is what some users do not hear because they are too scared to push you that far...as they fear their site will not get listed...just thought I would open the door to free speech...

For those that are scared to talk-back...because they think the site will not get listed if they do (I am sorry editors..but that is the way people are thinking) -

Click to expand...

I don't care what people think.

Click to expand...

well there you go...

I am sorry for this post...but being a free web support agent for the last 15 years...made me feel inclined to post my views...And you saying it is your ball..so you make the rules...does not cut it...also the reasons for lesser site being listed...because it slipped through the net...or was different rules then...does not make the new submitter any more confident than a site that should not be listed.

you know this is the 3rd time i have edited this..I have so many emails flying at me regarding this post..

Note from the emails: webmaster V users
Site is built for users...by webmasters...webmasters, once users..now provide a service..new webmaster needs to know damm sure of what S(He)is doing (years at college or Uni) in site building...and nowing all about web Etiket..or no sale....

Sorry all editors or people working for DMOZ...but I am swamped with mail, concerned with getting listed on your so called No1 Directory...

will not be supprised if this thread gets lost...

6 minutes before the reply first time...and now no reply speaks for itself...

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's very hard for me to understand your posts, fmhadmin. Your grammar is coming out a bit garbled.

I >think< I've identified that you believe your site might be punished if you say something critical about the ODP, and are therefore explaining that you don't care if that happens. And I >think< I've identified that you would like it if under-construction sites were added to the ODP, though I'm not very clear on your reasoning.

You've received a good answer to the second. It would annoy our users to have under-construction sites to plow through. Our users are already grumpy when they find dead sites in our directory, and we spend much time culling them. Intentionally adding more inoperational sites to the mix would be unfair to them, and we're not going to do it.

As to the first concern, no, your site will not be punished no matter how critical you are. The sites of many critical and even rude people remain in our directory. If you bragged about spamming, or something of that nature, then you might indeed be inviting a careful look at your site/s. But not if you just make a largely incomprehensible suggestion about under-construction sites. Fear not. (-:

Given all of the useful information that you have received, taking one short quote out of context seems rather strange -- and does little to help any discussion.

The important part of thehelper's comment was not the short snippet you pasted, but rather that "the quality of the work is important." So, no, it's not that important to us if webmasters think that complaining will prevent their site from being listed -- although I do wish that they didn't have this strange misconception. What thehelper, and other posters, have been emphasizing is that we evaluate sites based on their content at the time of review, not on the personalities of their webmasters, not on the content they might have sometime in the future, and not on how pretty (or ugly) they look. If they have unique content, we list them. If not, we don't. In fact, we list good sites whether someone has suggested them to us or not -- we have found many of our listings ourselves by searching the web.

That's because we are a service for our directory users, not for webmasters. We list sites because we think they will be useful to the general public. We do not list sites for the sole purpose of helping webmasters/site owners/SEOs with their marketing, as frustrating an idea as that may be for some of them. Yes, some of them are helped by our listings, and that's also fine with us, but it's definitely not the reason we build the directory.

Hi lachenm
Thanks for the reply...as you said:

taking one short quote out of context seems rather strange

Click to expand...

It what is called reading between the lines...Sorry that you feel this way...but on a day to day basis you are alienating many web sites that do not deserve this...who are to say what the user wants to see...like the Censored movies...as you a little fed-up of people deciding what you can watch or see...

and you have repeated the fact:

So, no, it's not that important to us if webmasters think that complaining will prevent their site from being listed

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm

Sorry, but repeatedly taking phrases out of context isn't really going to help the discussion any more than it did the first time.

Perhaps you might want to quote the rest of the sentence, where I said that I wish they didn't have such a strange misconception... Yes, I wish that people didn't come up with strange, misguided ideas about the ODP. I also wish that when they did have such ideas, they would come here and listen to the editors who tell them things like "We list sites because of their content -- not for any other reason. If a webmaster complains, it won't affect the listing decision about their site one way or another."

Why I'm not going to lose sleep over the issue is that it doesn't really affect how we build the directory. We'll still keep listing sites, whether or not a few isolated webmasters have an odd, completely unfounded misconception about how their statements might affect their chances of being listed. Complaining won't prevent a listing, just as being sugary sweet won't guarantee one. The misconception you seem so intent on reporting doesn't seem to be preventing people from submitting sites to the ODP, nor does it seem to prevent complaints about the speed of listings, as evidenced by many posts here. The directory continues to grow. So then, how could it possibly be incredibly important when it isn't affecting anything?

Moreover, several editors have plainly stated that this misconception is absolutely incorrect. So if you know of any webmasters who harbor this errant belief, you can just send them here, where they can read the truth. Problem solved.

Hmm several editors...you mean 4...
The fat cat, or, I'm bigger than you will never leave the feelings of this directory...this directoey is getting more and more Publicity in a bad way...

and sticking up for a fellow editor..is very Patriotic but un-Warranted...you may think you are better than the rest of us because you hold the...will post..won't post..power...but there are many users out there that are losing all respect in the DMOZ Directory...

I do not mean to flame or put down...but the answers to this post...have been the same through-out the forum....

You tell in a strict and abrupt manner...I know you may of had some bad times with Users...but look back at the posts to this thread...and tell me they are not...I am god...listen...

webmasters who harbor this errant belief, you can just send them here, where they can read the truth. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Late here...time for bed...but if research material is what is needed...I will provide...

Right to the point...Sites are created and built as time goes by...webmaster submit to Dmoz early as they know they could be waiting for a couple of years to get listed...so think they can submit now and build on the site as they know they have a long wait...editor has a quick look...no content...bam..back to submitting...caught me out..looked at my site quicker than expected..bummer...

Click to expand...

Some people successfully play this gambit in the way you describe, others don't. You have to understand that ODP editors do not willingly list unfinished sites. Some editors might leave those sites sitting for a future review, and others might delete them as unfinished and unlistable at that time. Others may not come across them until the site is done. Who can know which site will get which treatment?

And....everyone who plays that game is clogging up the submission process adding time to when they (and others) can get reviewed.

It is, in my opinion, just another form of spam.

Hi cleaner
Many thanks for the reply...you are exactly what I want...you gave a perfect reply to the problem...No I am bigger than you...I will submit who I like...
You gave an un-Offensive polite answer to my post..this is great...many thanks...do you see what I mean about the other posts...if a person has a problem, you try to help...or offer a little hope...not knock them down and give them a good kicking when they are down...

cleaner, you get respect...you are human...

Hi spectregunner, you got in before i finished this post...No, smammer should be shot on site...I am so sorry you have to deal with these guys...they ruin the net..
Hey I am not running this thread to have a go at you guys...I am just voicing what people are too afraid to say...

Be very aware. As I am not just a standard user?

Your question has been answered repeatedly, fmhadmin. You're not flaming anyone, but you *are* starting to seem like you're trolling.

We won't list sites that do not have any content yet, because our users hate that. It's that simple. Our users complain when they find dead and empty links on our site. We *do* know what our users want, because they give us feedback. We're not going to add something to our site which our users dislike. I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy, but it's not going to change.

As for the rest of it, it's also been repeatedly explained to you that no, we don't care what the webmasters think; we will still publish their sites. So they can think we are wonderful, or they can think we are horrid, or they can think we are possessed by aliens; their sites will still get treated exactly the same. All you seem to want to take out of this is "The ODP doesn't care what people think!" In this case, though, that statement is a direct reassurance to your concern that the ODP will punish webmasters if they express negative thoughts. No; not at all. It doesn't make any difference to us whether a submitter is critical of us or not. All that matters is whether the site has good content or not. We have many good sites in our index whose webmasters have been critical of the ODP, and we will continue to list such sites. When we say we don't care, we mean it won't keep us from listing your site; that's all. It's quite innocuous.

This discussion is serving no purpose and is in violation of our Resource-Zone Guidelines.