Questions after site submission

Hi,

Few questions appeared after my site submission -<URL removed>
Is it possible to change a few words in site description after suggesting it to dmoz? Should I do it before or after it has been listed (in case it gets listed at all). The category would not change after the correction in description.

Another issue is that I didn`t provide a demo login for our system, so this means that the person who is doing the review could see only our login page, registration and user community system, but not the application it self. Would that increase to possibility of rejection? Do you send notifications about rejections?
If there is a need to provide a system login, how should I do it? We could create a special user account for dmoz team. Though there would be no sense in making the login information public by posting it on forum - someone might change it. But as I understand it should be active a month, a year or even more...

By all means suggest it again to the same category with a revised description. The new suggestion will replace the original.

If editors can't view your website, they can't evaluate it. If they can't evaluate it, they shouldn't list it. Some editors might email you for login details. Others might be reluctant to do that and instead just leave it be for somebody else to handle and move on to a website that they can review. This isn't a requirement but you could append login details to the proposed description [like this]; they wouldn't be published.

> Is it possible to change a few words in site description after suggesting it to dmoz?
Yes, when you suggest the site again to the same category the new suggestion (title and description) will overwrite the previous suggestion.
But let it be known that in most cases the provided description does not match our guidelines and DMOZ editors are used to rewrite them.

> Should I do it before or after it has been listed (in case it gets listed at all).
Can be done before. Certainly if you did not provide a guiudelines compliant description the first time.
You can also wait until an editor has listed the site, you can than see what he made of the description.

In both cases remember that we won't accept marketing and seo hype in descriptions. Making any changes to get keywords included in the description will never work.

> Another issue is that I didn`t provide a demo login for our system, so this means that the person who is doing the review could see only our login page, registration and user community system, but not the application it self.
If we can not review the site by just looking at the publicly available pages we will need a demo login (you can provide it as part of the description - ofcourse it will not be listed).

> Would that increase to possibility of rejection?
If we can not see what is on a site we can not determine if it is listable. Neither can any of your other visitors see if it is worthwhile to get a login.
It doens't mean it will be rejected, it will just not be reviewed.

> Do you send notifications about rejections?
Sorry, we don't.

> If there is a need to provide a system login, how should I do it? We could create a special user account for dmoz team. Though there would be no sense in making the login information public by posting it on forum - someone might change it. But as I understand it should be active a month, a year or even more...
Already answered above (provide as part of description, we will strip it out before listing). It should at least be active until the site is listed. And preferably longer. DMOZ editors are only allowed to use such a login to review a site. They are not allowed to use it for personal usage.

it's clear now

Ok, thanks for your suggestions.
Normally I would submit the site once more with the new data, but when you read a lot about dmoz the first thing you learn is - don't resubmit your site over and over or the administrators will get upset, be patient! So that's why I am consulting you before doing it.
It is not a drastic change that I want to make in the description, just a few words to be more precise about the content of the site. If the administrator would leave it as it is now, it would not be a problem, only the current description is not specific enough in my opinion.

I`m not sure but I think that one of the dmoz administrators has registered on our site and I confirmed the registration yesterday, so I`ll wait a bit to see if he logs in for review - few days wont make a big difference if I have to wait a month for a new site review anyway.

People who are concerned about causing offense, generally don't. If you're sensitive to the trouble multiple suggestions might cause, you're simply not going to be causing trouble at a level to trigger defensive mechanisms. (It's the people who have the "I don't care what the rules are, I HAVE to be as rude as I can till I get my way" attitude who cause most of the world's problems.)

Now, this suggestion of yours. Will the new description help distinguish the site from all others on the web? (And I don't mean "Best/most whatever" hype garbage. I mean, "does it describe more accurately what information is available on the site, and where it comes from?"

"The best travel site on Purgatory, complete with advertising for all major travel companies" is no-content hype. "Sulfur Mines of Hell: 1997 travelogue by John Doe" is clearly specific about what content is there, and what authority it springs from. (purgatorytravel.com might well be cut-and-pasted by an idiot who's never been out of Limbo, and who's trying to hide the fact that he owns the identically-compiled paradisetravel.com, nifflheimtravel.com, and fifty-seven other domains. But geocities.com/johndoe/sulfurmines.htm claims the authority of a personal reputation and a personal experience.)

OK, with that in mind, think about your new suggestion. We get a lot of sites with totally-useless suggested descriptions like "come here for all your purgatory travel needs."

But a USEFUL description -- information without the hype -- will help the editor in two ways

(1) when looking for particular kinds of sites, it will immediately indicate whether or not your site is what he's looking for
(2) it gives a much better starting point for rewriting the ODP description

Now, will your new suggestion help the editor? If so, then go ahead and make it, PLEASE. Accurate, precise, concise, informative descriptions are a BIG help. And an editor who'd get irritated at two site suggestions isn't going to stay around long.

that's what I call a constructive reply thanks for your effort. i`ll try and resubmit my description as you all are suggesting it. Though it's not that big change - previously it was Learning Management System, but i want to change it to School Management System, as that is more accurate. I wouldn't say that the old description was bad - it's just a more general description. Another thing is that I didn't provide a login, but the best part of the site is only for authorized users, though without logging in, it's possible to understand what it's about, by reading the wiki etc. I will make a demo account for dmoz team, though I don't want it to be accessible for wider audience...
p.s.
I didn't think that all the listed sites are reviewed so deeply, because I've seen some, which even do not open, but are listed.

just one more thing - if i reapply my site again, than I'll have to wait at least 4 weeks again until the someone reviews it? In other words, my first submission which was before 3 weeks will not count anymore?

laudaksg said:

I didn't think that all the listed sites are reviewed so deeply, because I've seen some, which even do not open, but are listed.

Click to expand...

If you notice any such site please let us know and we will look into the situation an when necessary remove the site.
You can let us know bu making a post in our special thread
Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here ONLY

laudaksg said:

just one more thing - if i reapply my site again, than I'll have to wait at least 4 weeks again until the someone reviews it? In other words, my first submission which was before 3 weeks will not count anymore?

Click to expand...

Ehhh.. Why do you think a site must wait 4 weeks before it will be reviewed? A site can be reviewed a day after it is suggested. Ofcourse it can also be a week, a month, a year of even longer. There is no minimum and no maximum wait time between suggestion and review.

There's simply no connection between the time a site is suggested, and the time a site is reviewed. It's not like Bo Peep's sheep and their closely-dragged tails. Either one could happen first, either one could happen (if at all) years later. They are completely independent actions.

So no editor in his right mind would ever say, "I was looking for sites on Slobbovian Widgets three years ago, why did this person just now suggest this site?" (Doesn't that sound insane! But ... it's just as insane to say, "I was suggesting Slobbovian Widget sites three years ago, why is this editor just now looking for sites on that subject"!)

You don't _need_ an excuse for building a website 10 years after the ODP started up. And nobody's going to make any excuses for when an editor does anything either. You and the editor don't have any obligation to each other. You and the editor don't need excuses for what you do. Or don't do.

Be fair. Apply the same rules to yourself as you want to do to everyone else. _I_ have some volunteer work I've wanted someone to do for years now, and _you_ haven't lifted a finger to help. And ... that's OK. That's really OK. And it will still be OK if you NEVER lift a finger to help.

Now if we've all agreed on that, we can ask another question. This "Slobbovian Widget" category -- can a surfer usually find out what he wants to know about SW's?

--If so, then the ODP is working for the only person who matters.

--If not, maybe nobody in the Slobbovian Widget Crafting community is currently active at the ODP. Is that a failure of public interest in the SWCC members, or is that a failure of scope in the ODP? Does it even make sense to ask that question? If all the people in a community are that uninterested in the public portion of the web, then apparently, it must be that people who are interested in the public web aren't in that community. Logically, it doesn't matter which end of the stick you look at.

there's a whole new story now due to the small change of my description, I once again went trough directory listings and noticed that there is a better section where to submit the site. so I did submit it once again, but to a different section. the only problem is that there was not enough space to provide my demo account login - there is a separate address for demo login and it is quite long so all of it does not fit in description field (together with description of website).
should I submit my site for the third time? And in description field write only demo account info? maybe you can add a note to my url with the demo information?

a general suggestion - maybe it would be useful to provide a notes form for site submission, then such situations could be avoided...