Regarding the frequent complaints about submission status

The classic line of "Websites are generally declined for only one reason - they don't meet our requirements.".

I have several sites that are top notch quality, getting tens of thousands of page views monthly, and yet 1.5 years later after probably 4 submissions still not accepted into the dmoz. Yet porn sites left right and center are accepted. What makes things even more difficult to comprehend is the fact that my competitors are listed even though their sites are no where near as good nor traffic'd.

Now, I (probably just like hundreds others) did try to apply for editor of my category (which was around 6 levels deep under my country, so it was very specific and not general). First I was rejected due to 'insufficent details', so I re-applied providing a wealth of details, rejected again, re-applied again putting pretty much my entire life's story in writing and yet rejected again. If dmoz is looking for editors with an Batchelors/Masters degree in English and writing why not just post it on the guidelines page?

I totally agree there has to be some sort of tracking system for link submissions. The whole 'no response' if your either accepted or rejected is absolutely rediculous. Like come on, a courtesy email of some sort notifying you your link submission was rejected would be highly appreciated instead of... nothing. This would also no doubt elminate all duplicate submissions.

Lastly, if there is really 80k editors on the dmoz, where are they? More than likely most of them applied just to get their stuff listed and then disappear, or they purposely reject urls if they compete to their own... There should be a rule, if they aren't active once a week they get kicked out to make room for others who actually want to help. If all 80k editors actually log in once a day or week they could easily burn through the queue in no time. Obviously they don't. Yes I do realize it is a volunteer job, once a week for maybe 30 minutes tops is nothing for even the busiest person.

Not trying to offend any editors here, I'm yet another confused/disappointed webmaster praying some day my links will be included.

If dmoz is looking for editors with an Batchelors/Masters degree in English and writing why not just post it on the guidelines page?

Click to expand...

Probably because we're not. The main criteria would be that you're able to write to a good standard in the language of the category you're applying to, have the desire to improve the directory, show honesty and integrity, and have the ability to follow and learn from instructions.

...after probably 4 submissions...

Click to expand...

So you didn't follow the part of the submission instructions that says very clearly that you should only suggest your site once...

if there is really 80k editors on the dmoz...

Click to expand...

The ~80,000 number is the total number of editors who have ever had editing accounts. The total number of active editors at present is somewhere around 5,500.

There should be a rule, if they aren't active once a week they get kicked out to make room for others who actually want to help

Click to expand...

It's a common misconception that less active editors are in some way taking up space that could be used by other editors. In reality, editors have permissions in one or more categories, but nothing stops other editors with permissions there from also making edits in those categories, nor prevents people applying to edit categories that already have editors. Furthermore, there already is an automatic time-out mechanism that disables accounts that aren't used for three months.

I have several sites that are top notch quality, getting tens of thousands of page views monthly, and yet 1.5 years later after probably 4 submissions still not accepted into the dmoz. Yet porn sites left right and center are accepted. What makes things even more difficult to comprehend is the fact that my competitors are listed even though their sites are no where near as good nor traffic'd.

Click to expand...

What is REALLY difficult to comprehend is why people think ODP editors KNOW which sites are traffic'd, and which are untraffic'd.

Or how people think we know before even reviewing a site how good it is, and how many other, equally unseen, sites are better than it.

That's impossible. We just review one site at a time. We don't care whether it's traffic'd. We just ask, "does THIS site have enough unique content to be listed?" If yes, we list. If no, we don't. Then we start all over, with another site.

I totally agree there has to be some sort of tracking system for link submissions.

Click to expand...

There is such a system. It's open to all volunteer editors--that is, to anyone who's made a credible demonstration of ability to use it, and willingness to use it to build the directory.

Like come on, a courtesy email of some sort notifying you your link submission was rejected would be highly appreciated instead of... nothing.

Click to expand...

Think about it. What advantage to building the directory would this give?

This would also no doubt elminate all duplicate submissions.

Click to expand...

You're partly right. There is absolutely no doubt. And partly wrong. This wouldn't BEGIN to eliminate duplicate suggestions. Dozens of people have told us, explicitly, they wanted to know they had been rejected SO THEY COULD SUBMIT AGAIN! And when you think about it, there's no other possible practical reason anyone would WANT to know you'd been rejected. The simple fact, confirmed by experience, is that rejections would INCREASE duplicate submissions.

Lastly, if there is really 80k editors on the dmoz, where are they?

Click to expand...

Several thousand are active, and several hundred are "very active".

More than likely most of them applied just to get their stuff listed and then disappear

Click to expand...

By simple arithmetic, on average, editors have added over 100 sites each (since over the years at least 8-10 million sites have been added.) By simple logic, 80,000 editors who added their own site and disappeared would be 1% of the directory--insignificant by any measure.

or they purposely reject urls if they compete to their own...

Click to expand...

Duh. A directory doesn't get built by rejecting URLs. It got built by adding URLs. The ODP has rejected fewer URLs than any other directory ever built. This is not rocket science, this is simple arithmetic.

There should be a rule, if they aren't active once a week they get kicked out to make room for others who actually want to help.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever has to be kicked out to "make room." And kicking out wouldn't make room, anyway. Each new volunteer has to make his own room, by showing he can find something to do (without needing suggestions.)

If all 80k editors actually log in once a day or week they could easily burn through the queue in no time.

Click to expand...

The object of the exercise isn't burning the queue, it's building a directory. The directory could be built, has been built, and is in places being built, without even flicking a spark in the direction of the queue.

The queue will only get burned if (in the judgment of the people doing the burning) that's the best way to build a category. The people with the most experience in category-building will, without exception, tell you that the queue is usually NOT the best source of good sites. And THAT should tell you SOMETHING.

Not trying to offend any editors here, I'm yet another confused/disappointed webmaster praying some day my links will be included.

Click to expand...

I'm yet another editor hoping some industrious webmaster will create a site I want to link to. I've got a little list. Actually, I've got a long list. (And thanks to all those who have worked on it.)

The world would be a better and more generous place if the proportion of thanksgiving to prayers in common discourse could be inverted.

Click to expand...

Hello,

Thanks for providing some insight on my questions/issues.

The whole 80k editors is very misleading, never knew there was only a few thousand active which now explains why there is a delay. It's like me advertising my site receives over 20 million page views. Not specifying whether it's daily/monthly/yearly/lifetime makes that fact totally useless.

"This wouldn't BEGIN to eliminate duplicate suggestions"
- yes and no, if whoever manages this directory (aol?) would spend even 1 week developing some tools this process would run much smoother. For example, if an editor rejects a URL then it goes into a queue to get re-evaluated in x months for example. Any future submissions from the same url would just be discarded. Then a simple notification email sent out to the webmaster stating their site would be re-evaluated in x months and there is no need to resubmit. Obviously there must be reasons or logic why such tools are not implemented.

"What advantage to building the directory would this give?"
- the most obvious, efficiency. do you really like to re-evaluate the same websites over and over?

"So you didn't follow the part of the submission instructions that says very clearly that you should only suggest your site once..."
- websites are constantly evolving, mine for example get new facelifts every few months. For all I know (since there is no notification system) my site was rejected within a month of submission, and since my sites have new designs/content etc I should have the right to resubmit it as there is a good chance it has new value to the ODP...

I understand your points of view and thanks for clarifying some of my questions. I'll leave you all alone now. Have a great day all, now go approve some sites

By failing to list sites, commercial or otherwise, you remove choice from the user.

Click to expand...

This is true for every directory, search engine or website - if your website has a links page, do you link to all the websites on the internet?. Search engines choose to present only the sites that meet their criteria and will not list others (and boast about it e.g. Results 1 - 100 of about 155,000,000 - can I get to result number 154,999,999?). We have limited resources and, like them, present users with our selection. All methods of selection, whether human or automated, limit the choice of the user except the choice to go elsewhere - if DMOZ/ODP does not give you the results you want, try a search engine, if they fail, try another search engine and so on. It's a competitive market out there, whether we like it or not, and the choice is between services provided.

Ultimately, anything and everything that might be of use to one person is potentially worthy of including provided it doesn't violate the reasonable DMOZ guidelines.

Click to expand...

That is where DMOZ/ODP's strength is. When I work on a village category, I list precisely those sort of sites and end up with a selection that, for that one moment in time, is 'The World's Best Selection' ( ) of sites for that village. (Of course whilst I am doing that, I have to ignore the other X million villages, topics, etc). Most search engines will miss half the sites and the rest are buried in amoungst the 'top quality' find-a-plumber-in sites who get lots of traffic because they are the sort of sites listed by search engines. (of course the information they provide is usually along the lines of 'Sorry we do not know of any plumbers in x - if you do can you let us know' )

sites that are top notch quality, getting tens of thousands of page views monthly,

Click to expand...

hmm, a site gets lots of traffic because they are presented by search engines so they are top notch quality whilst a site not high in the SERPs won't get so much traffic and therefore aren't top quality The logic of this escapes me. If the village has a plumber and his site is good enough, we list the plumber despite the fact he may only get 1 visit a week. Despite the 'find-a-plumber' getting tens of thousands of visits, he won't get listed in that village.

they could easily burn through the queue in no time.

Click to expand...

Um, how long do you think a review takes? A bread-and-butter site (e.g. local shop) could be done quickly as it is simple and straightforward (5-10 minutes) whereas (say) a specialist manufacturer of plastic products targetting his commercial audience could take hours for an editor who doesn't know much about plastics. In certain areas, a site can take hours just checking that, unlike the other 99% suggested in that area, it is genuine.

regards

For example, if an editor rejects a URL then it goes into a queue to get re-evaluated in x months for example.

Click to expand...

That's a good example. The hidden assumptions are:

(1) There ARE any "queues"--that is, collections of future required actions with priorities or deadlines. (But in reality, there aren't.)

(2) If a site is rejected, there's still a significant chance it could be accepted in the future. (But in reality, on averages, we'd do better to NEVER re-review ANY site until ALL sites on the internet had been reviewed at least once. At least an unreviewed site has a 2% chance of being listable--that's not something you can say of the reviewed-and-rejected sites.)

(3) The big gaps in the ODP are among the suggested sites. (In reality, it's the webmasters who focus on their content so much, they'd NEVER think of going around the web promoting it, that we want to find, and that we're often missing. We've got a good handle on suggested sites: they won't be lost until they're listed -- or considered not worth listing. But if anyone has any ideas about how to find the promoted sites... now THAT would be help!)

If it can't be operated to commercial timescales, don't allow it to be the 'definitive' source of data for leading search engines. (bolding added)

Click to expand...

How other people/entities decide to use the directory is up to them, within certain legal guidelines. The fact some SEs use the ODP/DMOZ is their choice, not ODP/DMOZ's. How should we DISallow such?