/Regional/Middle_East/Iraq/News_and_Media/

For over a year I did send suggestion to this category with of course no replay of why the suggestion was denied or wasn't reviewed at all. I did submit it a few times but I certainly was not spamming.

My point is, there is 15 links in this category out of which some are more than poor websites. There is one website which only displays Yahoo RSS from Iraq and Google ads?!? (Is editor of this category owner of this website as well?)

The website I am trying to get listed has now over 9000 articles that are categorised and many are translated from Arabic newspapers by our staff (not available anywhere else in English sources). As well we provide separate RSS channel not only for Iraq as country, but for each sector (energy, politics, economy, Kurdistan …)

So I really do not understand how the Google ads + yahoo rss 1 page site gets listed as a “good contents website” and our 9000 articles with (average 200 new articles a week) is not good enough.

I seriously doubt the objectiveness of the DMOZ

I hope Google will start soon its own directory.

It appears that you do not understand the concept under which ODP works. A primary thing to realize is that since all editors are volunteers, and sites may not be reviewed with the urgency that you might wish.

If you want fast and furious response, then of course you may use Yahoo or similar directories and pay for the privilege.

You, as many others before you, somehow construe this lack of fast action as some kind of lack of objectivity, or even as evidence of editor corruption. Or perhaps you may choose to believe that your site was rejected by an editor, when in all likelihood an editor has not looked at it yet.

Perhaps a reading of the FAQ (linked from the tool bar above) may help to broaden your understanding.

Bear in mind that a site may be reviewed the day after it is suggested, or it may sit around for months or years. It's a function of whether an editor is interested in the categroy, how much time he/she is willing to spend, and the number of other sites that might fit in the category. Alsonote that sites never suggested may be found and added by editors. It's best ot think that the time when a site is reviewed is entirely random.

I hope Google will start soon its own directory.

Click to expand...

Well, then. I guess that pretty well sums it up. You have spammed our directory with multiple submissions -- even though we tell you to only submit once. You believe we are corrupt and hope we will fail.

How could we possibly provide an answer that would satisfy you?

Is website with Google Ads banners and 20 headlines from yahoo RSS feed a good content website?

It’s been over a year since we first submit the suggestion about our website, at that time we had around 5000 articles

The purpose of DMOZ is that it’s a human edited directory and a human decides if a website has good quality content, am I right? So is Google ads site with RSS feed good quality content? Or someone who provides nothing on country dot net domain is making a loot of money on click through website that is no more than 2 days worth of work??? When I go to a site through a “human edited” directory I don’t want to come to a click through site. Is may be this a “concept” of ODP???

I admit that I am frustrated that our site is not listed but why sites with poor contents are listed at all?

spectregunner said:

Well, then. I guess that pretty well sums it up. You have spammed our directory with multiple submissions -- even though we tell you to only submit once. You believe we are corrupt and hope we will fail.

How could we possibly provide an answer that would satisfy you?

Click to expand...

In over a year i did submit it 3 - 4 times, is that spamming?

No - just mindless - you won't be kicked off the list for that

My usual analogy is that it's like going to a bakery to buy a bag of bagels. After waiting for 10 minutes to get served you get tired of waiting and walk to the back of the line.

Twenty minutes later, you get tired of waiting and walk to the back of the line.

Thirty minutes go by and you get tired of waiting and walk to the back of the line......

Ok, i know you will remove the url's but i am going to be more specific

ODP only lits websites with unique contents, no copy or mirrors. Correct me if i am wrong

the category i am refering to is Yahoo news - full coverage of Iraq

iraq dot net is RSS from the above Yahoo RSS + google ads - what is this site offering? what unique is on this site, why are sites like this listed?

Do you see my point? Why is this happening as i have noticed this is not the only webite with "no original contets" listed in OPD

Is very difficult to see any credibility in ODP apart from "lets get in to get higher PR"

Marfy, have you read this forums FAQ yet?

It explains that this is a volunteer organisation and that editors work where and when they wish within the scope of their permissions. We don't tell editors what to do and editing work is not scheduled. This means that elapsed time to review can range from a few days to a few years.

bobrat already explained this pretty well in response to your initial post.

Editors work on what interests them, not according to the demands of others.

Posting here will not expedite a website's evaluation. Neither will it swing ODP from working how it wants to operate to how website owners want it to operate.

If you have specific quality issues with existing listings, please report them in the Quality Control Feedback thread.

Now, please respect the editors here for the volunteer work that they put in, even though it might not be targeted where you'd like it to be.

There are two aspects which result from the same issue.

Firstly sites get added to a category when an editor has the time and inclination to edit in that category. When a category is first built up, the editor is listing the best sites that they can find at the time. A new site may very well be far superior to sites already listed but still has to wait to be reviewed.

Over a period of time, sites already listed may become moribund, out-of-date, change owners or content, die etc etc Our automated tools will find and unlist those that become unreachable, but we rely on human eyes to detect thse whose content has changed. It may be that originally a site offered unique content, but later switched to using just feeds or affiliate content.

So secondly, sites will not be rereviewed unless an editor has the time and inclination to do a quality run on a category or the site is reported as not meeting our guidelines.

regards

ok

I did report the site at Quality Control Feedback thread. Let's see how many weeks or years it will take to review it.

The editors who volunteer to work in that quality control thread are pretty passionate about what they do. If your comments are valid, I'd be surprised if action wasn't taken within days .

To repeat what I said earlier:

Now, please respect the editors here for the volunteer work that they put in, even though it might not be targeted where you'd like it to be.

Click to expand...

Snarky remarks don't do that and are extremely unlikely to advance your cause. We don't operate on a he who shouts loudest or he who is most offensive gets served first basis.

Thank you jimnoble

I do understand that the volunteer reviews the site at his/her own will.

But nobody can possible say that the site I have reported has any useful information, it is just a click through site that should not appear in any "human edited" directory at all. I if see this and similar websites go I will apologize and quietly wait to be listed eventually.

But before than (removal of the junk site, not listing of our site) I do believe that DMOZ is a private club

My apology, the link I did report a few hours ago was removed, I am impressed.

I think a lot of people only think of the ODP in terms of adding sites but fail to appreciate the difficulty of maintaining quality in the sites we have already listed. Whilst non-editors cannot make the process of adding sites go any faster, they can help in identifying sites that perhaps should no longer be listed.

regards.

When you find a site with poor content listed, sometimes it is interesting to check the Internet Archive to see if the content has changed. Watching the evolution of sites over time is sort of a side effect of being a long-time editor. Some get better, some don't grow, and some self-destruct.