Reporting dead links?

Hello,

I have a website for an actor. I've tried to add it a couple of times in the last 6 months and it hasn't been added yet. I've only just seen in the forum that it may take years so I'm not going to try again.

A few months ago though I tried to become an editor for that category. Because one of the links there has been dead for a long long time, another hasn't been updated in almost 2 years and there are 3 more sites about that actor (including my own) that are the only currently working sites for him and none of them has been added.
I've been rejected for becoming an editor because I have a site about him and they're afraid my opinion will be biased, which I find rather silly since, as I said, there are only 3 working sites for that actor and I wanted to add all three of them just the same.

But anyway, how come I recieved such a quick answer for my editor application, but my site application hasn't been answered yet?
And how do I report that dead link in the category? It has been dead for almost a year now and it's still there.

Thanks in advance,
Liron.

Hi Liron,

I've been rejected for becoming an editor because I have a site about him and they're afraid my opinion will be biased, which I find rather silly since, as I said, there are only 3 working sites for that actor and I wanted to add all three of them just the same.

Click to expand...

I didn't see your application, but as you say, that would not have been the reason. You apparently didn't show in your application that you would have been able to find and describe sites in an unbiased way; a lot of people for instance only supply their own site(s) as examples in the editor application, and that's always an immediate reject. Perhaps they would be able to find lots of good sites, but if they haven't showed it in the application there is no way for the reviewing meta editor to know. Unless you were explicitly asked not to apply again, there is no reason why you shouldn't send in another application -- a lot of good current editors had to re-apply because their first application(s) weren't up to standards.

But anyway, how come I recieved such a quick answer for my editor application, but my site application hasn't been answered yet?

Click to expand...

Because editor applications and site reviews are completely different processes. Editor applications are reviewed by a small group of editors (meta and catmod editors), and even though there may be several dozen applications sent in every day, many of them are quick rejects for one reason or another. In some categories, editor applications can wait for a long time, unfortunately -- "long time" in this case meaning "a couple of months". But since editors are the life-blood of the directory, we do try to deal with as many as possible as soon as possible, to get new people into the project.

Site suggestions, on the other hand, are reviewed by any editor with editing rights in the category in question -- but before that happens, one of those editors has to decide to take an interest in that area of the directory, and then decide to review suggested sites (rather than find new sites to review on his own, through other link sites or search engines). There are many other tasks than reviewing suggested sites, such as reviewing listed sites to check that they aren't dead, and with 600000+ categories, yeah, some of them are less well maintained than we'd like.

And how do I report that dead link in the category? It has been dead for almost a year now and it's still there.

Click to expand...

There is a thread in this forum: Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here. Another way of reporting non-working links or changed content is to go to the category and click "Update listing" at the top of the page and report the issue that way. We're very grateful for all help we get in these ways!

Thank you very much for your reply Nea,

I did give 3 sites in my application (one of them being my own) and I don't think the descriptions I gave looked biased at all, simply because I don't think that way, I'm all into giving the fans as many site options as possible and I'm happy he has more than my own site online Perhaps I'll try again.

Completely out of the blue though I noticed in my stats that someone from Dmoz visited my site and I haven't recieved any email or anything. Could this mean my site was rejected?
I know it's silly and I'm probably just being paranoid but it really feels that the editor who edits that category has something to do with one of the sites that are on there at the moment, seeing as that category hasn't been updated in a while, they rejected my editor application and don't seem to want to add any new sites, including my own.

An ordinary editor can't SEE your editor application, and has no say in whether it's granted. Editor applications are seen only by meta-editors and administrators.

And there is never a "the editor who edits" any category. No editor owns a category. Multiple editors may be listed on any category. And there are always literally HUNDREDS of editors who can edit any category -- the "unlisted" editors do the vast vast majority (over 90%) of all edits.

Another way of looking at this is: several thousand edits a day, several HUNDRED thousand categories: it's easy for one category to go for many days without anyone specifically working on it.

In other words: neglect is an extremely likely possibility, abuse is possible but (in the grand scheme of things) extremely rare.

Thanks Hutcheson, I had no idea it's like this.
I figured the same person who visited my site just now for the add a site option and the person who visited my site at the time when I applied to be an editor was the same because in my stats I see it's someone from the same country (and it's the United States or somewhere awefully big like that)
But I suppose that doesn't mean anything.

The reviewing meta-editor would naturally look at your suggested sites as part of looking at your application--not with a view towards adding the sites (if you are accepted, they are added to the "Unreviewed" pool, so they can be your first edits.)

Ok, thanks Hutcheson

And regarding what Nea said earlier, I've now re-sent my application to become an editor. I've tried to fully explain why I don't think my opinion in biased and that I really just want to do this to help out both Dmoz and the fans of that actor. I still have a feeling I'll be rejected though but I suppose I'll have to wait and see.

Ok, I am sorry to be bugging everyone again

I had several visits from dmoz in my site lately but I haven't been added nor have I heard anything back.
I don't actually remember reading around here about this - well I be informed if my site was rejected?
And on what basis can a site be rejected?

Because although I think there's nothing that could cause my site to be rejected, I'm still getting a little paranoid lol

And on what basis can a site be rejected?

Click to expand...

Simply put, a site can be declined if it does not have sufficient unique content to justify being included.

When editors begin to review a site, the mindset is usually one of "I am going to list the site unless the content (or lack of same) convinces me otherwise."

People often think that it is a matter of justifying getting in; but it is really a matter of not self-excluding oneself.

Hope this helps (and, no, you are not being a bother)

well I be informed if my site was rejected? And on what basis can a site be rejected?

Click to expand...

No, we don´t notify siteowners that proposed sites are not included in the directory. As for reasons for rejection, see the Guidelines.

"Is the glass half full, half empty, or just too large?"

I suspect most editors use several different "editing modes", switching back and forth from one to another depending on what we perceive as progress at the moment. In the end, progress is "finding unique content to add to the directory". But there are multiple intermediate stages.

There's "ugh, the suggestions have been piling up here. what can be done to make the pile less daunting?" (1) send foreign-language sites to "World", (2) check apparent-spam submittals to see if they are obvious-spam sites (an experienced editor can almost smell them, sometimes!); (3) send apparently-misplaced sites to a better category or subcategory, (4) look for the apparent-content sites to see if they are obvious-unique-content sites for immediate listing.

Then there is "forget the suggestions, I feel like reading about the Defenestration of Prague today. Let's see what we can find." and that might include (1) Google or alternative search engines, (2) other link collections, (3) printed material, (4) reviewing known authoritative sites, (5) even suggestions.

A lot of what happens makes more sense if you stop thinking of "suggestions" as "requests/demands/applications for help/services/promotion" and start thinking of them as "offered help finding good sites." There are in reality no "rejected sites", there are only "useless suggestions."

Now, if your question were rephrased to correspond with that reality, it would sound something like, "will I be informed if I am wasting the editor's time with useless communication?" And obviously, the answer to "useless communication" is "non-communication", not "more communication."

Ok, thanks for your answers.

Well in that praticular category there's no site that offers half as much as mine, seeing as all other sites that are actually in the category or might be added have either not been updated in the past decade or are closed. So, yeah, I do think I have useful content and see no reason for my site to be 'rejected'.
But then again, I suppose I'll never know if I've been rejected.. unless my site suddenly appears in the directory which doesn't seem like it's going to happen very soon lol