Seeking Clarification on DMOZ process

DMOZ Forum,

(I’m new to this arena) I have a few questions and one suggestion.

Suggestion:
Why couldn’t DMOZ provide a very simple (central) status/listing page that the editors could update monthly with a simple yes/no? (Even a brief area for a few comments of why site was rejected)... Why not? Was this tried before and there were problems? I do certainly understand that this forum is not the platform to try and sway the process.

My few questions about the process...

Since those who submit have no way of knowing status of their submission to DMOZ... HOW LONG CAN WE WAIT TO RESUBMIT?.. I ask as we are a new presence on the Web and I’m the graphic designer who recently has made significant changes and enhancements to our branding/content/image... (within the past month.)

Also, as I have been trying to gain knowledge about SEO in general, I am baffled by the following and wonder if there is literally a technical algorithm snag/’snafu’ related somewhere in this topic... even though I know DMOZ are human editors. Within the past week... our own little site became Numero “UNO” all over Alexa, MSN and Lycos for our industry/and area... While Google only has indexed our main page. After realizing that Alexa was also indexing our web images I submitted a Robots.txt file and the very next day we completely vanished from Alexa.

Why do I bring this up here? I read that Alexa is ‘fed’ by DMOZ at some level. I have been trying to understand what happened and is happening. We were popular because real users liked us. I don’t believe this is a coincidence. But I don’t know how we became so highly promoted in Alexa if DMOZ hasn’t listed us. (just confused).

Also, I have read that submission request/descriptions should not be written in a style that is ‘too promotional’... Is it cheating if I ask if there are examples of how to promote a site/business in a not too self-serving manner?

Thanks for any advice,
Kathy

Why couldn’t DMOZ provide a very simple (central) status/listing page that the editors could update monthly with a simple yes/no?

Click to expand...

http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=rz_faq#faq_discus_site lists some of the suggestions that have been made repeatedly that really aren't open for discussion here. This one is a suggestion that has been made (and discussed) numerous times over the years and it just isn't going to happen any time soon. http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=status_faq_item#faq_how_many explains some of the reasons why.

HOW LONG CAN WE WAIT TO RESUBMIT?..

Click to expand...

http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_site_questions#faq_wait

Why do I bring this up here? I read that Alexa is ‘fed’ by DMOZ at some level. I have been trying to understand what happened and is happening. We were popular because real users liked us. I don’t believe this is a coincidence. But I don’t know how we became so highly promoted in Alexa if DMOZ hasn’t listed us. (just confused).

Click to expand...

This forum really isn't the place for a discussion of Alexa.

Also, I have read that submission request/descriptions should not be written in a style that is ‘too promotional’... Is it cheating if I ask if there are examples of how to promote a site/business in a not too self-serving manner?

Click to expand...

Pretend you don't have a stake in the success of the site. Think less in terms of "promoting" the site and more in terms of describing the site. "Manufactures widgets and thingamahoo accessories. Includes company background, widget database, and sizing chart." would be non-promotional. "Top widget company since 1980. Manufactures the highest quality blue widgets, red widgets, green widgets, midgie widgets, widget holders, thingamahoo accessories, thingamahoo parts, thingamahoo gadgets, and other widget and thingamahoo products. Best on the Web!" Would be promotional.

Ultimately the editor who reviews your site will probably end up rewriting most, if not all of your suggested description if what you suggest is promotional.

Kathy Meriage said:

Suggestion:
Why couldn’t DMOZ provide a very simple (central) status/listing page that the editors could update monthly with a simple yes/no? (Even a brief area for a few comments of why site was rejected)... Why not? Was this tried before and there were problems? I do certainly understand that this forum is not the platform to try and sway the process.

Click to expand...

It has been discussed many times inside and outside DMOZ.
There are 2 main reasons why it isn't available:
- it doens't offer anything usefull for DMOZ, its editors or its customers (and no, webmasters are not our customers)
- DMOZ has only a limited number of development capacity available, we spend this on things that are usefull for DMOZ, its editors or its customers

Kathy Meriage said:

My few questions about the process...

Since those who submit have no way of knowing status of their submission to DMOZ... HOW LONG CAN WE WAIT TO RESUBMIT?.. I ask as we are a new presence on the Web and I’m the graphic designer who recently has made significant changes and enhancements to our branding/content/image... (within the past month.)

Click to expand...

Normaly there is no reason to suggest a site more than once.
But if the site was suggested the first time without enough content (which would have been against our guidelines) and you now have added large amounts of unique content a new suggestion would be appropriate.

Kathy Meriage said:

Also, as I have been trying to gain knowledge about SEO in general, I am baffled by the following and wonder if there is literally a technical algorithm snag/’snafu’ related somewhere in this topic... even though I know DMOZ are human editors. Within the past week... our own little site became Numero “UNO” all over Alexa, MSN and Lycos for our industry/and area... While Google only has indexed our main page. After realizing that Alexa was also indexing our web images I submitted a Robots.txt file and the very next day we completely vanished from Alexa.

Click to expand...

Sorry, we don't have knowledge about how Alexa / Google / MSN / Lycos do their stuff. That is why in this forum only questions about DMOZ will be answered.

Kathy Meriage said:

Also, I have read that submission request/descriptions should not be written in a style that is ‘too promotional’... Is it cheating if I ask if there are examples of how to promote a site/business in a not too self-serving manner?

Click to expand...

DMOZ is not about promoting sites at all. Just look at sites already listed in the category where you are suggesting a site to see how titles and descriptions should be written.

If a site has not yet been reviewed then there is no need to resubmit: that just makes the suggestion look newer (and that does not help you when an editor goes looking for old suggestions to work on first).

If a site has been reviewed and listed, then there is no need to resubmit at all.

If a site has been reviewed and rejected then there is no way we want to see that site again. Resubmitting is usually pure spam. If however, more than a year has elapsed and the site has changed a LOT then it might be possible to resubmit.

The only thing I can tell you about Alexa is that its rankings are based on the stats it gets back from the Alexa toolbars people install in their browser. It therefore is a very skewed statistic as it doesn't include non-toolbar users (the majority of internet users).

I spent a little time reading through the logic of why DMOZ no longer provides status reports. I do understand on one hand that, yes it becomes an incentive for those rejected to keep submitting... AND that DMOZ does not want to see these same submissions.

This is only my opinion, What I think DMOZ is underestimating in this decision is human nature and first impressions about how we humans respond to the world, who/what we see as attractive, etc. including Web Sites... period. And this has much less to do with content than it does presentation... graphic design, functionality, layout, color, branding, etc. If a master quality Widget maker who has perfected his craft has a site designed by a webmaster who hasn’t, then Widget maker isn’t encouraged in any manner by the status quo here in this scenario. On the Web, Presentation itself IS hugely important. In fact, it is hugely important everywhere. And contrary to what DMOZ seems to be suggesting... Web sites aren’t static, nor should they be... looking the same way in two years.

Kathy Meriage said:

And contrary to what DMOZ seems to be suggesting... Web sites aren’t static, nor should they be... looking the same way in two years.

Click to expand...

Could you point us to where you read this (or thought you read it). We all know how site can change over the years. Why else would we spend so much time checking already listed sites.

If a master quality Widget maker who has perfected his craft has a site designed by a webmaster who hasn’t

Click to expand...

Which is ofcourse always much better than a webmaster who can build perfect looking sites but where the widget maker doesn't tell anyting usefull.

If a master quality Widget maker who has perfected his craft has a site designed by a webmaster who hasn’t, then Widget maker isn’t encouraged in any manner by the status quo here in this scenario.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're misreading what you've read here because the opposite is true with regards to the ODP -- a widget maker who has an ugly-looking site stands just as much of a chance of being reviewed by an editor as a widget maker with a state-of-the-art, whiz bang site because the design of the site isn't what we are looking at. Some of the most content-rich sites I've seen have designs that make you wonder if their five-year-old made it. And some of the most content-light, useless sites I've seen have had beautiful designs and graphics.

And contrary to what DMOZ seems to be suggesting... Web sites aren’t static, nor should they be... looking the same way in two years.

Click to expand...

That's why we as editors don't really consider the design of the site when reviewing a site (unless the design makes the site unusable). Attractiveness is too subjective -- what I find attractive, you might not and vice versa. It's the content that is important from our point of view.

What I think DMOZ is underestimating in this decision is human nature and first impressions about how we humans respond to the world

Click to expand...

Thinking about this, you would be more right in saying the reverse - that DMOZ does actually understand about human nature and first impressions about how we humans respond to the world.

People can be mislead by the professionalism or otherwise of a site to make a snap-decision. We ignore the first impressions to find out what is there. As motsa says it is the content that is important.

regards

What motsa said.

I fondly remember one of the few sites I found ... AND listed ... AND marked "cool" ... AND wrote a letter to the webmaster.

It had a primitive color scheme, and an utterly-primitive text-based layout that broke--big-time--if the window-size, browser, or font-size was different than the designer used.

But, for its topic, it was the ultimate resource. It had hundreds of pages of unique information, from multiple sources, with obvious thought given to how it might be used by visitors.

My font size was "wrong", so reviewing the site was somewhat painful. But it was worth it to discover the effort that had been put into it.

Not "webmaster" effort. Not "graphics designer" effort. But modern thought genuinely dedicated to presenting classic human thought in context to visitors.

Now, understand, I have my own ideals of website design, and I hate to see a good site fall short of them. Besides that, I know I have no sense of graphic layout, but I do sometimes appreciate a well-coordinated design. So I can dimly recognize that there exist design and critical skills I simply don't have. But editing privileges aren't given to people to enforce their own ideals of website design, let alone their own graphics-critical skills, and using editing privileges that way would be abuse.

On the second point: web sites aren't "static", but to be listable, they need to be "stable". That is, basically, a given site should reasonably be expected to remain an expression of the same person, and more or less the same kind of expression.

As you say, the cosmetics may keep changing. But that part doesn't matter to us.

Which may clear up one bit of confusion. A lot of people seem to think that when a site is rejected, there will be some reason we can give them -- some little cosmetic thing that they can change and get the site accepted. But since we don't reject sites for that reason, changing it won't affect a site rejection. It's all just putting a brighter shade of lipstick on the pig.

I do understand that this is human edited, and that it take alot of time and effort, but I think many peoples issue is the fact that once they submitt a site.....so they know for sure it was submitted?...did it really get there? was the subnission lost or accidently deleted some how? these are all very real possibilities and HUMAN errors indeed.


every thing I have read about this project is about the quality of the sites included, but many times I wonder about that.

I submitted my 2 sites i own, one happens to offer in home computer repair some thing that hardly anyone in my area offers, so after about six months of watching and not seeing my site up I discovered that the ONLY computer repair web site in my area was this <url removed> which is simple a place holder not even a real clickable website. if this indeed is the type of quality websites this project seeks it is sure to suffer a huge crash and burn.

now I did not make this post to flame anyone, nor to insult anyone, how ever the way to contact anyone from the site about concerns are very limited, if not non-existant. I have seen in many posts in this forum where editors are not to kind to posters, keep in mind YOU as an editor is a direct reflection on the site it's self and the sucess of it.

But if you indeed are going to make claims about ONLY including sites with useful information please stand by those standards.

Thanks
Geek

That site was listed in the directory many years ago, when the site appears to have had a little more content and our quality requirements were less stringent. But you're absolutely right that it doesn't have enough content to list now -- thank you for pointing it out to us.

You are very welcome...but actually...that is all that site has EVER been, I keep a close eye on my competition

Archive.org showed it had some other very minor content years ago but even if it hadn't, as I wrote, that was back in the days when our quality requirements were less stringent and business-card sites were OK in Regional. That is no longer the case.