Site inclusion without submission

Ultraseeker · Feb 16, 2005

Does DMOZ occasionally include sites in its directory without anyone actually submitting a request? For example, a site that might be really popular or interesting.
Could an editor just add a site that he/she knows is good but isn't yet included in DMOZ?
Just wondering.

arubin · Feb 16, 2005

Yes. In fact, to become an editor, you are requested to find sites which aren't listed. In some categories, almost all sites are found by the editors, rather than being suggested by the public.

davidaus · Feb 18, 2005

Curiosity

Hi editor
This is just my curiosity, how does an editor usually pick up a site to be included in DMOZ directory ?
I new to webmaster. I've heard a lot of things regarding submission in DMOZ. It seems so hard to be included there. Does a site always has to be unique, rich in content ? How come i saw some site in certain categories seems not to be that good to be included in DMOZ ? Is this why people join as an editor so that their site will be included ?

Thanks

pvgool · Feb 18, 2005

There are a lot of way we find sites to be included. Local newspapers, search enigines, links on other sites and we even look at the suggested sites.

"I've heard a lot of things regarding submission in DMOZ"
I can asure you most of what you have heard / read is total nonsense. At least most I have ever read form people outside ODP about how we are and should be working is.

The only reason to be included is enough unique content.
We are aware of the fact that there are sites already included that wouldn't be by todays standards. In time we will find all these sites and remove them. If there are any major errors with a listing you can send us a message about them in this thread http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=160328#post160328

bobrat · Feb 18, 2005

You walk into a store, they give you excellent service. You pick up the business card, go home and see if it's listed in ODP, if not you add it to the pile to be reviewed [If you are an editor with access to that category, you add it immediately]

You don't have to be an editor to do that. See http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33414 .You help the public by making that store's web site more accessable, you help the store by perhaps providing them a few more customers.

Same thing applies anyone you do business with, your dentist, your massage therapist, etc

I give the store example, since generally stores are by definition unique. The store that's sells gourmet coffee by mail order is not so unique; the coffee store in your town, if not part of a chain, is unique.

davidaus · Feb 18, 2005

Thanks

Thanks for your reply.
I recently browse through DMOZ directory and saw some site that look like a banner farm but it is listed in DMOZ.

Then i start wondering : It would be truely unfair for potential and useful site nott to get listed in DMOZ but then that kind of banner farm is listed. Since DMOZ directory is playing a big role in Internet marketing, DMOZ should list those with real quality without placing too high standard. Thus, that small site who has the potential to grow big will still get the change to be listed.
This is what i'm wondering

Anyway, thanks for your answer. Just like what i said, it is only my curiosity

Thank you

pvgool · Feb 18, 2005

If you found a site that is only a banner farm please report it to us.

"DMOZ should list those with real quality without placing too high standard."
We will not lower our standard. Over time the standard will probably be raised as it has been done in the past.

"Thus, that small site who has the potential to grow big will still get the change to be listed."
We can not see in the future. So we only will list sites based on their current situation.

hutcheson · Feb 18, 2005

>Thus, that small site who has the potential to grow big will still get the change to be listed.

No, absolutely not. We don't review potential. We review current content. Because, as you have noted, site contents can go downhill just as easily (more easily) than up.

We made that mistake more in the early years, and, as you see, it was not a good decision. We won't go there again. Today, you should already have content comparable to the BEST sites already listed. Or expect to get rejected. The WORST sites, when we notice them (whether on our own cognizance or when someone points them out) get deleted -- they do NOT get used as an excuse to lower the bar for newly submitted sites.

davidaus · Feb 19, 2005

hutcheson said:
No, absolutely not. We don't review potential. We review current content. Because, as you have noted, site contents can go downhill just as easily (more easily) than up.

We made that mistake more in the early years, and, as you see, it was not a good decision. We won't go there again.

Sure, you do what you think is best. I'm just sharing what i'm thought with you.

spectregunner · Feb 19, 2005

Understood, and because a lot of people read (but never post), we never pass up a chance to try and educate the lurkers.

hutcheson · Feb 19, 2005

If a site is unique in content or focus, then obviously we'd consider listing it even if it were very small. If it's in a "competitive" niche, then ... well ...

In some areas (for instance, classified ads) the presence of an existing large site almost guarantees that a small competing site has NO potential.

See, everyone's better off looking in the large site first. So everyone's better off listing in the large site first ... and if everyone's looking at the first listing, what's the point of a second one ... so how is the little site going to GET content? -- when everyone on earth, both listers and lookers, is better off never looking at it?

In cases like that, we can't do what is best for surfers, but we do the best we can -- that is, not list the site. And the sooner it ceases to encumber the search engines, the better for everyone.

davidaus · Feb 19, 2005

Cheers

No, i don't read and go away, i'm here to learn from you big guys

Hopefully i can be a editor also.

Cheers

Ultraseeker · Mar 6, 2005

Give the little guys a break

hutcheson said:
If a site is unique in content or focus, then obviously we'd consider listing it even if it were very small. If it's in a "competitive" niche, then ... well ...

In some areas (for instance, classified ads) the presence of an existing large site almost guarantees that a small competing site has NO potential.

See, everyone's better off looking in the large site first. So everyone's better off listing in the large site first ... and if everyone's looking at the first listing, what's the point of a second one ... so how is the little site going to GET content? -- when everyone on earth, both listers and lookers, is better off never looking at it?

In cases like that, we can't do what is best for surfers, but we do the best we can -- that is, not list the site. And the sooner it ceases to encumber the search engines, the better for everyone.

So let's say someone submits a classified ads site that focuses on classic cars. And they have a great marketing team that turns up thousands of users (content). Wouldn't that be an exception? Although the megasite that's already listed could have an automotive section, that's not their niche.
If you were a classic car enthousiast wouldn't you find the site that focuses on what you're looking for worthy of bookmarking? I'm all for booting out spammers and cookie cutter sites, but if a site addresses a niche that is not oversaturated (like you point out) it makes sense to have it listed.
Thanks for all your work.
--J

oneeye · Mar 6, 2005

Every site is treated on its own merits and in comparison with others in the same business. On a broad range of criteria covering quantity, quality, uniqueness, etc. There isn't an exact formula you can apply to all sites, or we would use robots not human editors. Therefore we can't respond to hypothetical scenarios, only to actual websites. Trouble is we won't review actual sites here in this forum and the only place we respond to actual websites is in the review process after a site is submitted to us. And if we say no, we are unlikely to provide the exact reasons. In other words, you ain't gonna get an answer to your question, because, quite simply, it is impossible to answer.

hutcheson · Mar 6, 2005

Yes, a site that focuses on "classic cars" and has more "classic car" content than the big sites would be listable. (Although someone who has a stream of "thousands" of listings might already count as a "big" site.) That is precisely the kind of judgment the editors would be looking to make -- here's one classified ads site that lists two classic cars in Australia, a summer house in Michigan, a few dozen affiliate/drop-ship spam site listings, and ... potential? No, none of that here.

But a site that can focus -- that can actually deliver more classic cars (or Michigan beach houses) than the ODP or any other directory -- that's no longer potential. That's someplace it's worth sending a surfer today.

Site inclusion without submission

Ultraseeker

Member

arubin

Editall/Catmv

davidaus

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

bobrat

Member

davidaus

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hutcheson

davidaus

Member

spectregunner

Member

hutcheson

davidaus

Member

Ultraseeker

Member

oneeye

Member

hutcheson