Site lost! Was listed now I cant find it?

Strange issue Is to my knowledge I have not submitted outside of this nor have I submitted at all since it was included quite a while back. The unique part I believe is the forum (in wich I would have no issues of the link being right to the forum index) is kept up daily and has many extra features I wrote that I feel makes it quite unique (Yes I understand I am biased on this) but none the less in comparison to some others the features/extras are extensive in the industry. While on another hand the clean unique listings on the non forum pages are far from the basic "try and find the info in the clutter" type pages related to the industry so would that warrant a seperate entry in another category? That I would leave to editors to decide but I feel the best singe place would be the chats and forums but any input would be appreciated, and the hats off suggestion is well accepted but also adds a little confusion on multiple submision part.

Thanks again for the responses as I know I am just one of millions in the grand sceme of the directory.

In a case where a site has (among other kinds of content related to a subject) specific kinds of content related to a subject, we normally do not put that site in categories set up for sites containing only that specific kind of content. There are "exceptional cases" where deeplinking (by EDITORS) is allowed, but this is by no means, not at all, in no way an exceptional case.

We simply mention the various kinds of content in the one site listing.

And in any case, the submittal policy doesn't permit submitting deeplinks. Period, no exceptions.

Understood, as I figured and would be happy with the one.

I am just concerned though on the multiple submissions, not knowing how the submission works would that not allow compeditive sites to smap submisions to de-list a site (I assume there is a catch for such attacks)

Yeah, legal considerations aside, we don't delist functional and useful websites, no matter who asks .

Thats good to know, but also adds more to my misunderstanding of may have happened. I'll sit tight and wait like I promised before without submisions and see what happens, then try all over from scratch after a month or so.

Thanks,
Chris

Ok, Took the advise of you guys that run the board, and did a submission to the category I believe best suites the site and will make a reminder to check every few weeks to see if I get re-listed

Thanks again for the details of the process.

Chris

I noticed the new category I submitted my site to has no current editor, is this somthing I should be concerned with?

Also I applied to edit this one, although I have one of my sites as a candidate for the directory I believe the explination of why I want to be an editor would resolve that issue but I never seem to know anymore with the Dmoz

So questions in summary are

1. A category with no editor means a longer wait time? (I waited 11 months for a one month listing already)

2. Would a person be considered as an editor even though that person has a site out of a few that would be placed in that category as stated on the application?

Thanks again,
Chris

1. A category with no editor means a longer wait time? (I waited 11 months for a one month listing already)

Click to expand...

This is answered in our FAQ.

2. Would a person be considered as an editor even though that person has a site out of a few that would be placed in that category as stated on the application?

Click to expand...

This is answered in General advice about becoming an editor.

I went ahead and filed an abuse report with the assumption it may have been re-submitted by another site or was competing with an editors site as none of the above issues related to my situation. hopefully I can get an answer from that.

Not reviewing a site in the timespan the owner of that site wants is not abuse.
As stated in the faq

The time between submission and an editorial review ranges anywhere from two minutes to over two years

Click to expand...

And personaly I even noticed sites waiting 3 years before I reviewed them.

yes I know that, removing the site for no reason may be. After this thread I was contacted by an editor who will remain anonymous telling me to search on dmoz corrupt for the real reason my site was removed from the directory.

In no means did I place a abuse form for not reviewing my site.

A site is never listed nor is a site ever removed without a reason.

And please don't believe people claiming to be editors. Only here at R-Z you can be sure to be spoken to by people who are editors.

Would be real nice to hear the reson my site was removed then, thats all I have asked from the first post.

And as we have stated before. That is a question about the status of the site and we will not answer such questions anymore.

seriously.. why do you need any reason if you dont need to ever explain it, somthing about absolute power..

to sum it up, we removed your site for good reason, but nobody can tell what that is nor do we have to. Trust us...

thanks!

You seem to think that DMOZ is some kind of listing service which needs to explain thing to website owners. Well we are not a listing service, never have been and never will be.
If you would have bothered to read http://editors.dmoz.org/add.html you would have noticed.

Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion.

Click to expand...

It is always extremely unwise to argue with marketroids.

And the definition of a marketroid is one with whom every discussion focuses solely on "reasons" you should do what he wants.

It's like mud-wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it.

Google never seems to have to justify and make public - removal of sites, delayed listings of sites, sites failing to show up with high ranks in searches, lack of PR, etc. Why do people assume that we have to?

Why have regulations, FAQ's, and this forum? Seriously its just a gloat session that we will tell you nothing, although I was told a lot of things I did not do, when those ran out it went back to we dont tell you anything lol..

Its quite enjoyable really to try to find any logic in this forum.. Ill keep searching.

ctrenks, you have "absolute power" over your website. You can put whatever you want on it, and you can give it away to other people on whatever terms you wish. People can make suggestions about it, and you can do according to your best judgment, with those suggestions.

The ODP is really no different in that respect. The founders/sponsors/administrators have that same power. Just because it has a mission that lots of people are interested in, doesn't change that fact. Just because it produces a product that many people are interested in using, doesn't change that fact. Just because it invites people to volunteer to help, doesn't change that fact. Just because it has a well-earned reputation for providing good results to surfers, doesn't change that fact. And even just because it isn't perfect either in excluding all sites with nothing to contribute to its mission, or in including all sites that could contribute, doesn't change that fact.

Editors don't have the kind of responsibility (to you) that you are expecting. Instead, that responsibility is to the community. And we editors don't have the power that you think. If I fail to add a good site, many other editors can repair that breach. If I add a site that really doesn't contain anything like the community definition of "unique content" -- many other editors can repair THAT damage also. And editors do clean up after each other. (This fact should certainly be obvious to anyone, in THIS context!)

If editors seriously disagree about the value of a particular site, they'll discuss it in the editor forums: where people who have built a reputation for reviewing hundreds of thousands of sites (each!) will have their proper influence (i.e. considerable) and webmasters will have their proper influence (i.e. whatever is on the site itself.)

If there is no serious disagreement among editors about a site (which is the normal case), then there's nothing to discuss: whoever takes care of the site makes the judgment call.

And, in a category like this, with such obvious potential for abuse -- hey, whom am I kidding: with such MASSIVE abuse by affiliate-doorway and advertising-farm webmasters! -- your imaginary "competitor" is not going to be reviewing any substantial number of sites: instead, we're going to be relying on people who have established a reputation for honest dealing through thousands of edits across many parts of the directory. Because we don't want the directory to be like you imagine it is.