Site Stats show a visit from DMOZ Editor...

I found a stat on my site that started like this:
http://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev.cgi?site=2872&cat.....
It was on September 4th, only 3 days ago, and they clicked through the "index", "about" & "contact" pages.

Does this mean my site is in the process of being reviewed? I did submit it a couple of weeks ago, I am not asking for submission STATUS, just trying to figure out if this means it is getting looked at for review.

And if that is what it means, does it normally get placed into the directory right away, or does it take a while before it gets listed? Or, since it hasn't gone into the directory right away, does it mean they have rejected it for some reason?

I apologize if this information is listed elsewhere, I could not find it using the search tool.

Thank you for any information you can provide,
Jane

It means nothing, absolutely and completely nothing.

It might have been an editor, and if it was it is imposible to guess what the editor's intentions were.

Let me give you a few extreme examples (mind you I have not looked at your site):

Example 1: It may have been an editor looking to see if your site qualified for a listing. The editor might have found enough unique content to justify a listing, and has gone ahead and listed the site -- it a few days it would then appear onthe public side.

Example 2: It may have been an editor looking to see if your site qualified for a listing. The editor discovered that the site was unlistable, and deleted the submission.

Example 3: It may have been an editor looking to see if your site qualified for a listing. The editor discovered that your site is incomplete and either deleted the submission or parked it someplace where it will get checked again in a few months.

Example 4: It may have been an editor looking to see if your site qualified for a listing. The editor got such a headache looking for anything unique that he left it inthe submission pool where it will languish for an unspecificed period of time in the hopes that the unique content fairy wil visit it and make it better.

Example 5: It may have been an editor chasing links from other websites in the hope of finding gold. The eidtor may or may not have taken any action.

(Should I keep going? We've got dozens of these examples. )

The point is that server logs really tell you nothing. I've had sites that I've visited easily a dozen times over several months before I could finally decide what to do with it. I can imagine that the webmaster was going nuts -- or was doing the smart thing and ignored his logs and waited patiently for the site to appear.

The good news is that you have most likely been looked at by an editors -- which is uslaly better than being totally ignored.

Thank you for such a quick response!

I sure hope it's not #2 or #4! My site is fairly small and of a very "niche" type item, very local as well as I have to deliver/setup the product. (I also submitted it to the proper Regional...Local catagory)

I will keep waiting and if I haven't seen it listed in a month or so I will request a status in the proper forum. Again thank you for such a quick response! And have a GREAT day! --Jane

I haven't seen it listed in a month or so I will request a status in the proper forum.

Click to expand...

Err, make that 6 months please

confused...

From the Status folder:

WHEN TO POST
"Wait at least one month after you last (not first time) submitted your site to start a thread here asking about its status."

--It hasn't even been one month since I submitted it, and I haven't submitted it again.

"Wait at least six months after getting a status update from an editor about your submission before asking for the next status update."

-- Is telling me it MIGHT have been looked at considered a "status report"?

Am I not understanding the rules here? --Jane

You are correct, you have never received a status report, so once 30 days has passed since the most recent submission, you are entitle to a check, and then once every six months thereafter.

Thanks again!

Glad to see I wasn't being "Blond" again. --Jane