Site status check

Sorry if I repeat something what has been discussed before.

My idea is this: How about to create some automated function for checking the site submission status.

Example: There will be some link saying "Check site status in DMOZ". After clicking, there will be a simple form which asks for a domain. After clicking on the "Check" button, man will get one of these answers:

1) Your site isn't listed in dmoz and hasn't been submitted yet.
2) Your site is already listed in dmoz (category/categories).
3) Your site is awaiting review and it is XXX days since submission was received.
4) After review, we decided to reject your site which was submitted on MM/DD/YYYY.

I think it would help people who don't know anything about their sites' status. Including me .

This has been discussed earlier in this Forum, please do a search.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it´s not something we´re considering to implement at the moment.

Actually, it is even in the FAQ: Well, if you won't do status checks here anymore, why don't you provide an automatic status reporting system for URL listing suggestions?

windharp said:

Actually, it is even in the FAQ: Well, if you won't do status checks here anymore, why don't you provide an automatic status reporting system for URL listing suggestions?

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I always say what's in my mind, so let's go through reasons why automated tool isn't used here. Please, don't take it badly. I'm a programmer, so this is the reason why I'm telling you this. It isn't anything personal.

We have very limited programming resources and we prefer to focus them on improving the directory itself and the tools that our editors use.

I think such function can be finished in 1 day. If I was able to create my own directory script in 3 hours, it wouldn't be difficult to create simple SELECT from the database.

We have finite server capacity. This would be adversely affected by automated status enquiries from anxious site owners.

There are ways how to prevent server from automated queries. For example, image verification, IP verification (too many requests = ban)

Some areas of the directory suffer from a deluge of websites that don't satisfy our listing requirements. An automated status reporting system would make the resubmittal of declined websites more efficient. This is hardly constructive.

Many requests = Automated deletion of such URLs submission. For example, let's say some site is submitted more than twice a month = ban for next 1 year or even more. Nothing complicated .

Let's say "many requests" = 15+ requests (from one IP, or for 1 domain) during 1 hour.

Anyway, I understand you can't realize every improvement since we are not customers of dmoz and dmoz isn't our servant.

Well, first of of all: We don't have a database. The ODP is - due to historical reasons - based upon a flat file system.

There are ways how to prevent server from automated queries.

Click to expand...

Yes, if you have enough programmer resources, that is true.

Our main problem is that the amount of staff time we get are not even sufficient to fix our bugs we have in a realistic timeframe. So we try to limit new features to the essential ones.

Many requests = Automated deletion of such URLs submission. For example, let's say some site is submitted more than twice a month = ban for next 1 year or even more. Nothing complicated

Click to expand...

Oh yes, it is. Let's imagine you own an internet business. Do you know who your competitors are? Do you know their websites? Okay, I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

third one

Yeah, that's why another improvement could be useful: Only a webmaster (or editor possibly) can submit his/her site and submission must be confirmed through email. Moreover, submission should be done from email which belongs to submitted domain. Simple.

As I mentioned above, I respect your answers anyway.

Only a webmaster (or editor possibly) can submit...

Click to expand...

Well, most editors wouldn´t see that as an improvement. ODP isn´t designed for webmasters to submit their sites (there are lots of other directories doing that), it´s open for anyone to suggest sites they think others should be able to find. And editors are alreday capable of adding non-submitted sites.

I'm enjoying your calm demeanor and your logic, janhvizdak, .

I think there will be improvments to the ODP system someday, but, it takes a lot of discussion, a lot of planning, and a lot of time and resources to implement in such a large system, and it needs to be done right the first time around, because little mistakes in such a large system become very large mistakes.

And like any other large entity, the worker bees get small glimpses and, perhaps a little bit of input, but, it's the big boys with the wallets who make the decisions, and we don't neccessarily get an opportunity to interact with them.

I think it's safe to say that the editing community itself, is just one small voice among many in any final decisions that get made.

Look at the ODP as just the library in a very large AOL city budget, and you can see there might be higher priorities that might need to be addressed first.

That is just my personal opinion.

janhvizdak said:

Yeah, that's why another improvement could be useful: Only a webmaster (or editor possibly) can submit his/her site and submission must be confirmed through email. Moreover, submission should be done from email which belongs to submitted domain. Simple.
As I mentioned above, I respect your answers anyway.

Click to expand...

One of the wonderful things about the ODP is that anyone can submit any site that they find useful, it doesn't have to be their own and often times its not. Suggestions coming from site visitors rather than owners are (in my opinion) usually easier to review because they are less interested in hyping and advertising the site and more focused on just suggesting a good site they find useful.

my directory

I agree guys!

This disucussion was very helpful for me since I'm going to use some ideas we mentioned above in my own directory.

Thanks!

It's good business, and common courtesy

I have read several threads in the forum regarding the site submission status topic. As an ex- programmer/analyst, fairly savvy Internet user, and spam hater, I understand the problems that managing this resource must entail, but it just seems like good business (even nonprofit orgs are businesses with reputations to gain and lose) and common courtesy to give submitters some sort of notice that their submissions have 1) Been received, 2) Been assigned to an editor, 3) Been accepted or declined.

This reply comes after searching for info on how to inquire on the status of my submission of one month ago, which I have yet to find in the directory. I did it for my sister-in-law's small business, which has been in our area since 1972. I submitted it for the same category, and in the same style as her nearest competitor, which IS listed - without competition - in the directory.

It's aggravating to be encouraged to submit a site, but absolutely discouraged to inquire about it afterward. I was excited when my husband (an IT manager) suggested the ODP, but I'm disappointed now.

That's understandable, dltripp, but you are thinking about one site suggestion. What about one state having 10,000 suggestions, and multiply that by 50 states, and that is just one small area of the Directory. We just don't have the resources available to make it an automated feature, and we'd rather have editors editing, than answering countless inquiries, .

Besides that, what possible good would it do for honest submitters to know the answers, as it wouldn't change anything, and yet the dishonest ones would have a handy new tool to use.

some sort of notice that their submissions have 1) Been received, 2) Been assigned to an editor, 3) Been accepted or declined.

Click to expand...

1) already exists - there is an acknowledgement on the screen when the site suggestion has come through. 2) is not applicable since no site suggestion is ever assigned to an editor. You send it to a category, and any editor with editing rights in that category will be able to review it. As for 3) - well, what crowbar says. And if your site has not yet been reviewed (which is the most likely explanation, since one month is not a long time), isn't it possible that you'd still be disappointed because you hadn't heard anything?

There are several thousand site suggestions coming in every day. Forcing the system to send an email for each would put a lot of strain on it (especially since hundreds of those would bounce back, every day), and would have no real positive effect. We know that providing status reports did not help anybody - there is plenty of evidence for that in the archived threads from several years of doing that.