Site Submission Status

B

beebware

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
1,070
You only submitted on the 29th of November - please leave AT LEAST a month between submitting and asking for a status update.

It's awaiting review with less than half-a-dozen other sites: time to review is anything from 5 minutes upwards.
 
V

vcguru

Thank you for your speedy reply. My submission was orginally made November 7, 2002, but when I saw no results after the three week period suggested I resubmitted along with an inquiry email to the editor, thinking maybe it was never received because there was no auto-confirm. Now from this site I have learned that resubmissions go to the back of the que. I saw no such advice in the instructions at DMOZ.org, otherwise I would have never done it. I assume from your answer that the time for a site review que is entirely dependent on the individual editor regardless of how many sites are waiting. Happy Holidays ! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
&gt;&gt;I assume from your answer that the time for a site review que is entirely dependent on the individual editor regardless of how many sites are waiting.

Yes, you should assume that. It's slightly more complicated (since editors in higher categories can edit in the subcategories) but that just gives the site more chances to be reviewed.
 
V

vcguru

Following up on a prior status check for:
Site: www.venturecapitalguru.com

Submitted to: http://dmoz.org/Business/Financial_Services/Venture_Capital/Resources_for_Entrepreneurs/Capital_Access_-_Financing/

I have a question.... Originally I submitted 11/09/02 but I resubmitted 11/29/02 when I saw no results. Now I learn that my last submission date is my effective submission date. The only direction I found at DMOZ was to give it three weeks and you can resubmit and try contacting the editor. I learned on this forum, which is not availalble at the DMOZ site, that editors do not have a system or an easy way for seeing when a site is resubmitted and therefore assume the last submit as the last submission. Why not tell people not to resubmit and tell them to expect a wait of at least 60 days before coming here to inquire about what's happening. Thanks for your reply. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
 

The three week resubmission is intended to apply just in case there was a problem with the initial submission - submit again in 3 weeks, it doesn't say submit every 3 weeks though. I might add 3 weeks is overly optimistic for a lot of categories these days, but thats the price of success <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Why isn't there a link to here? Mostly because this is not an 'official' forum. Whilst run by a group of meta editors, it is not backed or owned by AOL/TW or DMOZ . I suspect linking would give this forum status it does not actually have and introduce some thorny legal issues. Contacting the editor can and does work, but you will almost never get a reply. I answer feedback from small businesses that just don't know (B&amp;B's, boat operators,etc), but I steer clear of responding to abusive/persistent/multiple site submitters. I dont need a DNS attack or 500 emails a day telling me how to increase my penis/bust size.

Sorry, this forum was set up to help people who were unsatisfied with the old system of submit/email...nothing. It explains why and how things are done as much as possible, without providing a fast track listing for complainants.

Just as a side note if your initial submission was Nov 2002, I wouldn't expect a 20 day difference in submission date to matter - Business has a lot of spam, and sites can take months to be listed. Also I might add not all editors work in date order - sometimes sort by title, sometimes url, sometimes reverse alpha - depends on the mood and the editor.

One thing that will make any site get looked at faster is having a sensible, guidelines compliant Title/Description so it stands out from the rest at a glance.

Best of luck with your submission
<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
 
V

vcguru

I guess part of the consternation is that many people expecially those in crowded categories have no clue as to how long it takes to get reviewed. While there is no obligation it might be helpful to set more realistic expectations.

Assuming my site is still in the queue, if I was on a list of 6 four weeks ago could tell me where I stand today ? Thanks. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
Re: Submission Status-www.venturecapitalguru.com

Rejected, site apparently not functional at the time.

I cannot help thinking that is a very wrong category choice, although I confess I don't see anything that jumps out as a "very good" choice.
 
V

vcguru

Re: Submission Status-www.venturecapitalguru.com

Thanks for the reply. Could we get more information? The category chosen as far as we could tell is perfect for this site. Venturecapitalguru provides venture capital advice and financial services to entrepreneurs. Many of the sites listed in the category theoretically do the same. In addition to fee services it provides an easy to use area of resources with a variety of content for early stage companies to learn how to build and enhance companies to attract venture capital. As far as the site not functional are you referring to it being down or not complete ? We have recently been in the process of completing an upgrade for the purpose of providing proprietary content to members. As of this date these upgrades are complete. While we appreciate it is not necessarily the function of this board any further explication would be helpful.
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
Re: Submission Status-www.venturecapitalguru.com

Apparently at the time it was reviewed, important links were disfunctional.

If I saw the same thing (and I'm not sure that what I saw was the same thing) the impression was that the site was not at all about "[online] resources" but about "offering services." I saw nothing at all on the site of which I could say, "if I were an entrepreneur looking for a website with such and such particular information, this would be the site I would come to." -- and THAT'S my definition of a "resource,"

[discursus: this kind of terminology frequently causes confusion. "Christianity" has categories for public speakers, artists and performers, personal pages, organizations, etc;, etc., etc. But do people submit sites to those pages? NO! They hunt through till they find a category with the word "Ministry" in it -- and submit everything there.

I'm not a hand-puppet performer, I'm a children's ministry! I'm not a musical illiterate with a big amplifier, I'm a worship ministry! I'm not a self-promotional speaker, I'm a motivation ministry! We're not a college Bible club, we're a campus ministry! I'm not a bookstore, candle-store, t-shirt shop, craft shop, klitch-store....you're right, all "ministries." Well, that's the religious jargon. In Brazil, somebody thought that all websites of any kind whatsoever should be listed in a category called "Web Applications." And the same thing happens to categories called "Resources."]

This doesn't mean the site can't be listed--the services in question are offered by a unique person, and therefore it unquestionably SHOULD be listed somewhere. And perhaps you may find some competitors listed in that category -- even PROPERLY listed there (if they include information that would be truly valuable even to visitors who do not wish to hire them. But it seems to me that there needs to be a "Consultants" or some such category, into which your site would naturally fit.

Part of the problem may be (if I may indulge in a bit of prejudicial speculation) that that whole area has a taxonomy infected by marketroidish-encephalopathy. It is defined by its target audience rather than its content, and therefore is simply not going to be useful to _any_ target audience possessed of enough intelligence to find it. This is, of course, our fault and not yours.

I'd suggest resubmitting, to a higher level category, and hoping that we can work out a better taxonomy.

I'd also recommend getting a second opinion before acting.
 
V

vcguru

Re: Submission Status-www.venturecapitalguru.com

Appreciate your thoughtful commentary. Apparently some of our more ambitious projects have created some holes that need tending.

With regard to your amplification regarding resources I beleive the semantics are not quite as complex as you might believe. Most if not all of the sites listed, are advisory/consulting firms focused in providing venture capital resources (which for many entrepreneurs involves not only information, but services). Look at the first listing Access Capital. Our approach is to provide entrepreneurs the skills they need along with the hand holding to help them apply it. Our resource area has over 150 articles and links with very sepcific categorizations to help any entrepreneur prepare their enterprise for venture capital investors. We are in the process of expanding our offering of proprietary content which we hope will be major data breakthrough for the industry. My thought is that we should be defined by the information and services provided as they relate to the category. While the expertise foundation is marketed as emanating from one individual, there are actually several people involved in helping to provide all the services. Just like any firm.

It was our hope to follow DMOZ directions and find the most specific category that attracts the kind of traffic that would be interested in the information and services we offer.

I did solicit other comments and another editor believes the category should not be an issue but we do need to clean up some of the broken links and misconfigurations that may still exist.

Any other thoughts are certainly welcome. Thanks. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top