Still no listing since Fall of 2004...

Our site is Nutritiongeeks.com. Many SEO forums talk about editor corruption, but I think that's a little far fetched. However I asked for a status updates in Jan & April of 05', which were met with rather hostile replies from 1 of your moderators. I don't know if that had anything to do with our site not being reviewed in 2 years, but I'm left wondering what to do. Help please... Thank You

We don't do status reports here any more. If your site is eligible for a listing, it'll happen when it happens. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop agonising over it and devote your energies to other promotional methods .

If your concern is to make sure the ODP editor doesn't overlook a site full of information available nowhere else on the web -- then please, suggest the site once or twice to the appropriate category, after which, please get back to the rare and valuable mission of transcribing your unique repository of knowledge for all the world. (It sounds like you've done step one already, and are ready to move on.)

If you're interested in promoting a website, this is not the place to get expert (or even sympathetic) advice; but the ODP lists many forums where you can get advice (whether expert or sympathetic or helpful, you'll have to judge.)

More sarcasm, I’m shocked.

After I posted, I read a bunch of other posts and found an interesting pattern… many reasonable questions, followed by sarcastic, condescending responses.

I’m sure like many large volunteer based organizations; DMOZ began with great people and a great idea. Then overtime the organization grew and took on new people and new meaning.

DMOZ grew into something quite powerful on the internet. A website stands to gain a good amount of exposure directly and indirectly from being listed in the DMOZ directory. Directly through it’s widely distributed directory of course and indirectly due to it’s influence on organic search rankings. Being listed or not and having your competitors listed or not, can have a significant effect on your bottom line. As “Hutcheson” would quickly point out to me… it’s not DMOZ’s job to worry about the success or failure of any individual website and he’d probably go on to tell me how I’m wasting everyone’s time. And of course he’d be right, it’s not DMOZ’s job to worry about any individual website, BUT they should understand that DMOZ is powerful, influential and has a real impact on the websites it chooses to list and NOT to list. With great power comes great responsibility… yeah I know it’s from Spiderman, but it’s true and applies to DMOZ.

Also like most large volunteer based organizations, I’m sure the overwhelming majority involved with DMOZ are great and fully appreciate what I just wrote… it’s not exactly a hard concept to grasp. I’m sure most of the editors review sites in a timely manner and treat applicants as they would want to be treated. It’s unfortunate that the DMOZ has a handful of lazy or biased editors that tarnish the image of the entire project. What other possible explanation can they have for not reviewing site for 2 years? And what is the point of moderators replying with useless information?

After TWO YEARS without an answer of any kind, I get…
“If your site is eligible for a listing, it'll happen when it happens. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop agonising over it and devote your energies to other promotional methods”

And the response for “hutcheson”… What the does that even mean???

And please, no more crying about all the volunteer time you put in, if you’re taking over 3 months to review a site, then you’re not doing your job. I guarantee my 75 year old Mother volunteers more of her time than any of the folks whining on this forum (notice I only said the folks “whining”, since from my experience they are NEVER the ones hard at work). Sure 8,200 posts take a long time write, but if you’re not saying anything useful, then what have you done? Not only would my Mom be embarrassed to even mention the amount of time she puts in, she would do an outstanding job for the organization, for all the other people that work hard for the organization and of course for the people she agreed to help.

That’s the long way of saying that the DMOZ has some of the best tasting apples on the net… too bad some of them are rotten.

I was not aware that a reasonable request could begin with an implication that the people you are talking to are corrupt.

However I think between them jimnoble and hutchenson covered the situation concisely and completely including

then please, suggest the site once or twice to the appropriate category,

Click to expand...

which indicates that re-submitting won't be regarded as spamming.

As you have read many of these threads you should be aware of the situation regarding status reports, the location of FAQs etc etc. so possibly this thread has run its course?

regards

-

I submitted the site in the Fall of 2004 and in 2005 I submitted 2 status update requests. It was then that I read quite a few peoples opinions and experiences in regards to DMOZ. For the most part I rejected the conspiracy theories, but after my experience it makes a guy wonder. What the heck is going on? Surely no one can defend 2 years.

The post from Hutcheson was so sarcastic I didn’t know whether I should take any of it seriously. Let’s look at the entire line you were quoting from…
“If your concern is to make sure the ODP editor doesn't overlook a site full of information available nowhere else on the web -- then please, suggest the site once or twice to the appropriate category, after which, please get back to the rare and valuable mission of transcribing your unique repository of knowledge for all the world. “

Eric, do you find it acceptable for sites to go without review for more than 1 year? Do you agree with what I said about the power and influence of DMOZ? If you review and maintain your category in a timely manner, doesn’t irritate you when others don’t?

The Open Directory is a directory of sites that are useful and have content. We will add and approve sites that have content and are basically appropriate for our categories. While I do agree that at times, the submission wait time can be unbearable, it is justified by the fact that WE ARE VOLUNTEERS. We are not doing this on a paid basis and our sole benefit is to help benefit the Internet Community by compiling a directory of important and interesting sites.

Does your site qualify to be listed? If it does, good for you. However, pestering people "demanding" submission from a volunteer-based organisation isn't the way to go about your marketing strategy. It makes you come off as a jerk and it wastes time which you can apply towards creating more content.

What I am saying is this - don't hold your breath for an ODP listing. You'll get it when you get it.

Eric, do you find it acceptable for sites to go without review for more than 1 year? Do you agree with what I said about the power and influence of DMOZ? If you review and maintain your category in a timely manner, doesn’t irritate you when others don’t?

Click to expand...

As a general point one area of misunderstanding often occurs because the enquirer (ie you) and the editor (ie me) are focussed on different aspects of the directory. As a webmaster (presumably of a business) your focus is your business (and rightly so) and your perception of the ODP is colored by your 'needs'. There is nothing wrong with this.

Our perception is of the directory as a whole in relation to millions of websites out there and and understanding that we cannot fulfill everyones expectations. The bottom line is that the answers from one viewpoint are often unpalatable to those approaching the subject from the other.

'Is it unacceptable for a site to be unreviewed for more than a year?' Well, given the sheer number of sites out there I'm afraid the answer is that I find it perfectly acceptable and normal. There is no directory that can guarentee a listing for all sites within a set period.

The power of DMOZ is of no interest to us (ok we feel pleased we are part of something big) as we have no control over it. I certainly do not edit because of it and just because someone somewhere decides it is important does not mean I am bound by it. I could argue that CNN should link to my site because they have influence.

What is a timely manner? When I had permissions for a single category, I kept it up to scratch. Now I have (for my sins) more categories I can count, I log on to see large amounts of unrevieweds glaring at me. How do I cope? by ignoring most of the categories and assigning myself a task to complete each time (or taking the dog for a walk).

What you really mean is 'why isn't my site listed after a year, hey it would really help my business out, come on...' which is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. We get this enquiry fairly commonly and, yes, perhaps we get a bit jaded of repeating the same answers, trying to get past the same preconceptions, the same accusations of bias and end up wondering why on earth we bother.

Before I became an editor, I discovered something about the ODP that made everything fall into place and, even now as an editor, I keep it in mind. It is 'the ODP is not designed to meet your expectations'. This is true whether you are a submitter, an editor, a meta or even AOL (the owner).

Hence advising you to submit and forget and utilise your time in promoting your business elsewhere is the most positive response you can get (plus permission to resubmit).


regards

My post was not a demand or a plea to be submitted. I’m not a 5 year old who thinks that would work. I fully understand that my post would do more harm than good in regards to getting my site listed. I’m a bettin’ man and my money is on my site NEVER being listed, so I just wrote an honest post. I said what I’m sure many want to say, but fear to be blacklisted (and I’m not saying that even exists… just the fear of it).

I’m well aware that you are all volunteers, I get it. I know what it is to be a volunteer. May I suggest that some of your editors, and you know who you are, DON’T volunteer for your local fire department or even the food shelf.

tombobb said:

Being listed or not and having your competitors listed or not, can have a significant effect on your bottom line.

Click to expand...

It has already prove many times by people inside and outside of DMOZ that this is not true. There are many sites not listed in DMOZ that do better in search results than sites listed in DMOZ do. And there are even many more sites listed in DMOZ that don't do well in search results at all.

tombobb said:

And please, no more crying about all the volunteer time you put in, if you’re taking over 3 months to review a site, then you’re not doing your job.

Click to expand...

Hmm, the last time I checked there was nothing forcing me to review suggested sites at all. The "job" of a DMOZ editor is to build the directory. One of many sources we can use to do so is the pool of suggested sites. And to be honest it certainly isn't the best quality source.

I'm not Eric but I'll give you my answers

tombobb said:

Eric, do you find it acceptable for sites to go without review for more than 1 year?

Click to expand...

yes

tombobb said:

Do you agree with what I said about the power and influence of DMOZ?

Click to expand...

no

tombobb said:

If you review and maintain your category in a timely manner, doesn’t irritate you when others don’t?

Click to expand...

no

You're welcome to read my post as many times as you need. It gives specific, constructive advice for all cases.

It is ALWAYS acceptable for ANY volunteer to go ANY number of lifetimes without reviewing ANY particular site. The generalization should be obvious.

Whatever power and influence the ODP has, it earned by the processes currently in effect -- it is therefore a strong argument in favor of keeping those processes.

But in fact, the ODP has no power over you. You have full freedom to design and promote your website without any concern for what the ODP might or might not do. The converse is also true: you have no power over what the ODP does. That's called freedom, and it's a Good Thing.

Nobody has said your site has gone without review. There are (as always) multiple possibilities. The site may have been reviewed and no unique content was found. (You know whether this is a possibility: because you know what unique content it has, and you know how prominently the unique content is presented on the site.) The site may not have been reviewed. (If there are many other sites on the same topic, and there is nothing in the submittal to suggest there is unique content on the site, then a sensible editor might well focus on other sites more likely to contain unique content. As you know what your submittal said, and you can Google for other similar sites, you can also know how likely THAT possibility is.)

Finally, we don't give status reports because -- status reports, unlike what we've told you, would have no practical value to you.

Do you have unique content? Do you want to publish it? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes" -- then you have the power to do that, right now.

If the answer to either question is "no" -- then nothing we can say will be of any interest to you. Because all we talk about is unique content.

And as for "your bottom line" -- I do not know enough about your skills to give you advice that is worth anything at all. Your BL is, and will forever remain, your responsibility alone. I will not accept that responsibility -- I would leave it lying in the gutter forever. You may pick it up any time you wish. But, just as you should do with regard to an ODP listing, I won't hold my breath.

Eric, thank you for you point of view. While I don’t agree with everything you said, I truly do appreciate your honest perspective.

If you don’t mind me asking, why did you choose to take on more categories than you could keep up with?

>if you’re taking over 3 months to review a site, then you’re not doing your job.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The date on a submittal has nothing, nothing WHATSOEVER to do with editor's responsibilities. And if you think about the problem of spam a bit, you'll probably figure out why it MUST be this way.

>why did you choose to take on more categories than you could keep up with?

No editor has ever been asked to "keep up" with a category. The concept of "keeping up" is meaningless anyway. It's probably based on some unrealistic notion that ODP editors exist only to eat whatever refuse spammers feed us.

Editors have editing privileges in categories for based on these criteria, and nothing else: (1) they indicate an interest in helping out there, and (2) we trust them to do well what they do. It should have been obvious that the more different things an editor CAN do, the more efficiently he can work, the more likely he is to find some work he wants to do now, and ... the better the ODP is overall.

So if one category with a thousand spammers is neglected for three years while thousands of good sites are being added elsewhere -- that's a good tradeoff for the editor and for the surfers. And giving anyone else a vote would constitute election fraud.

I fully understand that my post would do more harm than good in regards to getting my site listed

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Very few editors visit here and so very few will be aware of your comments.

If you don’t mind me asking, why did you choose to take on more categories than you could keep up with?

Click to expand...

I realise that you weren't addressing me, but I don't understand the significance of the question. There's no practicable difference between Eric having no access to a category and Eric having access but no time to work there.

ODP is a volunteer organisation and editors work where and when they wish within the bounds of their permissions. There are no schedules and nobody is told what to do. We are just a loose swarm of hobbyists building and maintaining a directory for the pleasure of it.

A consequence of this is that the elapsed time to process a listing suggestion is both uncontrolled and unpredictable. It can range from a few hours to a few years, depending solely upon the interests of our editors.

But you already knew all that.

If you don’t mind me asking, why did you choose to take on more categories than you could keep up with?

Click to expand...

It sort of happens.

As you are aware many of the categories do not have a listed editor. Now in my case I started at the bottom and the only way is up. When you go up a level, you can edit in all the categories below you. Essentially it is simpler than just applying for each sub-cat individually. In my preferred area (folk dancing) I should have been able to cope.

However another area put out a call for help as they were flooded and wanted to do a big push, so I volunteered to help out and got another set of categories.

The third cause was that I came across a rich source of folk-dance sites all on one country which led me to apply for temporary permissions for that country to become more effficient (ie list eligible sites in topic and locality).

Of course, I've temporarily bitten off more than I can chew but it does not prevent other people coming in as editors so no harm done.

Editors are all different and apply themselves differently and hence from outside there is no rhyme or reason as to why some categories are stagnant and others flourish. Understanding what editors are trying to do (ie build a directory) is important - we do not blindly go through unrevieweds listing sites. We develope categories which means one area can occupy us for some time whilst we neglect others we could be working on.

This is where the volunteer aspect comes in - people who volunteer achieve more when they are doing what they enjoy. I spent a happy fortnight creating a category on Dutch folk dancing, another doing Basque folk dancing. There were other categories I could have worked on. Is there need to justify how I spent my time? The answer is no because I was building the directory.

This is where the different perceptions come in and all the misunderstandings as there are those who feel I would have been better employed applying for and editing a cat called 'mybusiness/mysitescat/mysite.html'. Both viewpoints are valid but ultimately it is my time I am donating.

regards

As another example, I volunteered for a city and someone decided to give me the whole country. It's way too much to handle, and I would never have volunteered for it. If I only had one city it would be up to date and no sites waiting to be reviewed, when I have the whole country I end up doing much, much, much more, but the pile of unreviewed never ends.

But in fact, a pile of unreviewed is from many points of view, fairly meaningless.

PS I am UK based, it is my bed-time ( sorry, some of us editors do need to sleep ).

Eric-the-Bun said:

PS I am UK based, it is my bed-time ( sorry, some of us editors do need to sleep ).

Click to expand...

Yeah and some of us have jobs/university/church/spouses/girlfriends/lives outside the ODP.