Stitched up

I have submitted my charity's website three times now, across a four month period, all in different categories (having got nowhere in month 1 and then nowhere in month 2 - I assumed they didn’t think the category was appropriate). On each occasion, I’ve had no success.

I don’t mind particularly that dmoz doesn’t believe the charity’s website is worthy of a submission, what vexes me more than anything is that you allow commercial websites masquerading as not-for-profit organisations to list, whilst the good guys can’t get a foot in the door. It puts us at such a disadvantage and the only losers are the general public.

I'm assuming I'll get the same stock answer I've seen written a million times on these forums...your description can't have adhered to the guidelines (not the case - it was bland, didn’t employ superlatives or advertising), you chose the wrong category (which I didn’t), you submitted too many times (because I was getting nowhere), there's probably no editor for those sections (all of them – not likely), bla, bla, bla.

Let me tell you what I think. I think that the sections I've tried to get into are edited by people with commercial interests in that space and they quite simply won't allow a national charity in.

I’m so frustrated with dmoz.

I don’t mind particularly that dmoz doesn’t believe the charity’s website is worthy of a submission, what vexes me more than anything is that you allow commercial websites masquerading as not-for-profit organisations to list, whilst the good guys can’t get a foot in the door. It puts us at such a disadvantage and the only losers are the general public.

Click to expand...

Four months without a listing doesn't mean the site has been rejected. It can take anywhere from days to years for any listable, suggested site to be reviewed and listed. It doesn't mean the site isn't worthy of listing, or that an editor in the area is keeping out competitors. It just means that no volunteer editor has chosen to review your suggested site in the right category during that time period. That's all. No conspiracy to keep out the little guy.

I'm assuming I'll get the same stock answer I've seen written a million times on these forums.

Click to expand...

Stock answers become that because people ask the same questions over and over.

our description can't have adhered to the guidelines (not the case - it was bland, didn’t employ superlatives or advertising)

Click to expand...

No editor has ever said that a site would be rejected because its description didn't adhere to guidelines...because that isn't true. If a listable site is suggested with a poor description, we will rewrite the description.

you chose the wrong category (which I didn’t), you submitted too many times (because I was getting nowhere)

Click to expand...

Regarding choosing the wrong category and submitting too many times, well, you kept changing the category you suggested the site to so clearly you didn't follow the instructions to pick the one most appropriate category. In any case, suggesting it to the wrong category might delay its eventual but it won't get the site rejected completely. (As for submitting too many times, I'd suggest that you stop suggesting the site now before you've reached the point of spamming.)

there's probably no editor for those sections (all of them – not likely)

Click to expand...

Even categories with a listed editor may not be actively edited by that editor. 100+ editors have editing privileges across the directory so technically no category is completely without an editor. However, none of that tells you when or if any of those editors will edit in that category.

No, you'll not get any of THOSE stock answers, because those are stock answers to different questions than you ask.

What you'll get is the stock answer for YOUR question: which is, if you have evidence of abuse: like the names of categories and URLs of inappropriately-listed sites (including commercial companies in categories for charitable organizations), then:

(1) There are multiple ways of reporting that kind of quality problem, and
(2) Those reports get a high priority, from editors who are NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CATEGORY.

There can't be a pattern of excluding national charities unless there are multiple examples -- one website doesn't make a pattern. So don't make allegations that the evidence doesn't support; but do give the evidence and let our QA volunteers and look for patterns (based not only on what you've found, but on other information.)

Thanks for your reply motsa, I've no doubt that the majority of editors are genuine and in it for the right reasons. The reason I'm so cynical is that I've spoken to owners of commercial websites in the same space and they tell me they submitted and got a listing within a week. That's why I have no faith that the charity's website will ever be listed.

I was so frustrated that that I've actually applied to become an editor and surprise, surprise - I've heard nothing back.

Clearly nothing can or will be done so I'm just going to accept it.

If it's any consolation I can't get my site listed either and it's a commercial site - well, trying to be anyway. We've been waiting 18 months and heard nothing either, so you are not alone. I've heard the same rumours as you, particularly in my market sector...rumours are wonderful things to deroralise eg employees of competitors are the editors etc but we choose to ignore them. Like you I am absolutely sure that the majority of editors give 110% and if all the rumours were true DMOZ would have collapsed years ago and would not enjoy the success it does today.