On 21st December hutcheson said the site was awaiting review. That is a status check. Next check is not less than 6 months from that date - I make it not before 21st June.
To give you a clue about how long it might take, there are 25,000 odd web designers listed. And a similar number not yet looked at. And goodness knows how many not suggested but which are within our discretion to pick and list anyway. And a handful of editors who review sites in that section of the directory. Your best approach is to check the category regularly to see if it is listed - all we do here is tell you it isn't (which you can see for yourself) and which is next to useless information.
To give you a clue about how long it might take, there are 25,000 odd web designers listed. And a similar number not yet looked at. And goodness knows how many not suggested but which are within our discretion to pick and list anyway. And a handful of editors who review sites in that section of the directory. Your best approach is to check the category regularly to see if it is listed - all we do here is tell you it isn't (which you can see for yourself) and which is next to useless information.
Depends on the site, the category, and editor activity in that area of the directory. Loads of sites are reviewed within a month of being suggested, one of the reasons we ask people to wait a month before asking in this forum.
We are not in the business of addressing anything of this nature, only explaining we are a volunteer project and the volunteers do what they want when they want without any direction or priorities - that is the nature of the beast, like it or not it won't change because that actually works extremely well for us in terms of our objectives, which rarely coincide with webmasters' objectives, unfortunately for them.
It is possible that in the course of category reorganisations the site history has been lost, if indeed it was ever listed. There is a rare bug that has produced such an effect though it is highly unlikely. If nevertheless that is the case, and it wasn't listed under a different URL, it is impossible to say why it was removed. It may have been dead when it was last looked at for example. Unfortunately unless we can positively prove that (a) you were listed and (b) you were delisted as a result of a bug or editor error rather than because the site became unlistable for some reason, we are unable to prioritise a future review. Perhaps you can find an old copy of our data out there (loads of directories that have taken our data have not updated in many years). We may be able to look a bit further with that sort of evidence.
Since we don't and never have been a listing service for webmasters any reputation we might have on webmaster forums is based on a complete misconception as to what we actually are. One reason sites take so long to review is that many categories are clogged up with unlistable spam submitted quite often by the biggest mouths in those forums of which you speak. Tis water off a duck's back these days and of no interest whatsoever to editors. Where we would be concerned is if we were receiving a large number of complaints from ordinary Internet surfers that they could not find unique quality content via our directory. I've never personally come across one such complaint.