submission status forum???
- Thread starter ulcer
- Start date
Telling spammers which bits of their spam we have already detected and deleted only helps them in their quest to get round our filters which want to keep the junk out.
Telling everyone else that their site is "still awaiting review" tells them nothing that they didn't already know after reading the "thanks for your suggestion" screen that they saw at the time of the orginal suggestion.
The category tree at dmoz.org lists all of the sites that have been reviewed and accepted, and that is now the only piece of information that we can and will distribute to the public at large.
Telling everyone else that their site is "still awaiting review" tells them nothing that they didn't already know after reading the "thanks for your suggestion" screen that they saw at the time of the orginal suggestion.
The category tree at dmoz.org lists all of the sites that have been reviewed and accepted, and that is now the only piece of information that we can and will distribute to the public at large.
"Telling spammers which bits of their spam we have already detected and deleted only helps them in their quest to get round our filters which want to keep the junk out."
On the other hand, you have people like me, a non-spammer, whose site has been sitting around for two years (acarplace.com), who only found out that one reason it hadn't been approved was because there was apparently some sort of server error when it was checked, and was told to resubmit it. If I hadn't known that, I'd have been afraid to resubmit, because you know, resubmit too often and you become... a spammer.
So personally I think that people should be allowed to know some form of status if it's something like a server-down issue; otherwise, if you have the bad luck of an editor checking during that crucial 10 minutes of down-time, perhaps from a DOS attack, you're dead meat as far as dmoz is concerned.
But perhaps I should be cynical and say that doesn't matter because dmoz doesn't exist for webmasters, but for web users, which means it's GOOD that perfectly good, valid, content-y sites are excluded at random... or left in a queue for three years.
On the other hand, you have people like me, a non-spammer, whose site has been sitting around for two years (acarplace.com), who only found out that one reason it hadn't been approved was because there was apparently some sort of server error when it was checked, and was told to resubmit it. If I hadn't known that, I'd have been afraid to resubmit, because you know, resubmit too often and you become... a spammer.
So personally I think that people should be allowed to know some form of status if it's something like a server-down issue; otherwise, if you have the bad luck of an editor checking during that crucial 10 minutes of down-time, perhaps from a DOS attack, you're dead meat as far as dmoz is concerned.
But perhaps I should be cynical and say that doesn't matter because dmoz doesn't exist for webmasters, but for web users, which means it's GOOD that perfectly good, valid, content-y sites are excluded at random... or left in a queue for three years.
How long should we wait
We submitted our site 2 or 3 or 4 months ago. It still is not listed but it is a valid site with a valid purpose. The web site is to help us sell our product. It seems to me that if search engines such as Google use your listings that you should at least let someone know whether the site is still pending review or it has been rejected.
We would very much appreciate some indication if out site has been rejected so that we can take another course. Although we cannot imagine why it would be, would you please tell how how we can find out if it has been rejected.
Thanks!
We submitted our site 2 or 3 or 4 months ago. It still is not listed but it is a valid site with a valid purpose. The web site is to help us sell our product. It seems to me that if search engines such as Google use your listings that you should at least let someone know whether the site is still pending review or it has been rejected.
We would very much appreciate some indication if out site has been rejected so that we can take another course. Although we cannot imagine why it would be, would you please tell how how we can find out if it has been rejected.
Thanks!
Yeah, davez, and you're not alone (in making an actual legitimate use of a status request). Unfortunately (or, more likely, fortunately), you're in a very very small group there.
So if we want to cut down on the number of sites excluded at random (and that is a worthwhile goal), then submittal status reports is (comparatively speaking) a very inefficient and very ineffective way to do it.
There is much more cause to worry about the perfectly good sites that are left outside of a queue for those three years -- after all, the ones in the queue, we know we can find eventually. (And there are far more good sites outside the queue than in it!)
It's all random, of course, and it is mathematically inevitable that good sites be overlooked randomly. The trick (for the editors) is to try to buy tickets (um, pick sites to review) to provide the best chance of winning (that is, contributing to the topic). Because obviously, (DUH-obviously!) the more efficiently editors find sites, the fewer sites get neglected for a long time!
Actually putting that insight into practice is a tough judgment call, and we base it on editorial experience. (There is no other rational basis, of course.) In this case, that experience, in fact, led to the forum being closed as being "an inefficient and risky use of editor resources." (Time not being the only resource risked...)
So if we want to cut down on the number of sites excluded at random (and that is a worthwhile goal), then submittal status reports is (comparatively speaking) a very inefficient and very ineffective way to do it.
There is much more cause to worry about the perfectly good sites that are left outside of a queue for those three years -- after all, the ones in the queue, we know we can find eventually. (And there are far more good sites outside the queue than in it!)
It's all random, of course, and it is mathematically inevitable that good sites be overlooked randomly. The trick (for the editors) is to try to buy tickets (um, pick sites to review) to provide the best chance of winning (that is, contributing to the topic). Because obviously, (DUH-obviously!) the more efficiently editors find sites, the fewer sites get neglected for a long time!
Actually putting that insight into practice is a tough judgment call, and we base it on editorial experience. (There is no other rational basis, of course.) In this case, that experience, in fact, led to the forum being closed as being "an inefficient and risky use of editor resources." (Time not being the only resource risked...)
MaryBeau,
Google say that there are over 100 factors used in determining their search results. But the ODP has no responsibility for any of them.
Yes, Google uses the ODP as the basis of its Directory. But so do several hundred other licensed users. How Google uses it is (within the terms of the license) up to them.
If you have suggestions to Google that can help their search results be more revelant, you could report them via Google's "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link (on every search results page).
Google say that there are over 100 factors used in determining their search results. But the ODP has no responsibility for any of them.
Yes, Google uses the ODP as the basis of its Directory. But so do several hundred other licensed users. How Google uses it is (within the terms of the license) up to them.
If you have suggestions to Google that can help their search results be more revelant, you could report them via Google's "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link (on every search results page).
I'm a editor of dmoz since september 2003. And I know how to control registration status, but this question is not mine. One my known registered his site in dmoz and he asked me how to control registration status. I gave him adress this forum, a little later he told me that he couldn't control the registration status. I have checked up it - he was right.
P.S. How I can corroborate my status "editor dmoz" in this forum?
P.S. How I can corroborate my status "editor dmoz" in this forum?
I'm not sure exactly what your first question is asking. (Is English your first language? You might check out our forums in other languages....)
But if you are an editor, post in the "member to editor" thread of the "members only" forum.
But if you are an editor, post in the "member to editor" thread of the "members only" forum.
Whatever that other course of action you are thinking about is, take it now. You will need to do it regardless of whether or not your site is ever included in the ODP. If you rely on an ODP listing to make your site successful, you will fail.MaryBeau said:
SmashinYoungMan
Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 68
I'm driven to wonder how some webmasters can come to know the value of an ODP listing without also learning the rules and guidelines for submission to the directory. They obviously know its value, where to submit, and where to come to complain (here) about not being accepted in what they consider to be a timely matter. Yet somehow, despite all that, they somehow miss the FAQ - or choose to disregard it.
...which brings up the question again, of "is there any way to let legitimate people know whether their sites have been knocked out due to transient problems and/or now-kicked-out-editors' whims, without causing much labor to be expended or helping spammers?"
I do recall the spammer to legit ratio being about 2:1, but the ODP is not serving its mission well by letting so many good sites go ignored in a fight to avoid spam.
I will say that in the un-spammed categories, submissions can be terribly fast, which is quite nice.
Two-three years in a queue is not, in my opinion, a desirable performance outcome...
I do recall the spammer to legit ratio being about 2:1, but the ODP is not serving its mission well by letting so many good sites go ignored in a fight to avoid spam.
I will say that in the un-spammed categories, submissions can be terribly fast, which is quite nice.
Two-three years in a queue is not, in my opinion, a desirable performance outcome...
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
I know where you are cominbg from when you say that, and I assume no malice. Please give me the same benefit when I tell you that it is simply not something that we track or are even focused on.
How long a given site waits after it is suggested is not a meaningful indicator of anything. Why? Because the suggestion date is artificial at best. Now, if someone could develop a mechanism for determing, based on the date a site is created and the date it achieves meaningful unique content, how long such a site waits until it is reviewed (whether or not it is ever suggested), then they would probably have a statistic that is meaningful.
As an editor (and speaking only for myself) my interest is in building up categories, and identifying sites with meaningful, unique content that can be added. My interest is definitely not in processing suggested sites, since that usually ends up being a tremendously unsatisfying and unproductive task.
The thinking often goes along these lines: would I rather spend the next hour looking at a stack of templated real estate sites with no unique content and no real redeeming value, or find a really unique hobbyist site that discusses how to convert acoustic guitars for left-handed musicians, or that describes in detail the problem the Navy is having with the anti-lock braking system on FA-18 Hornets (a problem that has cost taxpayers millions of dollers and resulted in the total destruction of at least one aircraft)? Which of the two types of sites is most likely to be beneficial to the surfer? Which is going to want me to e-mail some of my colleagues and tell them about the really cool site that I found? Which is going to excite me enough to want to come back and edit some more?
Again, I'm speaking for myself, but I'd be willing to bet that my thinking parallels that of many other editors.
>"is there any way to let legitimate people know whether their sites have been knocked out due to transient problems and/or now-kicked-out-editors' whims, without causing much labor to be expended or helping spammers?"
No, there's really not.
>I do recall the spammer to legit ratio being about 2:1
I think it's more than 5:1 now. But in the "rejected submittal pile", it's about 100:1 in my experience, and that's the rub.
So any possible proposal would double the amount of time editors spend looking at spam sites (or at least, all the spam sites for which the spammers were willing to follow up, which is as near all as no never mind), for a payoff of ... maybe 1 site in a hundred?
PLUS, and this is not the least significant part of the whole thing, PLUS the management costs. And -- and this is the MOST significant cost -- the social costs of introducing management for the sole purpose of reducing editor efficiency by a factor of 95%.
Literally, the directory could not possibly survive the impact of such a change. It's one of those things that you look at the costs, and you say, "with the resources at hand, this is a Thing We Cannot Afford To Do" -- and you look at the benefits, and you say, "with any amount of resources, there are better ways to spend them -- ways that are guaranteed to return many times the value to our customers, for every hour of effort." (We want the editors focusing on sites that haven't yet been reviewed and rejected, because the payoff is so much higher.)
You may not like that -- it is cartainly not one of my favorite features of reality -- but that's the way it is. The ODP could be destroyed, but it cannot be changed into a site submittal processing service.
No, there's really not.
>I do recall the spammer to legit ratio being about 2:1
I think it's more than 5:1 now. But in the "rejected submittal pile", it's about 100:1 in my experience, and that's the rub.
So any possible proposal would double the amount of time editors spend looking at spam sites (or at least, all the spam sites for which the spammers were willing to follow up, which is as near all as no never mind), for a payoff of ... maybe 1 site in a hundred?
PLUS, and this is not the least significant part of the whole thing, PLUS the management costs. And -- and this is the MOST significant cost -- the social costs of introducing management for the sole purpose of reducing editor efficiency by a factor of 95%.
Literally, the directory could not possibly survive the impact of such a change. It's one of those things that you look at the costs, and you say, "with the resources at hand, this is a Thing We Cannot Afford To Do" -- and you look at the benefits, and you say, "with any amount of resources, there are better ways to spend them -- ways that are guaranteed to return many times the value to our customers, for every hour of effort." (We want the editors focusing on sites that haven't yet been reviewed and rejected, because the payoff is so much higher.)
You may not like that -- it is cartainly not one of my favorite features of reality -- but that's the way it is. The ODP could be destroyed, but it cannot be changed into a site submittal processing service.
Dismal outlook for inclusion
Not necessarily,
I have a client who has improper meta tags stuffed with 300 keywords, yes, i said 300 keywords, no other link from any place except the odp for a certain phrase and it is that link from ODP and that link only that provides the PR to this site for that phrase.
So it is totally feasable to attain great rank with merely a listing in the ODP, its link and description will be more important than others that may not be listed but has many more inlinks.
Which is why im still crushed my site is still not good enough.
I was listed with DMOZ my first year and was yanked for not enough unique content. It was a free movie directory and i searched hi and lo and could not find a site dedicated to that except a few that just scraped results or hotlinked. The last year i started to host a few on my server people can stream free, NOT HOTLINKED, yet Google free movies and see how many actually have movies and which have DMOZ listings. The ones that have a DMOZ listing smoke more relevent sites.
I write almost all the copy, 90% original text from reviews to tips, I also host 3 bands exclusive mp3s only available on my site , and still cant get listed in any category, even the bands can't get listed which would at least include my root url but alas...
Its going to drive me to black hat in frustration.
Not necessarily,
I have a client who has improper meta tags stuffed with 300 keywords, yes, i said 300 keywords, no other link from any place except the odp for a certain phrase and it is that link from ODP and that link only that provides the PR to this site for that phrase.
So it is totally feasable to attain great rank with merely a listing in the ODP, its link and description will be more important than others that may not be listed but has many more inlinks.
Which is why im still crushed my site is still not good enough.
I was listed with DMOZ my first year and was yanked for not enough unique content. It was a free movie directory and i searched hi and lo and could not find a site dedicated to that except a few that just scraped results or hotlinked. The last year i started to host a few on my server people can stream free, NOT HOTLINKED, yet Google free movies and see how many actually have movies and which have DMOZ listings. The ones that have a DMOZ listing smoke more relevent sites.
I write almost all the copy, 90% original text from reviews to tips, I also host 3 bands exclusive mp3s only available on my site , and still cant get listed in any category, even the bands can't get listed which would at least include my root url but alas...
Its going to drive me to black hat in frustration.
"cant get listed in any category"
Um, nobody can "get listed." (All the submittal process provides is a way of helping editors find sites that otherwise might have been overlooked. Once that has happened, anything else it does is collateral damage.) So if you THINK you're DOING something that would "get you listed", it's an absolute certainty you're just spamming someone. And if you've done this thing that you think would "get" you listed in multiple categories, it's a dead certainty your reputation now precedes you.
No wonder you're frustrated. The editors are probably frustrated too -- and their interest in your site is now likely limited to "whacking the moles", not viewing the content.
The submittal policy exists to keep people from getting in this predicament. And it will, if people will just let it.
Um, nobody can "get listed." (All the submittal process provides is a way of helping editors find sites that otherwise might have been overlooked. Once that has happened, anything else it does is collateral damage.) So if you THINK you're DOING something that would "get you listed", it's an absolute certainty you're just spamming someone. And if you've done this thing that you think would "get" you listed in multiple categories, it's a dead certainty your reputation now precedes you.
No wonder you're frustrated. The editors are probably frustrated too -- and their interest in your site is now likely limited to "whacking the moles", not viewing the content.
The submittal policy exists to keep people from getting in this predicament. And it will, if people will just let it.
Sorry for ranting Hutcheson,
my particular circumstance wasnt spamming ODP, i was removed for not having unique content as i mentioned .
I may not have use the proper term (listing) but I just came here today to check the staus and was put off by that feature not being available. Then remembered what a monster project DMOZ is and that you are all volunteers with tons of requests in que and whose time is no doubt spread out thin,
and regretted making my post.
my particular circumstance wasnt spamming ODP, i was removed for not having unique content as i mentioned .
I may not have use the proper term (listing) but I just came here today to check the staus and was put off by that feature not being available. Then remembered what a monster project DMOZ is and that you are all volunteers with tons of requests in que and whose time is no doubt spread out thin,
and regretted making my post.
Yeah, it's a monster, but a distributed monster (more like a swarm of rats than a raging dragon, if you like that kind of imagery -- I'd prefer "more like a swarm of bees than a single rattlesnake").
Anyway, the usual methods of large pest control (or large pet domestication) don't work. So we really don't try -- we just ostracise the bees that bring back skunkflower pollen (or the rats that bring back warfarin-laced trifles). And beyond that, what gets gathered (or what gets missed) is unpredictable, hence inexplicable.
And that's good. If I could tell you exactly how we pick out the next site to review, then a million spammers could immediately set about to create the best possible imitations of those sites. And the sites we care about (those created by people out of their own passion and duty, to describe their own works and days -- without any malicious intent toward surfers or ODP editors) would get totally lost in the sludge.
Anyway, the usual methods of large pest control (or large pet domestication) don't work. So we really don't try -- we just ostracise the bees that bring back skunkflower pollen (or the rats that bring back warfarin-laced trifles). And beyond that, what gets gathered (or what gets missed) is unpredictable, hence inexplicable.
And that's good. If I could tell you exactly how we pick out the next site to review, then a million spammers could immediately set about to create the best possible imitations of those sites. And the sites we care about (those created by people out of their own passion and duty, to describe their own works and days -- without any malicious intent toward surfers or ODP editors) would get totally lost in the sludge.