Systemic Listing Issue: What can we do?

I want to make sure I pose my question in the right light?

First the background:
I am having a hard time getting a listing.
- I've submitted ~3 or 4 times over last year.
- After 1st submittal started to double check carefully my listing and to ensure there was an editor.
- My site & company are not "goofy" We've been in business for 15 years. Implemented major Internet system. Our customers include leading multinational corporations. From reading newsgroups/postings this does not seem uncommon.
At the same time I have an impression that the staff and editors of ODP are incredibly dedicated. Even though this seems to be a systemic issue, I've not seen a "systemic" solution....

Question:
1) In addition to following guidelines/rules, is there something users can do to help? (My immediate reaction is I'd be willing to volunteer or pay for help.)
2) Are there any changes to the structure/system or incentives ODP is contemplating to address the problem?

Answers:
1) Volunteer as an editor. By my estimate, Business/, Computers/, and Shopping/ account for roughly a third of the overall unreviewed. Multiple submissions of the same site (and/or deeplinks, mirrors, etc of it) are most prevalent in these locations as well, and slow things down even more as we then end up tracking down all the versions.

We're currently in the midst of cleaning up after our link-checker's run, so this next bit isn't immediately helpful. If there are site errors/discrepancies (dead links, redirects, mirrors/affiliates, et al) that you run across, submit an 'update URL' notice, contact an editor, or post them here at Resource-Zone. Document the research you've done. In the case of dead links, finding a site's new location is much appreciated.

2) If something of that nature is implemented, I'm sure we'll post it in the Announcements forum. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

"Volunteer as an editor."
I'd considered that... but it didn't seem like the right solution. In reading around, it appears being an editor can require a fairly large time commitment. (3-4 hours per week?) And it looks like ODP wants people who will be editors for a minimum of 1 -2 years.
That seems like a bigger investment than is conminsurate with getting a listing. My guess is that outstanding editors are not doing it for this reason. On the boards, folks who do apply to be editors just to get a listing are equated with being spammers.
Other thoughts that occur to me:
Why not open a pay for support service?
4 failed applications in 6 months support que?

DMOZ is looking for quality editors regardless of the amount of hours/years/whatever they can spend - every little bit helps. As long as you log in every 4 months to keep the account active, how much you edit is up to you. And if you make your own affiliations clear, don't grant special favors to your own sites and don't sabotage/delete competitors' listings, you should be fine.

As for the "pay-for-support" idea - you're not the first to suggest it, but it won't happen because of point one in the Social Contract: The Open Directory will remain 100% free. (And even if it weren't so clearly stated, many, MANY great editors would leave if plans were made to profit from their voluntary efforts.)

My particular problem/listing has been fixed. Thank you to the DMOZ organization and the individuat who fixed it.

I take the point wrt Social Contract. I really do see the need for DMOZ. In some ways the web seems harder to use day by day... And I'll look into being an editor. (which I do not take lightly since I'm starting up a business in a dificult bus. environment.)

I still think there could be some slight changes to the process.
- An application tracking process?
- I know DMOZ is totally free. (See charter) but many great "free" organization accept donations to help the cause.

I'm not sure what you mean by "donations." If you mean "money for fast service" -- I can sympathise with the willingness to pay for service rendered (after all, you _have_ to do that at Yahoo, Inktomi, etc.) and I can appreciate that there's nothing inherently immoral with the concept ... but the ODP started up with (and built a community around) the particular concept of "accepting donations only of sweat": and nobody has yet figured out an effective way of harnessing that energy in conjunction with a "pay for quick review" scheme. (Yahoo has been falling further behind the scaling curve, Looksmart/Zeal has fallen off the integrity/reliability wagon, and so on.)

From the point of view of the commercial advertiser, the lack of predictable response for a single site is no doubt frustrating. But from the point of view of building a good directory (which is, after all, the goal), that model works: thousands of sites are added daily, many of them within hours of the time they were submitted -- and that's what matters to our users.

Probably the "pay for inclusion" will only happen at the Portal level -- as with Google AdWords, Overture, etc. Of course, I'd like to see the ODP have that money for its own development, but I don't think it can happen.