Hi, here I'm again.
I previously opened two polemical threads against DMOZ policy about sites status check:
"Far to be perfect ... ": http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41905
and
"my site will never be listed on DMOZ ... ": http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42021
Luckily I met a HEARTY dmoz editor XXX in another forum (not on DMOZ), I talked with him on ICQ, and he politely checked the status of my site.
He said that it has been repeatedly rejected by THE SAME dmoz editor YYY because ACCORDING TO HIM my site lacks of unique content.
Now, I could spend MANY lines of text to prove that this judgment IS WRONG (my site has some online games that CANNOT be found ELSEWHERE in the web, and those that can be found elsewhere, in my site have an online hiscore table ...). XXX editor agrees that my site should be listed.
And I don't think YYY discarded it because it owns a concurrent site, perhaps I think it is a superficial judgment ... it's like if one includes www.yahoo.com in the "search engines" category, then he rejects www.google.com because it provides the same search functionality.
But the point I would like to underline here is that other SERIOUS webmasters can have the same problem and they are completely unable to discover ***IF*** and WHY their sites cannot be listed on DMOZ.
I would like to suggest a more FRIENDLY and OPEN approach:
1) in the suggestion form add a distorted number image check to avoid SEO tools
2) require email confirmation before queuing a site ... with distorted number + email confirmation you are almost sure that you're "talking" with a person, not a bot
3) add a field "NOTES for editor" in the submission form
4) create a simple automatic "site status check" form for webmasters
5) when a site is rejected send an ANONYMOUS email to the webmaster in which you tell the official reason of the rejection
6) when you reject a site mark it with a configurable delay time (1, 2, 3, ... months) and don't allow people to resubmit it until that period has elapsed
Thank you and best regards,
Vor
I previously opened two polemical threads against DMOZ policy about sites status check:
"Far to be perfect ... ": http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41905
and
"my site will never be listed on DMOZ ... ": http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42021
Luckily I met a HEARTY dmoz editor XXX in another forum (not on DMOZ), I talked with him on ICQ, and he politely checked the status of my site.
He said that it has been repeatedly rejected by THE SAME dmoz editor YYY because ACCORDING TO HIM my site lacks of unique content.
Now, I could spend MANY lines of text to prove that this judgment IS WRONG (my site has some online games that CANNOT be found ELSEWHERE in the web, and those that can be found elsewhere, in my site have an online hiscore table ...). XXX editor agrees that my site should be listed.
And I don't think YYY discarded it because it owns a concurrent site, perhaps I think it is a superficial judgment ... it's like if one includes www.yahoo.com in the "search engines" category, then he rejects www.google.com because it provides the same search functionality.
But the point I would like to underline here is that other SERIOUS webmasters can have the same problem and they are completely unable to discover ***IF*** and WHY their sites cannot be listed on DMOZ.
I would like to suggest a more FRIENDLY and OPEN approach:
1) in the suggestion form add a distorted number image check to avoid SEO tools
2) require email confirmation before queuing a site ... with distorted number + email confirmation you are almost sure that you're "talking" with a person, not a bot
3) add a field "NOTES for editor" in the submission form
4) create a simple automatic "site status check" form for webmasters
5) when a site is rejected send an ANONYMOUS email to the webmaster in which you tell the official reason of the rejection
6) when you reject a site mark it with a configurable delay time (1, 2, 3, ... months) and don't allow people to resubmit it until that period has elapsed
Thank you and best regards,
Vor
