Time of site?

Age Of Site?

Hello Editors...

Is there any minimum age of a site for it to be listed in Dmoz.
I am not sure but i think i had read about it that the site should be a minimum of 6 months old and should be well established, or else there is no chance of it to be listed or accepted in dmoz.

Is it true?

Thank you,
Chetan

No it isn't.

A website chock full of useful and unique content can be suggested immediately that it's functional.

There are no artificial or arbitrary limitations.

It's all about "unique content."

That means different things for different kinds of sites.

For a business site, a listing can be immediate. As soon as the business opens its doors and starts letting customers walk out with merchandise, information about that business is unique content. (But the business might not PUT that information on a website, so there is no guarantee of a listing.)

For a blog or e-zine, there would have to be SOME track record of repeated publication: and that would take some time -- weeks or months. Again, it's the editor's judgment.

For a user-contributed site (whether reviews, classified ads, or forum) -- the question would be whether the site has a unique SOURCE of content: does it serve a distinct purpose or community, or would people be better off if it dropped dead, allowing its few visitors to gain the advantage of the larger community and richer content on some other site? Time is not a direct factor, but it might take time to demonstrate the presence of that stream of fresh content. This is the kind of site where "being established" counts for a everything, since any particular ITEM of content won't last very long anyway. A six-YEAR-old forum with no posts would have no chance of being listed; a two-month-old forum started by a community and used by community members from the start, could easily be eligible for listing.

Each site should be reviewed on its merits, not on some arbitrary formula.

Ok thanks.

I remember i read that might be just a glitch fake about Dmoz

Don't believe everything you read at the DigitalPoint forums.

Yes actually i take help of the forum for any help regarding my site

And now u replied there, thanks.

chetanbhawani said:

Yes actually i take help of the forum for any help regarding my site

Click to expand...

The DP forum is probably the worst place to ask questions related to DMOZ. :secret:

Don't believe everything you read at the DigitalPoint forums.

Click to expand...

The DP forum is probably the worst place to ask questions related to DMOZ.

Click to expand...

To be fair the post in DP claimed that the information came from here. Don't believe everything you read anywhere.

It _claimed_ that the information came from here.

oneeye said:

To be fair the post in DP claimed that the information came from here. Don't believe everything you read anywhere.

Click to expand...

Yes. He claimed that it came from here. But hasn't given any proof. And I can't remember to have read anyting at R-Z that even comes near that statement. But I might have missed it.

Fact:

I have listed sites a few days after they were first published. The only thing that is relevant is whether the site has sufficient content.

Fact:

More than once I kept an incomplete site on watch waiting for it to be finished, generally a public service site, and listed it as soon as it did.

Yes. He claimed that it came from here. But hasn't given any proof.

Click to expand...

Neither is there any suggestion from the poster, let alone proof, it came from the other place. The poster got the same answer from both forums, perhaps they should believe both in this instance.

More than once I kept an incomplete site on watch waiting for it to be finished, generally a public service site, and listed it as soon as it did.

Click to expand...

Of course - that's the other side of the same coin: a responsible editor making sure that a site is listable.

I can remember things said here, that a sufficiently malicious or stupid person could have little difficulty twisting into what you say you heard there.

If you're the sort of person who never does anything good unless physically coerced by present and observing authority, then your "attempt to understand" the ODP would result in trying to imagine the "rules" that "force" editors to do something.

Nothing happens, you believe, unless there's a rule that makes it happen. (And, in a spectacular leap of faith, nothing doesn't happen unless there's a rule against it. Logic isn't one of your strengths....)

So if an editor mentions a time period (like "six months") in the context of age of a site, then that gets perverted (in your mind) into a universal law that no site can be listed in less time -- although the editor never suspected anyone could be so obtuse (and yes, I know, that's OUR lack of imagination...)

It may have been a mention of a forum site, and someone here said, "come back in six months if you have any visitors." It might even have been something like "the mean time between site submittal and review is about six months" (which many arithmetically challenged people twist into all sorts of odd conclusions.)

That's why I try to put answers in the context of an overall perspective of the ODP process (but that easily gets into the "too much information" state.) There's no way to keep from being sometimes misunderstood.

There's no way to keep from being sometimes misunderstood.

Click to expand...

You could start by not giving answers that it takes at least 10 reads to even guess what you are talking about hutch. And then it doesn't make sense in the context of the question put. Simple question from a webmaster. Simple answer (Jim's). Now you are into what appears to be a rant about stupid people, malicious people, people for whom logic isn't a strength, obtuse people? Where did that come from and what possible purpose does it serve other than to offend people who might think it is directed against them or a questioner with a simple question? Sorry, but that is why people misunderstand you, it's not that easy to actually understand you. Take a leaf out of Jim or Nea's book.

I think it's good that there are people trying different approaches -- sometimes one approach will make sense to someone, when another doesn't click.

If anything seems about to confuse you, skip it. If that particular editing experience is really common, some other editor will come along with some other way of expressing it.

Getting back to the original issue:

Part of the problem is fundamental to communications n general -- nuance is difficult to convey, and the crew at DP like to take things literally, especially if they cast DMOZ in a poor light.

Within this ofrum we've had various "rules", such as thr 30 day rule, the six month rule (or was it three months?), the 14 day rule, etc. Each is/was specific and applied to a particular activity -- yet each of these rules has been misiinterpreted (intentially or otherwise) by many, many people (usually in a manner that benefits the one doing the misinterpretation.

Is it conceivable that some editor, or meta, in an effort to be helpful suggested that few sites are listable in the first "X" months of their existance? Sure, because few sites are listable when launched -- particularly if they are non-business sites.

Is it conceivable that some editor, or meta, in an effort to be helpful suggested to some anxious webmaster that they ought to spend the first/next six months working on content rather than worrying about when or if they were going to be listed? Why not? It is great advice.

But, as has been said earier, there is no formal rule requiring that sites be a certian age before being suggested. We do, however, insist that sites be complete in the sense that there are no "under construction" or "coming soon" notices. And, yes, we do recognize that in terms of development or growth no website is ever "complete". There goes that nuance again!

>Is it conceivable that some editor, or meta, in an effort to be helpful suggested that few sites are listable in the first "X" months of their existance?

I don't think anyone here would have said that, generically speaking, "few" sites were listable.

But I think it extremely likely that someone said something like that about a site that seemed to be some type of aggregate-content site. And it's extremely likely that someone else might misunderstand that statement as expressing a rule much more general than was intended.

Yeah, I was thinking when I read the original post that someone here may have mentioned that forums or blogs (for example), sites for which sufficient content can only build up over time, are usually not listable until they've had a chance to build up a reasonable amount of content, and that comment was twisted into all sites must be a certain age to be listed.

Part of the problem is fundamental to communications n general -- nuance is difficult to convey, and the crew at DP like to take things literally, especially if they cast DMOZ in a poor light.

Click to expand...

But there are none of those "rules" meaning you can be as helpful as you want. Or as unhelpful. Up to the individual editor. And the lack of censorship means that areas where ODP is actually performing badly can be highlighted. You can't do anything to fix an issue if no-one tells you what it is, you can't improve if the only feedback that is listened to is sycophantic tripe. At least half if not more of what emerges from DP is directly the fault of ODP in not explaining things properly either in guidelines or in answer to questions. This forum has a reputation for being anti-webmaster, rude, condescending, and arrogant, quick to censor. As such, people do not like coming here. Having seen it from the other side I know that half or more of the enquirers have spammed complete crap at ODP and think editors owe them a living - it is very frustrating. But the observers don't know that and they just leave with a bad impression. Bad impressions dissuade new editors and that is extra bad.

To bring it back to this question - why did it get to the point where someone had misleading information? Because the guidelines are incomplete and the submission form is poorly designed to inform people what they are doing. Too much information is only in the heads of editors, comes out as partial answers which can be misinterpreted at a later date, and is uncoordinated - ask 5 editors, get 5 slightly different answers. It spreads like Chinese whispers and there is no official written definitive version to bring everyone back to the actual answer.

Even now, in the last answer by motsa we have "that comment was twisted", which has negative connotations, that someone was deliberately misleading others, someone else's fault, not editors and not guidelines. How about "that comment was misinterpreted" (or Hutch's "might misunderstand") which has altogether different connotations - why was it misinterpreted, perhaps editors and the guidelines are not clear enough, can we check, how can we improve that. Guys, you must stop blaming non-editors for misunderstanding the ODP - you have all been around so long it is second nature, instinctive, and you don't realise that for the uninitiated it is technically and conceptually very complex. Especially for the average Joe with a little website who has read on Google he should submit to the ODP (and on Google it doesn't say "if your site qualifies").