To err is human

Hi my name is Daniel Scott,

I have been trying for a long time to get my website listed into ODP. I admit out of frustration I have submitted my site more than once, in a period of four years. My website isn't for money, it is based on my personal hobby of paranormal research. I can be honest in saying I know the rules, and suggestions of ODP with regards to getting listed. I would appreciate some one with the ability to do so; please look into my listing and suggest changes that may warrant inclusion. I am asking for any assistance possible please don't forsake my request.

p.s. Thanks to anyone for your help it is appreciated.

Daniel Scott

I am sorry you are frustrated but asking for an expedited review here is not going to make any difference. I would recommend you move on to other means of promoting your website as you have done everything you need to do with respect to DMOZ.

I won't lie I am disappointed by that response. Despite the lack of care, I will pray for you ODP folks.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html describes which sites can be included in DMOZ and which type of sites never will be included

A site is either listable or it is not. There is no way to change a website to make it "more" listable.
We can and will not provide any service to a single websiteowner. If we provide such a service to you we will have to provide it to everyone who owns a website. That would cost us so much time that we would not be able to review and list websites at all. And we are already so low on time.

I'm not sure I understand "There is no way to change a website to make it "more" listable." Are you implying my website is not able to be listed? And yes a website owner could change the entire content of a website to be in line with ODP guidlines, in theory. ODP, doesn't give any information other than url's magically appearing in the directory. None the less I will continue to pray for you pvgool, and photofox and all the other ODP editing group.

> I'm not sure I understand "There is no way to change a website to make it "more" listable."
> Are you implying my website is not able to be listed?
I am implying nothing at all. As I do not know what your website is I can not know if it is listable.
And no, you are not allowed to tell us what your website is.

> And yes a website owner could change the entire content of a website to be in line with ODP guidlines,
That would make it a totaly different website that is only using the same domainname as a previous website.
That happens often enough. With the same owner or another one.
A websiteowner should build a website for his vistors not for some search engine or DMOZ. Websites build for SE's are almost always not listable.

> in theory. ODP, doesn't give any information other than url's magically appearing in the directory.
Not in theory. In practice that is the only info you will ever get, except for the info given in our guidelines.

> None the less I will continue to pray for you pvgool, and photofox and all the other ODP editing group.
That is OK., Although it won't help with DMOZ, not positive nor negative influence can be expected.

"A websiteowner should build a website for his vistors not for some search engine or DMOZ. Websites build for SE's are almost always not listable."

>I would agree "SHOULD" as in;
Dmoz "should" respond and give helpful feedback to potential websites that could be listed."
Dmoz "should" be thoughtful and kind to fellow human beings and honestly care about helping."
Dmoz "should" approve more editors if they are so far behind schedule as it always seems to be <ref> A site is either listable or it is not. There is no way to change a website to make it "more" listable. We can and will not provide any service to a single websiteowner. If we provide such a service to you we will have to provide it to everyone who owns a website. That would cost us so much time that we would not be able to review and list websites at all. And we are already so low on time. </ref>

"Websites build for SE's are almost always not listable"
> Really? I can't even fathom a response. I see that you are giving yourself a way out >almost always< in reality that statement is very wrong. So either you aren't reviewing approved sites, or are oblivious to the content available.

Seriously I will pray for DMOZ, and all the editors, I have faith even if you lack.

Dmoz "should" approve more editors if they are so far behind schedule as it always seems to be

Click to expand...

In that one simple sentence there a couple of misconceptions.

- Editors are unpaid volunteers. We can't just press gang people off the street. We get many editor applications and those that satisfy our standards in communication skills, comprehension of the requested category and integrity are accepted. Those that are declined are often given helpful advice in the hope that they'll try again and be successful. Those that are clearly self serving or fail to meet our integrity standards aren't.

- We don't have any schedules.

Bottom line is that we're just a bunch of amateurs building and maintaining a directory to well defined and documented guidelines[1] as a hobby. We have zero interest in website promotion and we don't succumb to arguments that we 'should' have. No amount of argument from you is going to change that.

If you believe that DMOZ is a worthwhile endeavour that has problems, become part of the solution by becoming an editor. However, if your sole interest in us is that you believe that a listing for your website will cause money to shower from the sky, don't bother.

I'm very tempted to close the thread right now but I'm interested to see if you're capable of responding with the benefit of some newly won understanding.

[1]Google for editor guidelines.

Mr. Jim, look I mean no disrespect to anyone here.
>there is no misconception on my part; other than I do feel as humans we have an obligation to help, especially with wisdom and understanding.

Bottom line is that we're just a bunch of amateurs building and maintaining a directory to well defined and documented guidelines[1] as a hobby. We have zero interest in website promotion and we don't succumb to arguments that we 'should' have. No amount of argument from you is going to change that.

> I'm not arguing, I'm just disappointed that people choose to not share their knowledge and wisdom with an earnest attempt to help. By default building a better internet directory to well defined and documented guidelines, isn't the goal to spread knowledge and information? Jim you use the word hobbyist, well that is what I am a web hobbyist.

If you believe that DMOZ is a worthwhile endeavour that has problems, become part of the solution by becoming an editor. However, if your sole interest in us is that you believe that a listing for your website will cause money to shower from the sky, don't bother

> I have applied to become an editor, once a year for 4 years and have never heard anything good, or bad.

I thank you guys for your time, and wish you the best.

I have applied to become an editor, once a year for 4 years and have never heard anything good, or bad.

Click to expand...

Editor applications always get a response. There are some providers that block emails from DMOZ (hotmail is one of them).
If a response is not received within a reasonable time you can ask on this forum.
But as you application was some 4 years ago (atleast that is what I think you wrote) I doubt you will have the information (date, editorname, categiry) we need to look at what happened.

You still seem to think that DMOZ does provides a service to website owners or people that suggest websites. We provide no service at all to those people and have no intention to change DMOZ ever to provide such services.

I've tracked down four of your applications including the one you made yesterday (A tad disingenuous not to mention it here). In the two 2010 applications, you were sent emails with the results.

The two this year under different names, categories and emails are both pending evaluation. Because editors can only have a single account, having two apparently different applications open at the same time is pointless (being kind here) so I've disposed of the most recent.

As I feared, you've not learned much during the course of this thread so I'm closing it to avoid further waste of time by you and by us. Do not start a similar one.

[2010042011578]
[2010050323096]
[152957]
[157025]