Tried to list - no luck. Help!

Hi!

I tried to list our website during last couple of years (if not more) at DMOZ.
I admit - I've made 2-3 attempts during this period of time - website was never listed. It is an average e-commerce enabled website and there is nothing preventing it to be listed - no rules violated (my opinion).
It is in other search engines and maybe directories, but never in DMOZ...

I do believe I chose proper category and still no luck.
Is there anything which can help me to complete the task?

Any help, suggestion, recommendation will be highly appreciated.

Best regards,
Greg
IGEM Corp.

Only editors can "complete any tasks" and their task is to find categories to build, and improve - and then build and improve them. If your site is discovered when that is being done, and is listable, then it will be included at that time. (This is a completely different process to a directory that simply processes submissions in the order that they were received: that would force all spam to be reviewed before any obvious listable site could be).

One suggestion is recommended; a second may be made after 6 to 12 months "just in case" the original "fell through the cracks". Any more than that is wasting time, as it resets the "last submitted date".

Here's what you can do (and what was accomplished by what you did.

You suggested a site for editors to review. You completed that task, such as it is, and there is no more to do. But that task wasn't a way to "get" a listing, or even "try for" a listing -- no matter what you do, no site is guaranteed a listing.

You suggested a site. That suggestion will remain in our database of "sites that have been suggested as being possibly relevant for this category" until an editor has reviewed the site, and decided whether it is eligible for listing (or not.)

That process may involve one or more intermediate steps (in an indeterminate order); but there is no schedule (estimated or imposed) for the process or intermediate steps.

When I say "there is no schedule", I mean there really is no schedule. There's no "secret schedule" that we won't tell you about, there's just no schedule at all. (And if there were one, which there isn't, who knows what it would be, which it wouldn't?)

If you expected something in particular to happen on some time table of your own imagining (on whatever basis: whether on what you thought was reasonable, or on what happened to some other site, or on what some company somewhere does for some kind of customers), then that will be a cause for confusion and frustration.

Thank you for your prompt response!

I guess Im a bit confused then. When a person applies to be an editor, wouldnt it be reasonable that he or she would have some spare time?

I've got responses from an editor and a moderator the very same day I posted my message - what can be better.
No response, no action, nothing about submitted site in at least 2 years?
I searched through the forums and saw status requests and discussions and suggestions posted in 2003, quite friendly and timely..
Now repspected moderator asks me NOT to expect anything in my lifetime
I really do not know what to say!

Best regards,
Greg
www.igem.com

pctec said:

When a person applies to be an editor, wouldnt it be reasonable that he or she would have some spare time?

Click to expand...

Yes, "some" being the operative word. As volunteers, we choose how much time to spend editing, and how that time is best spent. The truth is, the categories most submitters are interested in being listed in are the ones that very few editors are interested in editing in. This creates the impression that *all* submissions wait years to be processed, when it is simply not the case.

With all due respect - editors do not have time to review sites submitted, especially the ones they are not interested in, but in split second are posting answers here, defending their right not to do what they had volunteered for...

I am aware that posts like this one are not increasing our chance to get listed, but the willingness of editors and moderators to spend precious time fighting for their right not to perform amazes me!
Sorry for my opinion - it is honest one though.

Best regards,
Greg

The point is that editors, just like you, are free to spend their time as they choose.

Some editors (in fact a very small group) choose to spend time in here answering questions, other editors do not.

It is our precious time to do with as we please.

It is not for you to say what we do with our time.

I'll assume that you belong to some form of organized religion.

Is it your place to criticize how much time your spiritual leader spends tending to the sick verus meeting the needs of the poor?

It it your place to suggest that the needs of one group be ignored in favor of the other?

Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to sing Kumbayah, but that , too, would take away from my editing time.

spectregunner said:

The point is that editors, just like you, are free to spend their time as they choose..
It is our precious time to do with as we please.
It is not for you to say what we do with our time.

Click to expand...

All this is true - forget about editing thing - stop being volunteer at ODP and go fishing! (it is only a suggestion! you are free to choose activity you liek if fishing is not good for you

spectregunner said:

I'll assume that you belong to some form of organized religion.

Click to expand...

WHY?

I was warned that editors do not like to be told what to do (and believe me I am not doing that), but for it to be this bad?

I am sorry, but I really do not have too much time and do not want to irritate respected editors more - this is my last post - I understood the environment...

Regards, Greg

But if I choose to take an hour, a day, a week, or even a month and not edit anything, it does not stop anyone else editing. It does not stop any of several hundred other editors from editing "my" categories, it does not stop anyone else from applying to be an editor any of the several hundred categories where I review sites.

If I quit and stop being an editor altogether, it does not increase the number of sites being reviewed.

Don't compare being an editor to anything else in the world. It's not like an office, where if I take up desk space and sit there and do nothing, it interferes with the work flow, and prevents someone else sitting at the desk and doing a better job.

random777 said:

spectregunner said:

I'll assume that you belong to some form of organized religion.

Click to expand...

WHY?

Click to expand...

Yes, why?? (I am sure that spectregunner meant no offence by his assumption, though.)

random777, there are a couple of other things that are probably not at all obvious from an outside perspective. Regarding the quick response to questions here - there are a dozen or more editors checking the forum every day, and at any given time there will peobably be at least two editors around. It's not so odd that the relatively few questions that are posted here every day are responded to quickly. (Before the status checks were discontinued, there were more questions asked than we could answer within a reasonable frame of time). Compare this to maybe 8000 sites suggested to the directory each day, and you'll realise that, well, that you can't really compare the situation And that's where the editors' right to work where they want to and how they want comes in. We've obviously got to prioritise, and allowing each editor to prioritise what they want to do, in their own time, seems to work really well. We believe that imposing priorities from outside would result in less work being done.

I spend about 15 minutes in the day, about 4 or 5 times per week in this forum. I probably would not have spent that time editing anyway, so the ODP didn't lose anything while I was here. Any of the 8000 other people with valid editor logins may have worked on whatever it is that I might have done today, already, while I was here.

Of course we editors could all go elsewhere, and then there would be complaints that the forum is secretive and editors never answer questions.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

OK,

There is ONE problem with ODP and I really hope search engines will realize it soon - SEs are relying way too much on ODP in their ratings giving too much weight to ODP lsitings. As soon as they realize the situation with ODP and drop its importance significantly NOBODY would want to get in ODP and it will be so easy to get into (if somebody would care to do so)!
There will be no need in editors and all you guys will be able to do whatever your real wishes are!!!
Amen! (sorry, "organized religion" thing )
Regards,
Greg

What you describe is not a problem with the ODP at all. The information is given away freely, so that anybody can use it.

And if you ever decide to compare the average ODP quality with analogous search results from ANY SE, it'll be rather obvious that the ODP results are superior by an order of magnitude or two -- in other words, SEs don't yet put ENOUGH emphasis on ODP listings.

And as for who would want to go into ODP, once again you show total ignorance of the internet spammer culture. Any free-for-all link farm, no matter how insignificant in the SEs, no matter how contemptible its existing listings, will get a constant flow of link requests.

Finally, you show your total ignorance of the reality of editing. Editors never needed submittals -- we always could have, we always HAVE had many ways of finding good sites. Submittals are occasionally a help -- oddly enough, one of their most important functions is identifying vicious sneaky spammers who have managed to get an ODP listing -- we often catch them, and clean up after them, only after multiple submittals have been reviewed by multiple editors, only one of whom spotted the pattern of abuse.

So even without submittals, there will be plenty of things to do, for all the editors who really wish to review and list sites. (Anyone who looks at the ODP's 4.5 million listings will see how many such people there are!)

Finally, editors are already free to do whatever they want, here or elsewhere, even if that entails trying to explain air-breathing to fishes -- or altruism to spammers.

And you, of course, are and have always had the same freedom editors have: to communicate with whom you wish, to ignore pests, to contribute what you wish to anyone who chooses to accept it, to develop whatever content you wish.

The millenium you so ardently yearn for, is already here, hallelujah! All you have to do, is open up and enjoy it!

I really hope search engines will realize it soon - SEs are relying way too much on ODP in their ratings giving too much weight to ODP lsitings

Click to expand...

I assume you mean Google. Webmasters have been wishing for that for years. I can't say what is in the minds of the Google management but perhaps they are giving weight to data that (a) can't be manipulated by clever SEO techniques, and (b) stands a much higher chance of being good quality unique content than from any other source. They will also no doubt somewhere in their alogorithms take into account that whilst ODP data is likely to be a more reliable source than any other, it has gaps where it cannot capture all there is to capture. Which is why you can get excellent results without having a listing. So if Google disregard ODP data (which is not a problem for us) what do they do in its place? Take more notice of manipulative SEO techniques? When Google and its rivals find a way of listing only one content rich result per site and eliminating all affiliates, mirrors, and other spam, it will make ODP obsolete but not before. In the meantime we perform that function manually, site by site.

random777 said:

SEs are relying way too much on ODP in their ratings giving too much weight to ODP lsitings.

Click to expand...

There is a fundamental difference in the way any search engines catalogs the websites and the way ODP does it. The search engines are expected to catalog each and every website that exists. They use proprietary technologies to present the data in manner that satisfies the search engine user’s request. The manipulations of these proprietary technologies are the basis of SEO business model. So, for a search engine to deliver as relevant a result to a search request as possible, they, the search engines, must find a way to thwart off these manipulations to unfairly influence the search results. The most logical and reliable way to obtain this elusive objective would be to take into account a source of information that is unbiased and resistive of these manipulations. Can you honestly, without prejudice, think of a better source than DMOZ?