Very Frustrating - submission for adtoad

I submited to the classified directory "www.adtoad.com" site like 7 months ago, and still nothing.

It is very very frustrating.

I don't know what else to do to get listed in dmoz ditectory.

I looks that this guys that add sites to the directory submit only what they want.

Very dissapointed about dmoz.
I heard only good things about them.
But I think they changed latelly.

I don't know what else to do to get listed in dmoz ditectory.

Click to expand...

You can add a lot more content to the site.

What you say is absolutely true: editors don't add the sites YOU want them to add, they add the sites THEY want to add. And there is nothing you can do about that -- which is for all surfers in the world a VERY GOOD THING.

So the way to get a site listed in the ODP is to create a site editors will want to add: a site that fills a need that can't be filled anywhere else on the net, that supplies information nobody else has posted, that offers goods and/or services unique in known space.

All of which you have, so far, signally failed to do, and the inevitable results are exactly as you describe.

What do do (constructively)?

Wait until every single category has a significant number of ads: and until in some significant way the site is better than every single other site in its niche. (This, by the way, is getting harder to do. The odds against you are thousands to one, possibly tens of thousands to one, against. If I were you, I would expect to lose that bet.)

If, against all the odds, you succeeded, you could resubmit the site. But repeatedly submitting a site that STILL doesn't have any content accomplishes nothing but add your name to our "Spamming Catacombs Of Shame" in the "Passive Content Creator/Aggressive Submitter" crypt.

Thank you for your reply

I can take at least 10 websites under the classified category pisted under dmoz, and prove you that their sites are worst and don't have to many classified ads posted like www.adtoad.com.
I don't see your point..

I tought that based on the priciple of this site is to help the internet comunity.
I am one of the comunity members, so I tought that I have this right to post a site under your category

Thank you very much for your answer and your time. .

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that site

That's the problem: you're comparing against the WORST sites already listed.

If we reviewed those sites again, we'd probably remove them.

What you must do (to see the editors' perspective) is compare your site to the BEST.

Another "editor perspective" is not to focus on what is or is not wrong with the site. That's never relevant anyway. I can't imagine anything "wrong" with a site that would keep it from getting listed.

What keeps a site from getting listed is that it doesn't have what's right -- content. Significant relevant authoritative unique content.

If it has that, any number of wrongnesses will be overlooked.

If it doesn't have that, no degree of flawlessness will be sufficient to make it acceptable for listing.

hutcheson said:

That's the problem: you're comparing against the WORST sites already listed.

If we reviewed those sites again, we'd probably remove them.

What you must do (to see the editors' perspective) is compare your site to the BEST.

Another "editor perspective" is not to focus on what is or is not wrong with the site. That's never relevant anyway. I can't imagine anything "wrong" with a site that would keep it from getting listed.

What keeps a site from getting listed is that it doesn't have what's right -- content. Significant relevant authoritative unique content.

If it has that, any number of wrongnesses will be overlooked.

If it doesn't have that, no degree of flawlessness will be sufficient to make it acceptable for listing.

Click to expand...

The content on that site is dynamic.

Its a website that list classified ads.. I fail to see how the content can be considered not right.

Users go to that site and place ads. Thats the exact same buisness model as lets say.. Ebay

I am in no way associated with that site.. but it makes no sense to me to exclude it for reasons of "content".

Prehaps I am wrong and there is a better way to make classified ads more "content" worthy.

That site might not have much content on it now, but obviously the webmaster of that site is looking for more exposure.

Its kind of hard to get off the ground when you are being kicked in the ribs

The content is classified ads.

But ... there aren't any to speak of.

So surfers would do better to go to other sites with more ads -- of which there are already many choices.

And advertisers would do better to place ads where more surfers are -- that is, the same sites already mentioned.

It's a chicken and egg problem. And all you have is toast.

Prehaps I am wrong and there is a better way to make classified ads more "content" worthy.

That site might not have much content on it now, but obviously the webmaster of that site is looking for more exposure.

Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. We don't list sites based on the content they might have in the future or to give them exposure. We list them based on what they have now.

hutcheson said:

The content is classified ads.

But ... there aren't any to speak of.

So surfers would do better to go to other sites with more ads -- of which there are already many choices.

And advertisers would do better to place ads where more surfers are -- that is, the same sites already mentioned.

It's a chicken and egg problem. And all you have is toast.

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from..

I understand that it's not a editors job to list sites, but to build a directory.

I would have listed the site based on Potential of the site growing with exposure. Exposure that can be made possible with a DMOZ listing for example..

However, that site is of no concern to me.

I build adult sites, I don't think posting URLs of my sites are appropiate in these forums. How do I access the 'Adult' forum?

motsa said:

You just answered your own question. We don't list sites based on the content they might have in the future or to give them exposure. We list them based on what they have now.

Click to expand...

I understand..

I just see no real harm in helping the guy out and adding his site.

It would be completely different if the site had no potential.. but adding that site isn't going to degrade the directory in anyway.

It's really not my concern, I don't even know why I am here debating this.

I should leave you guys alone and prehaps we can get some sites reviewed before my toddler graduates

It's really not my concern, I don't even know why I am here debating this.

I should leave you guys alone and prehaps we can get some sites reviewed before my toddler graduates

Click to expand...

Excellent advice. I hope you are listening to yourself.

I understand..

I just see no real harm in helping the guy out and adding his site.

It would be completely different if the site had no potential.. but adding that site isn't going to degrade the directory in anyway.

Click to expand...

Not sure what isn't clear about the fact that we don't list sites based on future content. Either a site has sufficient content now or it doesn't. Potential is meaningless to us.