Visit from editors.dmoz.org
- Thread starter 05cummins
- Start date
You can't assume that a visit from editors.dmoz.org means your site was reviewed, let alone listed.
As for how long it takes before a listed site becomes visible in the public category, that can be almost immediate or it can take a couple of days as the servers sync.
As for how long it takes before a listed site becomes visible in the public category, that can be almost immediate or it can take a couple of days as the servers sync.
Lets be honest. If he submited his site and his visitor logs show a visit from editors.dmoz.org chances are his site was reviewed. It was at least "visited" by an editor... thats a fact.
You should be able to find it within the directory that same day if it was accepted.
You should be able to find it within the directory that same day if it was accepted.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Yes, lets.
That is a patently false statement.
That is NOT a fact.
Here are the facts:
All the visitor logs show is that there was a visit. It may or may not have been by a human. It may well have been by an editor tool looking to identify dead links in the submission pool so they can be disposed of quickly.
It may have been an editor. But it is not possible to assume what the purpose was for the visit. Again, it might have been a fast click and peek to see if the site is alive or if it is parked/hijacked, etc but not reporting its status correctly. It may have been visited by an editor, not for the purpose of review, but to determine if it is a fraternal mirror, or shares common ownership, for a site that isunder listing consideration.
It may have been Hutcheson, randomly clicking on sites just to irritate webmasters. I've seen stranger hobbies.
Bottom line, unless one is the actual editor who clicked through, or sent a tool in that diretion, it is impossible to say if thy were there, why they were there, or what they will do with the information they gathered.
Please do not portray gross generalizations as factual without experiencial evidence to back your suppositions -- you do no one any good, and actually harm the project in doing so -- even if that was not your intention.
No, that assumes the only outcomes are accepted or declined.
I Know I looked at several suggested sites over the last few days that I did neither of those to. I either left them for later checking, or moved them to a more appropriate category without fully reviewing the site.
However if a site was listed the site would appear in the category between minutes and days later (depending on the cache status of the particular server being visited) and appear in ODP search within (normally) 2 weeks - NB this is not currently true as search is still running on an old index as you can see from the bottom of the search results page (Search database last updated on: Fri Oct 13 10:21:04 EDT 2006 )
<added> and what gunner said about tools</added>
I Know I looked at several suggested sites over the last few days that I did neither of those to. I either left them for later checking, or moved them to a more appropriate category without fully reviewing the site.
However if a site was listed the site would appear in the category between minutes and days later (depending on the cache status of the particular server being visited) and appear in ODP search within (normally) 2 weeks - NB this is not currently true as search is still running on an old index as you can see from the bottom of the search results page (Search database last updated on: Fri Oct 13 10:21:04 EDT 2006 )
<added> and what gunner said about tools</added>
Hey, I've seen stranger hobbies. I _have_ stranger hobbies. But that isn't one of them. I'm much more likely to review sites in a separate tab from the ODP editing tab -- which means the site gets reviewed without leaving any recognizable traces in the logs.
Otherwise, the gunner's excellent laundry list failed to include "editor visited site intending to review, but (1) found issues that would have taken too much time to resolve -- so went on to something else; (2) decided the site really didn't look interesting, so ditto; (3) was interrupted by an explosion in the back yard, so stopped editing (only to come back to the ODP several days later in a completely different category.
Just to repeat for emphasis, site logs aren't half as good as tea leaves, let alone Tarot cards. Read them all if you like, but remember: at best they can only tell where a visitor wants to claim to have come from -- they can't tell anything about where he intends to go afterwards (let alone where he actually went afterwards.)
Otherwise, the gunner's excellent laundry list failed to include "editor visited site intending to review, but (1) found issues that would have taken too much time to resolve -- so went on to something else; (2) decided the site really didn't look interesting, so ditto; (3) was interrupted by an explosion in the back yard, so stopped editing (only to come back to the ODP several days later in a completely different category.
Just to repeat for emphasis, site logs aren't half as good as tea leaves, let alone Tarot cards. Read them all if you like, but remember: at best they can only tell where a visitor wants to claim to have come from -- they can't tell anything about where he intends to go afterwards (let alone where he actually went afterwards.)
05cummins
You can do more research on your own as well to verify what exactly did happen.
How long was the visit?
How many page views were there?
Was there a path you can follow? IE Did the "visitor" travel to multiple pages?
If you have a good analytics program you might be able to draw a more detailed conclusion by answering those questions. Hope that helps.
You can do more research on your own as well to verify what exactly did happen.
How long was the visit?
How many page views were there?
Was there a path you can follow? IE Did the "visitor" travel to multiple pages?
If you have a good analytics program you might be able to draw a more detailed conclusion by answering those questions. Hope that helps.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Maybe so, but it was misleading at best and patently false at worst.
I was gonna just let it go but, I really do have to chime back in and say that my comment was not false. It is a fact that his site was visited by editors.dmoz.org plain and simple.
I also think my follow up post about how he can do his own research and draw his own conclusions proves that it was not misleading.
I also think my follow up post about how he can do his own research and draw his own conclusions proves that it was not misleading.
You wrote "If he submited his site and his visitor logs show a visit from editors.dmoz.org chances are his site was reviewed. It was at least "visited" by an editor... thats a fact." We've already explained that no, that isn't "a fact". It's a possibility but not a fact. Therefore your comment is not accurate.
I apologize for my orginal statement. I clearly didnt even remember how I had worded it even though I was trying to be careful, as is obvious in my last post since I said
From my experience when you recieve a visitor from editors.dmoz.org and the "entity" visits 10 pages then it is a real live visitor. If said visitor views 1 page and is there for 2 seconds it was some kind of ping type checker. If you have a good anylitcs program it will even tell you that it is a bot.
I guess I wasnt as careful as I thought with my words, since I am speaking from my experiences in which I could plainly see what had happened. I shouldnt have assumed that was his case.
After all of this I still say it was an editor that visited his site
(who wants to bet a twenty spot?)
... which is true....so obviously that it doesnt need to be pointed out...i'm an idiot.
From my experience when you recieve a visitor from editors.dmoz.org and the "entity" visits 10 pages then it is a real live visitor. If said visitor views 1 page and is there for 2 seconds it was some kind of ping type checker. If you have a good anylitcs program it will even tell you that it is a bot.
I guess I wasnt as careful as I thought with my words, since I am speaking from my experiences in which I could plainly see what had happened. I shouldnt have assumed that was his case.
After all of this I still say it was an editor that visited his site
(who wants to bet a twenty spot?)