website review

Hi,

I hope that I am doing this process correctly. My company's site <url removed> was listed in DMOZ.org many years ago. I checked several months ago and noticed it was no longer listed. So I submitted it to the category:
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Networking/Remote_Access/
It still hasn't been listed. I am wondering why it was removed orginally and what it has yet to be relisted.
Is there is anything that can do to help resolve the issue? I appreciate any assistance in this matter.
Thank you,
Allan

I checked several months ago and noticed it was no longer listed. So I submitted it

Click to expand...

To get the site re-reviewed, that is the only thing you can do.

It still hasn't been listed.

Click to expand...

If it is listable, review and consequent re-listing may take from minutes to years. There's nothing further you can do, other than wait for it to be reviewed.

I am wondering why it was removed orginally

Click to expand...

There can be many causes of a site being removed, including, but not limited to, being offline during two checks, being incorrectly listed originally, being found to belong in a different category and being moved (may have been lost during the server crash in this specific instance), being found to be a mirror/fraternal mirror/deeplink by domain of another site that is already listed.

Is there is anything that can do to help resolve the issue?

Click to expand...

No,all sites are treated equally. No site is expedited because of things that have occurred in the past.

I appreciate your thorough response to my post. I believe the possible reason for the site being delisted originally was we had a site redesign around that time and it might have been down during the process. I imagine the reason for the length of wait could be do you the fact there is no editor directly responsible for the category. Would it be okay if I become an editor for this category or would that be a conflict of interest?

There would only be a conflict of interest if you treated your own site unfairly - by listing it and not your competitors, by removing your competitors, by giving your site a "better" description than your competitors' sites, etc.

I agree that the category is neglected - there was a flurry of activity there a year ago, but since then the only editing has been automated de-listings of sites that stopped working. It would be great to have an editor who is interested in working on the category, and provided that you would really like to work on the category as a whole, reviewing suggested sites, checking the listed sites to see that they are still ok, finding sites that have not been suggested, writing good descriptions, and so on, you are more than welcome to apply! Please make sure that you are upfront about your affiliations in your application. Being affiliated with a site that could be listed in the category you apply for is not by any means a reason why your application would be denied - trying to hide the fact would be a different matter.

I'll apply. I have no interest in filtering out competitor sites. I just mainly just want to speed the process up on the whole and maintain the quality of DMOZ.

I tried to to become an editor for the category but failed. No specific reason was given I was upfront with my affiliations to the business I was trying to get listed.
I'm not sure what I can do to speed up the process of getting the site reviewed. It really frustrates me that the company I'm trying to get listed was the inventor of the remote access technology and has a relevent and useful site should have such difficulty getting listed.
You can even see the article on wikipedia about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/01_Communique

Please all I ask is for an editor to take 2 minutes and review the site..thank you...

Please all I ask is for an editor to take 2 minutes and review the site..thank you...

Click to expand...

That won't happen as a result of a request here.

First time it did we would be buried in such requests.

No specific reason was given

Click to expand...

That is very often a good sign. The reviewing meta editor found nothing that was so terribly wrong that it needed to be called to your attention. Look through the subforum on becoming an editor and you'll get a good feel for what that meant. I don't handle applicaiotns and am not really qualified to give advice -- but that subforum is a treasure chest.

No specific reason was given

Click to expand...

That is very often a good sign. The reviewing meta editor found nothing that was so terribly wrong that it needed to be called to your attention.

Click to expand...

That's entirely incorrect. It means that the specific reasons are already mentioned in the general list and so there's no need to add further comments. Good candidates are able to critically evaluate their failed applications in the light of the standard reasons before trying again.

Jim is, as always, much more eloquent and complete.