Website Submission 2 years

I have submitted my site correctly for 2 years and at a loss that it is still not listed. In fact not one site I have submitted for 2 years has been listed and they are complete and submitted to the correct categories.
<urls removed -- see forum TOS>

I am at a total loss about this. Please help on these issues

It looks like you may be suggesting the wrong kind of sites. Perhaps you don't actually have enough unique content to create that many sites. Perhaps you should focus more, maybe have fewer sites but on subjects that you know better than the next 1000 people: spend more time on obtaining and/or developing unique content.

In the mean time, though, it's pretty clear that your site suggestions aren't helping you, or the ODP. (Maybe they will eventually -- who knows? But even then, it's only necessary to suggest one of the sites, and if that one is worthwhile, the others can be found, from there, by your own internal links.)

So it's time to refocus your promotional efforts also. Leave the ODP suggestions alone until there's some indication that there IS any common interest. Look for places that seem to be more interested in the specific kind of content you're publishing -- that might be niche directories, local chambers of commerce, hobbyist sites.

Oh, and first, first, the most important thing: make sure that kind of content isn't already oversupplied on the net.

Suggesting the same site multiple times is something we expressly ask people not to do.

Suggesting multiple related sites is something we expressly ask people not to do.

Suggesting multiple pages from the same site is something we expressly ask people not to do.

Suggesting sites that have content of the type that we do not list is something that we ask people not to do.


Why do people still do it?

total agreement

I'm with total agreement with doc24.

I've also posted a number of different sites over the last few years too, none of which has been added. Each is different, each has completely unique content, each submitted to relivant catagories, dmoz alive?

In what way are you in agreement with him?

Does it mean that you also have been submitting your site for two years - if so, you have violated the TOS of submission, which says not to keep submitting. [see http://www.dmoz.org/add.html]

OR

Does it means that you are at a loss as to why it not listed - is so, then please read the FAQ - see link at the top of this forum - noting in particular

• How long should I wait before I resubmit?
• How long until my site will be reviewed?

The ODP rejects (rightfully so) 90% or so of all suggestions. As you can see from our "quality feedback" thread, we don't reject quite enough suggestions

People who suggest multiple sites of their own are likely (alright, probability approaching 1.0) to be contributing to the 90%.

Where does the figure of 90% come from? I didn't think we had a figure for the rejection rate. How is it calculated?

I assume H speaks from personal experiance. MMMV. YMMV.

jeanmanco said:

Where does the figure of 90% come from? I didn't think we had a figure for the rejection rate. How is it calculated?

Click to expand...

There are a few numbers available. With these you can calculate a minimum percentage of rejected sites.

We know how many sites are in the directory on a specific day.
We know how many sites are suggested on a specific day.
We know how many sites are waiting review on a specific day.
To get some of these numbers you will have to do a lot of calculations but they can be aquired.
What we don't know (except from personal experience) is the exact number of sites that is listed without being suggested.
Ofcourse there are some actions that will make the calculations more difficult (no need to discuss them here I think) but you can get an impression of %rejected.

Frankly I'm baffled. But then I never was any good at arithmetic.

What about the fact that listings are being removed all the time? Is that factored in? Can it be factored in?

And I don't want to be picky, but there is a difference between sites and suggestions. Suppose we get a handful of submittors who spam us to the limit. People submitting (let's say) every page of a thousand-page site numerous times to multiple categories. (Eeek!) That would push the up the percentage of rejections dramatically. But we would actually be rejecting (and I hope banning for life) one site.

This whole thing looks far too complex for me.

What you say about sites and suggestions is true. It is an important distinction. And I have no feel for the relationship THERE: it REALLY gets complicated, because some duplicate suggestions just disappear, others take human intervention. And when it comes to suggesters, the issue gets even more complicated. A handful of "webmasters" can generate more suggestions than dozens of website developers who suggest their clients' sites, or thousands of people merely suggest their personal or business or community sites.

The pattern is something like:
Suggestions: overwhelming majority are spam.
Sites suggested: most are probably spam, but it's hard to tell.
Site submitters: most are probably being helpful, but it's even harder to tell.

Forums are strongly skewed the other way, towards the webmasters (but still, a large minority or small majority of posters in the more reputable forums seem to be honest website developers or representatives of real businesses.) Obviously, multiple-site-promoters in the forums are heavily skewed back towards "webmasters."

For good or for evil, a small minority does much of the work.

I think that different editors will have different results and experiences - depending on the categories that they edit. Now the above statement ::

Each is different, each has completely unique content, each submitted to relivant catagories, dmoz alive?

Click to expand...

Since I don't know the site and don't have access to what was suggested - I cannot comment specifically. However from the suggestions I look through - my rough estimate

50% are submitted to a totally incorrect category - nowhere near the right place - and none of them should have been submiited there since the categroy descripions left no doubt about if they had been read. They get moved for another editor to deal with them. They may or may not be listable.

If the remaining 50% - ny rough guess is:

10% are submitted close to the right category, but there was no reason for it to be incorrect had the submiiter read the category description. They get moved but will probably be listable.

1% are submitted to the wrong category, but acceptably so - since it's a judgment call. They get moved but will probably be listable.

10% are obvious duplicate content and are rejected

10% are suspected of duplicate/mirror content and are held for further investigation - probably for a long time

2% are sites under construction or with significat broken links or content. They are deleted.

1% have no worthwhile content and are deleted.

5% are spam - they have already been submitted

Of the sites that eventaully get reviewed - perhaps 1 out of very 2,000 has an acceptable title and description. Some are almost acceptable and require some cleanup, but 99% have totally unacceptable descriptions.

So it depends what you count as acceptable, I didn't bother to do the math, but it would seem that of the sites I review, less than 25% eventually get accepted, however since 50% get sent to other editors, some of those probably will get included.

I see Hutch. That figure is based on a feeling that you have.

I wonder if anyone has actually done a calculation. I'm still not convinced that it can really be done. But if it can, the end figure is liable to be hugely misleading. As you say, a tiny number of submitters could produce the vast majority of the spam that we have to scoop out and toss away. It's Pareto's Principle again.

The Web is getting flooded with spam to the point where I fear for its future. But how many people are churning it out? I would guess the number is minute by comparison with the millions of people producing one web site each - business, personal, academic, whatever.

The Web is getting flooded with spam to the point where I fear for its future.

Click to expand...

The day the flood of junk mail in my postal mail box and paper take out flyers under my front door stops is the day I will start worrying about the future of the Web.

No, the 90% figure is based on actual daily counts of suggestions (~6000, more or less) and actual daily site additions, (~1000, more or less), which are more-or-less public numbers. My feeling is that one-third to two-thirds of sites listed were submitted, and one-third to two-thirds of submittals that that are not blatant spam are listed. The 90% figure therefore might be as low as 85% or as high as 95% -- but it is relatively resilient to plausible changes in the input numbers.

As for the web in general, spam versus real personal/business sites, the last figures I saw said, IIRC, websites were broken down fairly close to 1/3 duty (professional business), 1/3 delight (personal/fan sites), 1/3 promotional.

The amount of genuine content is still growing. And it's easy to look at that .1% S/N ratio in submittals and forget -- often Google isn't that much better.

But the ODP cruises with S/N ratio of easily 5 or better.

I wasn't aware that we had actual daily counts either of suggestions or site additions. What am I missing? All I know about are

1) the number of items in unreviewed.
2) the stats for the growth of the directory, which Chris has been sharing with the public: http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42201

The number in unreviewed = suggestions + listings moved to unreviewed + sites placed in unreviewed by editors for later review - rejections/deletions.

And as Chris has been at pains to point out, the growth of the directory = listings added minus listings removed. The number of listings added by editors which weren't submitted is a complete unknown, (as far as I know).

Like I said to start with, it's beyond my poor brain to disentangle.

OMG - you all caused me an aneurysm.

Pardon my digression. Jean - is that a cup you're drinking out of or a karaoke microphone you're singing into?