What is the purpose of this forum?

[thebigtomato]

I have been submitting my site every 3 months for almost a year now. I found this forum hoping it would provide me with answers, only to find out that this forum is just designed to reinforce the fact that nobody will be given any answers. The responses from the DMOZ affiliated members are down right rude and unprofessional. It seems like the moderators or DMOZ affiliated members sound as if they are ticked off that people are even asking questions about their submissions, yet you have decided to dedicate a whole forum category to 'Suggesting A Site'.

The instructions for 'Suggesting A Site' are very easy. People do not need this thread for assistance on 'HOW' to submit their sites, but more what's the point if nobody ever gets back to them:

1.)I have resubmitted for my fourth time. I read here in the forum that it only drops you down in the list because a resubmission overwrites an older on.

a.) However, DMOZ never tells you if your site has been regected or ignored, so after 12 months, how are you supposed to know if you should be resubmitting or waiting an eternity for an answer?
2.) I even applied to become an editor for my category because obviously the existing editor has no interest in doing his job and reviewing website submissions for this category, or maybe an editor doesn't even currently exist for this category, but of course, denied. They say I have a bias and would not accept submissions fairly. but I can guaranteed you that I would review and approve a whole heck of a lot more sites than the current editor is doing.

3.) Then, to top it off, this entire forum section dedicated to 'Suggesting Sites' gives rude responses and hopeless replies. Basically stating, 'How dare ANY of you question us editors?'; 'We are the "SUPREME AUTHORITIES", we will get to your sites, if and when we feel like it, so quit asking! and even more 'What gives you 'Submitters' the right to even dare approach us almighty editors to question the speed and method in which we volunteer to review your sites?'

Honestly, I could care less that you are volunteers. Either volunteer and review the sites or don't volunteer. but don't ignore our sites because you are a volunteer and don't have to give your time if you don't want too. Either review the sites, or step down and let someone else who is willing to give them do it. i'm sick and tired of reading over and over again that just wait, just be joyous we even let you submit, why should you expect any reply, we don't tell you when your site is accepted, but we will tell you, don't resubmit, or your site really won't be accepted. I just can't believe the high horse some of you editors are on. If I didn't feel it was of some value to be in the directory, I wouldn't submit. The directory is great, the volunteers are not.

 

[jimnoble]

If I didn't feel it was of some value to be in the directory, I wouldn't submit.

And that pretty much sums up your misunderstanding of our objectives here .

We aren't here to add value to your website, we're here to add value to our directory for our downstream data users. Once you see things from the correct point of view, you'll understand why we sometimes become a tad testy with posters who have been 'too busy' to read the guidelines that they signed up to or the important sticky threads at the top of the forums.

Still, now that you've read and digested lots of threads in this forum, you'll have a much better understanding together with answers to your comments/questions .

 

[pvgool]

It is clear that, although you state to have read the DMOZ guidelines and a number of threads here on R-Z, you do not understand what DMOZ is and wants to be,

The instructions for 'Suggesting A Site' are very easy. People do not need this thread for assistance on 'HOW' to submit their sites, but more what's the point if nobody ever gets back to them:

1.)I have resubmitted for my fourth time. I read here in the forum that it only drops you down in the list because a resubmission overwrites an older on.

a.) However, DMOZ never tells you if your site has been regected or ignored, so after 12 months, how are you supposed to know if you should be resubmitting or waiting an eternity for an answer?

There is a very easy reason why we do not need to tell anybody about the status of their suggestion. The result of each possible answer is the same.
There are 3 possibl;e answers
1) the site is listed -> result: no need to suggest the site again
2) the site is waiting review -> no need to suugest the site again
3) the site has been rejected -> no need to suggest the site again (no, realy ... if a site is not listable suggesting it again will not make it listable)
So in all posisble situations there is no need to suggest a site for a second time.

2.) I even applied to become an editor for my category because obviously the existing editor has no interest in doing his job and reviewing website submissions for this category, or maybe an editor doesn't even currently exist for this category, but of course, denied. They say I have a bias and would not accept submissions fairly. but I can guaranteed you that I would review and approve a whole heck of a lot more sites than the current editor is doing.

We can not not what you will be doing. We can only judge the application based on the things you have written on the application, and the things you did not write but which were found to be relevant - hiding information is not good)
You might have misunderstoof what an editor does. The main taks of an editor is not reviewing suggested websites, it is building a category. If he uses the pool of suggested sites to build the category it is OK, if he does not use the pool it is also OK. Another thing is that no editor is not forced to work in a category. If no editor is interested in a category nothing will happen there, but a lot will heppen somewhere else. DMOZ editors look at the big picture (the directory) not at small pieces (singel categories or websites).

3.) Then, to top it off, this entire forum section dedicated to 'Suggesting Sites' gives rude responses and hopeless replies. Basically stating, 'How dare ANY of you question us editors?'; 'We are the "SUPREME AUTHORITIES", we will get to your sites, if and when we feel like it, so quit asking! and even more 'What gives you 'Submitters' the right to even dare approach us almighty editors to question the speed and method in which we volunteer to review your sites?'

This section clearly states which type of questions may be asked and which may not be asked. And guess what. Most questions are the type we mentioned that may not be asked. No wonder that sometimes we may seem a little cranky.

Honestly, I could care less that you are volunteers. Either volunteer and review the sites or don't volunteer. but don't ignore our sites because you are a volunteer and don't have to give your time if you don't want too. Either review the sites, or step down and let someone else who is willing to give them do it.

Another misunderstanding. The number of editors is unlimited. Even if a category has a named editor there can still be more people accepted to edit in that category.
If an editor would step down there would even be done less than is done now. What do you want. Do something or do nothing.

i'm sick and tired of reading over and over again that just wait, just be joyous we even let you submit, why should you expect any reply, we don't tell you when your site is accepted, but we will tell you, don't resubmit, or your site really won't be accepted. I just can't believe the high horse some of you editors are on.

We are telling the truth. You might believe it or not. It won't change a thing. What is true remains true.

If I didn't feel it was of some value to be in the directory, I wouldn't submit. The directory is great, the volunteers are not.

DMOZ does not want to add any value to a website. And as far as we know ther is no value DMOZ does add to a website. We know about the myth spread by webmasters and seo-people. But it is just a myth.

 

[thebigtomato]

I appreciate both of you taking the time to reply. I would like to correct you on one statement however, there is nothing wrong with seeing that being listed in DMOZ adds value to a website. The vision of DMOZ is to build a resourceful directory of the web for an end user. Therefore, if my website that I submit is considered of value to rounding out a category within DMOZ, then yes, there is value to being listed in DMOZ. It seems you try and try and try to imply there is no value to DMOZ submissions or that users should not submit only because of the potential value received, but there is nothing wrong with that. It's a win-win situation. We submit our sites, hoping to bring 'value' to both DMOZ and the internet community. As a result of being considered 'of value' to both DMOZ and the community it serves, how can there not be value returned to the website for doing so?

I agree, DMOZ is not the cure all answer. In fact, it is losing its overall value to SEO in the long run, as there are so many other important factors. But there is nothing wrong with wanting my website to be considered 'of value' when there are so many other sites listed in my category that would not be of value in my opinion. You therefore have a good 5+ websites of limited value in my category, but I get stuck in the back of the bus for over a year. Just doesn't make sense.

 

[hutcheson]

"Value" is such an abstract term: it's hard to tell what someone else means when they use the word. One person means "it'll add greatly to the site owner's income", another means "it'll tell visitors how to go to heaven for eternity" ... who knows whether either opinion is even correct, let alone what the next person means?

Suffice it to say that without a lot of background information on your values, your evaluation of a site isn't very helpful.

So we don't talk so much--or listen when other people talk--about "valuable". Similarly irrelevant terms are "helpful" (con men like to help other people spend money) or "quality" (which just means "conformance to specifications", whatever they happen to be, in the development contract) or "original" (which often means "content from other websites jumbled so as to be unrecognizable, if not incoherent").

Instead, we talk about "unique content." What does this site have, that no other site has? If it's selling something, what does it sell that no other site can sell? If it's teaching (or opining), what knowledge/experience/bias does the orator have that no one else has? If it's representing a community, what is the unique identity of that community: membership, its common features, organizational or social bonds defining and maintaining it? And so on.

The concept is simple. However, determining that a site has unique content is sometimes painstaking, if not frustrating.