What to do after 2 waiting 2 years

Hi

I have just seen that the status check has been suspended.

I have waited 2 years for a listing, the last time I asked was November 2004 when it was under review and waiting.

I have recently submitted again as my site has had recent changes.

I think I have been very patient but I'm not sure what to do next.

How long do I wait and what do I do if I hear nothing?

Gay

Your life is yours -- don't feel like anyone at the ODP is constraining your behavior in any way.

Now, if you want to help the ODP editors find good sites, and you know about a good site, you can suggest it. Once. That's a help. Thanks. And that's all the help we can use, and (in that matter) all the help you can give.

At least, until you find a new good site, unrelated to the last one -- in which case you can help the editors find and categorize IT.

That's all there is: surfers helping surfers find sites. There is no more. There are no other services, there is nothing to wait for, there is no need for patience. In particular, there is no point in status checks, and no need for status checks, and nothing you could do with a status check if you had one.

What we do NOT want is anyone, ever, taking it upon themselves to lobby editors on behalf of a site. The site must stand or fall on its own: if it NEEDS lobbying, it doesn't DESERVE it. In either case, when we find mechanisms people are using for lobbying, we shut them down, to preserve the integrity of the directory.

I'm sorry but I am totally bewildered by your reply.

Are you saying my site wasn't worthy of listing and I should just accept that?

I am not lobbying in any way. I am just confused as to why 4 of my sites have been listed but not this one, I have not commented on which site it is, simply asked what I should do.

I have receieved no email saying my site is unsuitable, for whatever reason, and I have no way of knowing if it has been overlooked or there is something wrong.

I am asking for help and guidance as to what I should do.

We don't give status checks on individual sites.

I think you are confused as to why some sites you suggested were listed whilst another has not been and you cannot see anything in the one site that marks it out from the others as being unlistable.

The most probable reason why the site has not been listed is that it has not been reviewed yet. It is a case of waiting until an editor spends enough time in the relevant category to review your site which cannot be predicted.

What to do?

1) check that your site meets the guidelines just to be sure.
2) if you have only submitted it once to the most appropriate category 2 years ago, a resubmission won't be regarded as spamming
3) count your blessings - it is very much like a lottery and it seems as if you got lucky 4 times already.
4) forget all about it and carry on promoting your site(s) in other ways

Just to be clear - we never send feedback on sites we review.

regards

Thank you for the reply. It makes it a a little clearer although a simple rejection note would at least help people know whether they are waiting unecessarily.

When the old status requests were in place at least we knew whether we were still in a queue or something was wrong.

When I see sites like mine already listed and can see nothing obvious as to why mine should be rejected, it's hard to tell whether there is a problem or if I am simply still in a 'queue' awaiting action.

My site is PR5 and running best of all sites which makes it all the harder to understand the lack of acceptance. It used to be a mixed site of traditional portraiture and psychic art, which I feel may have caused the problem, but with no feeback it is hard to tell.

Since separating the 2 sections I have resubmitted since I felt 2 years was quite a long time.

It does rather leave one with a feel of havbng done something wrong but not knowing what.

There is never any necessity for waiting. So any waiting you're doing is unnecessary and pointless.

We don't do sites in PR order, and usually don't know the PR of sites (in fact, sites don't actually have PR, only pages do anyway), so ... if you're thinking there's a connection between PR and ODP reviews, then this is a good opportunity to clear up THAT confusion. There is no such connection!

We don't know that your site is rejected. Now we could check, but what would be the point? If you were an honest person, you'd do the same thing no matter what we told you the submittal status was. So ... just do it!

And there's really no point in speculating about what might not have happened, or why it might have happened if it had happened. That way doesn't lead to any productive activity.

From outside the ODP process can seem chaotic and without rhyme or reason (why did one site get listed in hours and another is still waiting?) because progress in the ODP is made by 7000+ individuals working when they want in the areas they want to.

Often an editor joins to address a particular category, develops it, feels they have done all they can and moves on to other things. We then have to wait until another editor with the same degree of interest in that category is prepared to edit in it.

If your site is doing well then you can't be doing much wrong (and I suspect an ODP listing won't make much diference. ), so the obvious answer is that your site has not been reviewed and that there is a chance that an editor may find it and add it without even seeing your submission.

Our advise to submit and forget is really the best since you have done all you can in relation to the ODP.

Unfortunately giving out status reports was counter productive as editors who could have been editing spent a lot of time hunting up statuses and then dealing with immediate resubmissions.

regards

hutcheson said:

We don't know that your site is rejected. Now we could check, but what would be the point? If you were an honest person, you'd do the same thing no matter what we told you the submittal status was. So ... just do it!

Click to expand...

Of course I consider myself an honest person. Over half of the income from all my sites goes to charity and no I don't do anything different while I wait to see if my site is accepted.

However I don't see what else one can do but wait. After 2 years I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if your site is still in a pending list or if you have somehow done something wrong that you are unaware of. You can easily do something that causes problems without it being 'wrong' morally.

For example, my site covers two things. Perhaps that makes it difficult to list? The point is I don't know. I also didn't know if 2 years was too long to wait and if my site could have been overlooked or could still be in the 'queue'.

I don't think I should be chastised for asking questions.

Eric, thank you for your sound advice, and I can quite see that submit and forget is a good policy, although having left it 18 months since I last looked I would say I have probably been more patient than most.

After tonight I will probably 'forget it', for another 18 months, and yes, my site does well enough without a listing in DMOZ. It would just have been nice to undertsand if I had somehow done something wrong, eg trying to over two things in one site, now changed to 2 sites.

The most important thing is whether the site works for you and the people you are trying to reach.

There are things that make it easier for an editor to review and place a site but these are exactly the same things that make it easier for a visitor to make use of your site. If you modify your site to suit the ODP, you may be doing yourself a disservice - who knows your subject area better than you?

When we review a site, all we consider is the site as you present it to us - if a mixture of two subjects works, it works (though we may have a bit of a problem finding a category for widely disparate topics - there's always personal pages as a last resort ).

I'm afraid time and patience is the only answer.

Anyway its 11pm here and I'm off to bed

regards

GayClarke said:

However I don't see what else one can do but wait. After 2 years I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if your site is still in a pending list or if you have somehow done something wrong that you are unaware of.

Click to expand...

If a suggeted site is not listed there are a few options.

1) It is still waiting review: what would you do if you knew this was he status of your suggestion -> nothing, just wait and carry on with your live
2) It was suggested to the wrong category and an editor moved it to the correct category where it is waiting review: what would you do if you knew this was he status of your suggestion -> nothing, just wait and carry on with your live
3) The site was rejected (as the guidelines are available you can already know if a site will be rejected), : what would you do if you knew this was he status of your suggestion -> nothing, just carry on with your live

Conclusion: there is no need to know the status of your suggestion in all cases you should do exctly the same

I know how you feel

GayClarke,

Don't feel too bad, you are not alone. My site, TshirtManiacs, has been waiting for 13 months, with no sign of being listed.

I do think it's kind of a shame that we can't get submission status anymore. Last year I submitted in January, then a couple months later I ask for my status. I was told there were no trace of it ever being submitted. That was OK, I just resubmitted. But now, with no status check, you could wait two years (like you have), thinking it's still awaiting review, when in reality they have no trace of your submit. It's a bit sad. Here is a link to my post and relpy on the subject last year.

As for hutcheson's replies, from what I've read around the forum (and from a reply I recieved in the above linked post), their replies usually follow 3 rules. 1) slightly lenghty but with no real content 2) condescending with a touch of parisology 3) their post are perplexing, discombobulating, and incomprehensible. (The rules were written in true hutcheson style, basically you could say "hutcheson's replies are confusing.") After reading the replies, it can be assumed the person who was posting, now has more questions than answers and feels somewhat offended. Pay people like that no attention.

Good luck with your business. Not getting listed in ODP isn't the end of the world.

Robin

Hi,

Since Google plays a huge role nowdays and dmoz.org is (at some degree) connected to Google I think dmoz.org must take much more responsibility then few years ago. Things have changed after all. N-years ago there was www.dejanews.com. Then Google.com. Now Google Giant.

Everybody knows that dmoz.org has its power. The more powerfull creatures must behave with greater responsibility. "Submit & Forget" sounds disparagingly.


Regards,
Plamen.

Unfortunately, it's the way things are and must be given the fundamental voluntary nature of the ODP.

Everybody knows that dmoz.org has its power. The more powerfull creatures must behave with greater responsibility. "Submit & Forget" sounds disparagingly.

Click to expand...

'Submit and forget' is honest - it does not mislead or create false hopes. It is clear and unambiguous.

Dmoz is a group of people who volunteer whatever time they feel they can spare to create a resource on the internet. We behave with great responsibility in trying to ensure that the resource - the result of of thousands of peoples work over many years - is of good quality.

We do not make promises to list any site within any time scale - it would be foolish to do so given the sheer volume of sites out there.

Hi,

Well, editors volunteer (thank you all you people, realy!).

To volunteer doesn't mean to do what you think is enough to do. Volunteers must follow the ORG guidelines. Isn't there a statement that says something like "The editor .. should... do its best to .. regulary .. take care ... edit.." ? Not to break the volunteer spirit, but editor to take some responsibility when actualy become an editor (not when applying!).

The keyword here is the responsibility! Accept the role you play and behave appropriate.

Or.. hmm.. it is simple... Declare a simple, one line sumbission policy: "Submit & Forget". No explanation. No need of FAQs, etc. Just like that. Put that line in bold & red on top and.. that'll be honest enough

No offense please! I don't try to compromise anything! I am just asking! I am sure EVERYBODY here wants dmoz.org to "live forever" and this HUGE thread ("Why my site is not listed yet? OMG, how long should I wait!!!") to find its solution.



Regards,
Plamen.

Of course there is - we have to make one edit every four months - or we have to stop helping (of course we can always ask to help more later).

Besides - if one editor made just the minimum edits, then 4 sites would be edited each year that wouldn't be if that editor wasn't helping? Multiply that by maybe 5000 editors and I see a significant contribution that wouldn't have happened without their help. Those 5000 editors aren't keeping anyone else from volunteering to help, so why can't they edit at their leisure? Especially since I consider this a hobby - as do many others. No one else is forced to spend more time on their hobby than they want to, why should someone try to force us to spend more time on ours?

The keyword here is the responsibility! Accept the role you play and behave appropriate.

Click to expand...

Very true. The question then is to decide what is the role of an editor.

Simply put, each editor commits to working with the community of editors to edit under certain guidelines to create and maintain the resource. The main responsibility is to the rest of the community and to Quality.

Were we to recruit editors and require a commitment to carry out n edits a day, then we would reduce the number of editors by refusing to accept those who could not manage it and by moving editors from editing to checking up other editors. Also questions would be raised about the quality of edits - were they genuine or a frantic last minute dash to avoid relegation?.

Individually many editors have their own specific goals that they try to achieve as best they can, which is usually something simple like developing an area because they have a particular interest in it.

You are quite right that a simple bold statement 'Submit and forget' would simplify matters considerably. I wonder if we could put up a sticky thread with that title...

Plamen, the volunteer guidelines are open to the world. Anyone may read them. And the responsibility you seek to impose simply do not appear.

The actual responsibility is far far different. As a very important and very explicit example: if an editor is FOR ANY REASON uncomfortable reviewing a site -- then DO NOT REVIEW it. Leave it for someone else. Rather than a requirement to review it anyway, regardless, because it might be an important site essential to the comprehensiveness of the directory, the edict from ODP administration is the exact opposite.

There are many many many other differences between what you propose and what the guidelines describe. Another extremely important one is this: I don't have to do what I think needs to be done. (Even more than that, I don't have to do what YOU think needs to be done!) I am allowed to do whatever contributes to the directory, and however much or little that is, it is better than nothing. And every little bit helps, so we are grateful for every little bit. And every little bit brings the ODP closer to its goal. So every editor who does even a little bit well is welcome. And no editor is saddled with the responsibility of the weight of those 6000 spam submittals every day, let alone all the new sites (most pure spam) that are published every day.

No, the responsibility is not to "do your best to do everything" And it cannot be -- nobody could do that. It is to do well what you do. And that's enough responsibility for anyone. It is only people who are not used to taking responsibility themselves who seek to dump insupportable and unconscionable amounts of responsibility on others.

I edit as a hobby to get a break from my daily "have tos" and deadlines. I've got enough in my life that has to be done, that I don't want DMOZ editing to become another demanding task. When I joined, the comittment was low enough that I felt comfortable applying. I expected to never do more that 100 edits.

At this point I've done over 20,000. Some days I do none, some days in the past when I had more time, I might have done 50 in a day.

My impression is that the same applies to a number of other editors, the lack of demand, and the lack of pressure works well for them and they in fact do a lot.

On the other hand there are many editors that might do one or two edits in a month. It may not seem like much, but 1000 editors doing that could mean 24,000 sites added in a year. I don't think we want to scare them away by demanding they do more.

It's funny, realy. That's why I like, no, I *love* to participate in such ideas like dmoz.org and many other "open minded" projects (not sure I express my feelings in proper english: I am bulgarian, but .. whatever).

Back to the point:

I feel funny, because I *completely* agree with all elthers here trying to withstand the pure volunteer nature of the dmoz.org and in the same time trying to figure out if there is some way to speed up the submission while preserving the quality.

OTOH, I *completely* agree with all sumbiters that it's very confusing to wait N-years to be accepted by a volunteer comunity declared as Open (Directory).

i.e. agree with both! that's funny!


BTW, "Submit & Forget" indeed works prity well! I just recall that 5 (dont' actualy know, imagine!) years ago I submited one of my sites and after 3-4 resubmisions (2-3 months) I gave up.. and forgot.. and checked 5 minutes ago It is LISTED! HURRAY! I am happy! [no irony!]

N-months ago I submitted (and resubmitted 1-2 times after) another site. Ok, see u people at 2010 XMass


Huh, long post. Sorry.


Regards,
Plamen