What to do now?
- Thread starter marksteve_74
- Start date
W
wrathchild
Please see our FAQ: There's no editor for my category - will my submission ever get reviewed?piel said:
Should I submit again?
Hey Gang,
I just came back, after 6 months 6 days 6 hours of waiting for a status update to find that status updates are no longer given. Perhaps the "sign of the beast" did me in
As has been suggested in this and other threads: I've set up Google alerts, submitted my site directly to search engines, sent out press releases, wrote more code, and spent the 6 months in wait quite productively.
Which brings me to my question, should I resubmit my site? I'd hate to get put back to the bottom of a list, but I can't imagine it taking six months to approve a site. What exactly does approval entail?
Thanks,
10101101 bithead 101101001
Hey Gang,
I just came back, after 6 months 6 days 6 hours of waiting for a status update to find that status updates are no longer given. Perhaps the "sign of the beast" did me in
As has been suggested in this and other threads: I've set up Google alerts, submitted my site directly to search engines, sent out press releases, wrote more code, and spent the 6 months in wait quite productively.
Which brings me to my question, should I resubmit my site? I'd hate to get put back to the bottom of a list, but I can't imagine it taking six months to approve a site. What exactly does approval entail?
Thanks,
10101101 bithead 101101001
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
If you received an initial status check back when we still gave them, then the receipt of your submission was confirmed. There is really nothing else to do but wait. Wait times can exceed three years in some categories (I just worked on some 2001 submissions earlier today).
After reading the explanation for why status checks were discontinued, I do understand the need for that action. The most unfortunate aspect of it, in my thinking, is that people can't be sure their submissions actually are in there, waiting to be reviewed someday (which, as spectregunner said, could take years).
I submitted two sites at the same time a few months ago, and one was accepted very quickly into the listings. The other was not, and I honestly believed the other to be a better site. I mentioned this on another forum in discussions about the DMOZ, and was lucky enough to have someone (whom I assume was an editor) report that the unlisted site was indeed there, waiting to be reviewed. No editor had seen it yet, so I also knew it hadn't been rejected.
So I'm able to just get on with things and not worry about it - I know it's in there, and it's just a matter of time.
I can definitely understand the frustration of those who only want to know for sure that they're on the waiting list, so to speak. Unfortunately, it sounds like some people abused the status check idea to get constant feedback on their sites and what to do to get included, and that ended up ruining it for everybody.
I submitted two sites at the same time a few months ago, and one was accepted very quickly into the listings. The other was not, and I honestly believed the other to be a better site. I mentioned this on another forum in discussions about the DMOZ, and was lucky enough to have someone (whom I assume was an editor) report that the unlisted site was indeed there, waiting to be reviewed. No editor had seen it yet, so I also knew it hadn't been rejected.
So I'm able to just get on with things and not worry about it - I know it's in there, and it's just a matter of time.
I can definitely understand the frustration of those who only want to know for sure that they're on the waiting list, so to speak. Unfortunately, it sounds like some people abused the status check idea to get constant feedback on their sites and what to do to get included, and that ended up ruining it for everybody.
>I submitted two sites at the same time a few months ago, and one was accepted very quickly into the listings. The other was not, and I honestly believed the other to be a better site.
Assuming you are right -- that is not information the editors would have.
Think about it. Say, twenty million websites out there, and all of us editors looking for the best unlisted site, not listing any other sites until we find that one best one. Then, start all over again with the nineteen million, 999 thousand, 999 sites that are left. That's what it would take to list the best sites first. But it can't work that way.
It works this way instead. Editor picks category to develop. Why? Who knows, other than he thinks the category could profit by some work, and as a surfer he'd not mind looking at sites on that subject.
Then editor chooses some way of looking for appropriate sites. That might be unreviewed site pool, Google searches, spidering link lists, pulling URLs out of articles in specialty magazines, looking for websites of local organizations that he knows about, whatever.
Within that category and the potential sites found, editor picks one site to review first. Again, no comparison with all the other unlisted sites, just "does THIS site add something significant to the category? Yes: list; no: don't list."
It's as near random as designed disorder can make it.
So, where, in all of this, is there any way "good" sites have an advantage -- a better chance of being reviewed earlier? There are two ways (and note, both of them are not of the form "you go to the head of the line", they are "you get multiple chances to win a review, multiple lottery tickets".)
One: a "good" site is more likely to be findable by a variety of methods; a "poor" site is more likely to be invisible, or findable only by one way.
So in effect, the "good" site gets into multiple search method "lotteries" within its category, the poor site doesn't. And, so long as the editors do a good job of using many different ways of looking for sites, the good sites have that advantage.
(This is one of the reasons that the "disorganization" of editor site reviews works better than any conceivable method of "organization" -- and why some of us, at least, firmly repudiate attempts to be "organized".)
The second advantage of a "good" site depends on OUR definition of "good", not yours. OUR definition is that it provides unique content. Suppose you, say, wrote a biography of, say, Madonna and a much shorter biography of, say, Robert Shaw. It is obvious that fewer people are going to be looking for the lesser amount of content on the choral director. But that is all irrelevant. OUR question is, which site is more likely to provide information not already available online? The content on the more obscure ("less competitive") subject has an advantage, as it ought to.
Of course, having ten lottery tickets every day, rather than one, doesn't guarantee a quicker win -- as you have seen.
Assuming you are right -- that is not information the editors would have.
Think about it. Say, twenty million websites out there, and all of us editors looking for the best unlisted site, not listing any other sites until we find that one best one. Then, start all over again with the nineteen million, 999 thousand, 999 sites that are left. That's what it would take to list the best sites first. But it can't work that way.
It works this way instead. Editor picks category to develop. Why? Who knows, other than he thinks the category could profit by some work, and as a surfer he'd not mind looking at sites on that subject.
Then editor chooses some way of looking for appropriate sites. That might be unreviewed site pool, Google searches, spidering link lists, pulling URLs out of articles in specialty magazines, looking for websites of local organizations that he knows about, whatever.
Within that category and the potential sites found, editor picks one site to review first. Again, no comparison with all the other unlisted sites, just "does THIS site add something significant to the category? Yes: list; no: don't list."
It's as near random as designed disorder can make it.
So, where, in all of this, is there any way "good" sites have an advantage -- a better chance of being reviewed earlier? There are two ways (and note, both of them are not of the form "you go to the head of the line", they are "you get multiple chances to win a review, multiple lottery tickets".)
One: a "good" site is more likely to be findable by a variety of methods; a "poor" site is more likely to be invisible, or findable only by one way.
So in effect, the "good" site gets into multiple search method "lotteries" within its category, the poor site doesn't. And, so long as the editors do a good job of using many different ways of looking for sites, the good sites have that advantage.
(This is one of the reasons that the "disorganization" of editor site reviews works better than any conceivable method of "organization" -- and why some of us, at least, firmly repudiate attempts to be "organized".)
The second advantage of a "good" site depends on OUR definition of "good", not yours. OUR definition is that it provides unique content. Suppose you, say, wrote a biography of, say, Madonna and a much shorter biography of, say, Robert Shaw. It is obvious that fewer people are going to be looking for the lesser amount of content on the choral director. But that is all irrelevant. OUR question is, which site is more likely to provide information not already available online? The content on the more obscure ("less competitive") subject has an advantage, as it ought to.
Of course, having ten lottery tickets every day, rather than one, doesn't guarantee a quicker win -- as you have seen.
Hutcheson,
Yes, many of the things you mention are exactly what I realized as soon as I started talking to editors. And once I realized how the reviews are conducted, I was able to just relax, be glad the one site had gotten listed (and take that as a sign that hopefully I know what I'm doing and the other site will be listed in due time), and find other ways to promote and work on my sites.
It took maybe half an hour of my time researching in forums to find out why one site had been so quickly approved and the other hadn't. That's why I don't understand the point of a person coming in here complaining or demanding answers (which seems to happen a lot, from what I've read today). As nice as a DMOZ listing is, it's not mission-critical to developing a successful site. Nor is it the magic key to instant success. There are much better ways to spend time on your sites that complaining about them not being listed.
Yes, many of the things you mention are exactly what I realized as soon as I started talking to editors. And once I realized how the reviews are conducted, I was able to just relax, be glad the one site had gotten listed (and take that as a sign that hopefully I know what I'm doing and the other site will be listed in due time), and find other ways to promote and work on my sites.
It took maybe half an hour of my time researching in forums to find out why one site had been so quickly approved and the other hadn't. That's why I don't understand the point of a person coming in here complaining or demanding answers (which seems to happen a lot, from what I've read today). As nice as a DMOZ listing is, it's not mission-critical to developing a successful site. Nor is it the magic key to instant success. There are much better ways to spend time on your sites that complaining about them not being listed.