What's wrong with the sites I submit?

I have tried to submit a few sites, GREAT sites, for a while now with absolutely no success! Most rank very high on the search engines, are beautiful and include fantastic content. I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.

Other sites I have submitted, equal in quality, are accepted into a particular category in a very short amount of time. CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE FOLLOWING SITES AND WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN INCLUDED INTO DMOZ AFTER MANY MANY MONTHS? I AM READY FOR ANY SUGGESTION AND READY TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS:
<urls removed>
...the list goes on. THANK YOU!

You might have been in too much of a tearing hurry to read this forum's description (Forum for discussions about the process of suggesting a site for inclusion. General discussion only, no mention of specific sites here please) or take note of the Discontinuation of site status checks thread at the top of the page. Not to worry, I've removed the URLs from your post. Do not replace them.

In forums, people interpret all upper case text as SHOUTING - which many consider to be rude. That doesn't particularly encourage them to make constructive replies. Despite that, I'll try to do so anyway.


I haven't checked your websites to see if they're listable because you can just as easily do that for yourself by evaluating them against the guidelines which editors use. If they are, they'll be listed in time.

You might have misunderstood our objectives and how we operate here. ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby. Editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not primarily a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them.

Some volunteer will process your listing suggestion in time but we can't predict who or when that might be. Elapsed times can range from a few days to a few years. There is no need to re-suggest your website and doing so could be counter-productive because a later suggestion overwrites any earlier one.

<added>
Also, please take note of our submission guidelines which require that you suggest a website once to the one best category. They also outline the penalties which can be applied should they be ignored.
</added>

The concept of "unique" gets involved here. If you copy "great" content from abc.com for your site myabc.com (which the editor hasn't reviewed yet), it may look unique. But if the editor has already reviewed def.com (which has even "greater" content), then mydef.com, your equally assiduous copy of its content would NOT look unique. And perhaps neither your site "myghi.com" nor its original, the absolutely greatest site, ghi.com, has ever been reviewed by any editor.

Obviously this is one extreme case--three sites, all equally unlistable, one listed for the wrong reason, one unlisted for the wrong reason, and one not-listed for the right reason.

The same kind of thing could happen for three listable sites: one reviewed and listed, one never yet reviewed, and one simply not relevant because someone else has created so much a better site on the subject that additional listings seem superfluous.

Of the reviewed sites, which ones get listed is according to the guidelines Jim quoted.

But which sites get reviewed? That's random, so far as anyone can tell.

Which is a good thing. If people knew which sites would be reviewed when, all KINDS of abuses would suddenly become profitable enterprises, and the Open Directory editors could not do ANYTHING constructive.

That's worth repeating. The Open Directory would instantly become a spammer's dream if only you knew the answer to--well, not the question you're asking, but--the question you would have been asking if you'd understood the process well enough to ask.

Why?

I understand that DMOZ is run by volunteers and I do appreciate the responsiveness of many editors who review their submissions in a timely manner. However, with no offense to any editor, if it takes years to review a particular site, something is definitely wrong! These types of editors should pass on the responsibility to someone else…someone more passionate about their role with DMOZ, someone with more time and someone with the consideration that there are people with real businesses waiting to get listed in such a well-known directory.

Additionally, it may be helpful to inform submitters if and when their site has been rejected. This would prevent a unfortunate submitter to waste a couple minutes everyday (for a couple years) in hopes of finding his/her site listed.

Once again, please do not take any offense to what I have written. I am just expressing my honest thoughts in the most polite manner possible. I would love to hear your thoughts.

It would seem that we aren't volunteering hard enough for you.

This would prevent a unfortunate submitter to waste a couple minutes everyday (for a couple years) in hopes of finding his/her site listed.

Click to expand...

Had you become an editor two years ago, you could have spent that ~24 hours being part of the solution .

(not that I particularly think there's a problem)

As to your other comments, I think you'll find I answered them in my first response to you. Please re-read it.

hotweazel said:

I understand that DMOZ is run by volunteers and I do appreciate the responsiveness of many editors who review their submissions in a timely manner.

Click to expand...

As Jimnoble already wrote
"We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not primarily a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them."

> if it takes years to review a particular site, something is definitely wrong!
It does not take years to review a site. It some cases the review is started several years after the site is suggested.
This is compensated by all the sites that get reviewed without them ever being suggested.

> These types of editors should pass on the responsibility to someone else…
> someone more passionate about their role with DMOZ, someone with more
> time and someone with the consideration that there are people with real
> businesses waiting to get listed in such a well-known directory.
1) Current editors do not prevent other people from also becoming an editor. If there is a passionate person willing to spend some time and willing to act according to the guidelines they can always aply.
2) DMOZ is not a service for people to get their websites listed. As a result we do not consider what you are asking for.

> Additionally, it may be helpful to inform submitters if and when their site
> has been rejected. This would prevent a unfortunate submitter to waste a
> couple minutes everyday (for a couple years) in hopes of finding his/her
> site listed.
If that person would spend a few minutes reading the DMOZ guidelines he can know if his site is listable or not. This will save him a lot of time checking everyday.

> Once again, please do not take any offense to what I have written. I am
> just expressing my honest thoughts in the most polite manner possible.
You have a very strange way of showing your polite manners.

> I would love to hear your thoughts.
My thoughts. People who write this kind of messages normaly have non listable websites and are wondering if we have noticed that they suggested them despite the request not to do so. The only reason they want to know is to give them a reason to suggest it again or suggest another non listable site until they manage to slip one in past our defences.

Response

Had you become an editor two years ago, you could have spent that ~24 hours being part of the solution

Click to expand...

I have tried to become an editor twice and was never accepted.

As to your other comments, I think you'll find I answered them in my first response to you. Please re-read it.

Click to expand...

Jimnoble...I do not believe you understand my concerns. You did not respond to them in your first post. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "...work that they don't volunteer to do"? They ARE volunteering to do the work.

I used to volunteer in a hospital. The fact that I was providing a free service did not affect my level of performance. I cannot imagine saying the following to a patient: "I have no schedule or system to force me to do work."

If that person would spend a few minutes reading the DMOZ guidelines he can know if his site is listable or not.

Click to expand...

I have read them all...what is mind-blowing is the fact that you seem to accept one site and reject another which is identical in quality and both strictly follow all guidelines.

You have a very strange way of showing your polite manners.

Click to expand...

How else would you like me to express these thoughts? I am posting in a respectful manner and simply voicing my opinion. I just want to understand how the moderators/editors of DMOZ think. If you believe I am not being polite...please spend some time browsing the Internet for posts on DMOZ editors.

People who write this kind of messages normaly have non listable websites and are wondering if we have noticed that they suggested them despite the request not to do so.

Click to expand...

As I am not able to post the sites in question...I would love to contact you via e-mail and prove that the sites are not violating any of the DMOZ guidelines.

hotweazel said:

What do you mean by "...work that they don't volunteer to do"? They ARE volunteering to do the work.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that "work" is to build the directory. It is not to review suggested websites within a certain timeframe. The only thing we ask editors is to do atleast 1 edit in 4 months to stay active. But when they get inactive they can always ask for reinstatement to become active again.

what is mind-blowing is the fact that you seem to accept one site and reject another which is identical in quality and both strictly follow all guidelines.

Click to expand...

How do you know the other site is rejected. If it is a listable website and not listed yet it most probably is still waiting review.

I have tried to become an editor twice and was never accepted.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that but editing isn't for everybody.

I would love to contact you via e-mail and prove that the sites are not violating any of the DMOZ guidelines.

Click to expand...

We will not evaluate specific websites here so that's not going to happen. A website is only evaluated when an editor volunteers to do so.

Despite some pretty clear explanations and pointers, it seems to me that your understanding of what we're about is still at considerable variance to ours. We are what we are, not what you want us to be. I doubt if there's is anything further to be gained from this thread so I'm closing it. Do not start another one on the same topic.

I would love to contact you via e-mail and prove that the sites are not violating any of the DMOZ guidelines.

Click to expand...

You may have mistaken the way the ODP works. We don't review e-mail. Since we're reviewing stuff for surfers, anything surfers can't see, there's no point in reviewing. And anything you want to say to a surfer, you can say ... on the website.

Or "websites." It seems that you have some research to do on the matter of "related websites". Websites are "related" if, for instance, they come from the same source. Since you're talking about these websites as "yours", they're obviously related. With that understanding clearly and firmly in mind -- go read the submittal policies again. They will fully address your question about exactly what happens when you suggest related websites.