Why can't my web site be listed?

I am appalled by the fact that in spite of submitting my web site numerous times over the past 3 years, I haven't still been listed. If it were based on quality alone, that would not even be an issue. I have a world class web site in terms of design, usability, and adherence to standards. What else do your editors require to list web sites in your directory? I am anxious to know. My web site address is: <removed>
Thank you for your attention to the above.

How many times is numerous?

If it is more than once, then I am equally appalled.

soulcis said:

I am appalled by the fact that in spite of submitting my web site numerous times over the past 3 years, I haven't still been listed.

Click to expand...

Maybe your own actions are the reason. We ask you to suggest a site ONCE to the ONE best category. If you suggested the site to the same category more than once you will have overwritten the previous suggestion and by doing so you reset the date the suggestion was made. Some editors review sites based on this date. You just managed to put your site at the end of their processingqueue.

soulcis said:

If it were based on quality alone, that would not even be an issue. I have a world class web site in terms of design, usability, and adherence to standards.

Click to expand...

And these are all of totaly no relevance for a listing in DMOZ.

soulcis said:

What else do your editors require to list web sites in your directory? I am anxious to know.

Click to expand...

Content, unique content.

I must admit I have no idea what the exact definition of "world class" means (although it appears many consider their web sites to fit that definition) , and since the URL has been removed I can't check it. But of several thousand web sites I have reviewed. I would doubt that more than 5 would be even close to that concept. However, we don't use that kind of criteria in determining what to list. We look principly at content, not design.

"World class" and "quality" both are expressions that basically mean "I did it and I like what I did."

Which is fine, it's your site and if you don't like it, it's likely to be short-lived.

But since, in real life, those expressions are mostly used by marketers with poor imagination or indistinguished product lines (and people notice this!), you'll impress a thoughtful audience much less unfavorably by avoiding words with such bad associations.

hutcheson wrote:
"World class" and "quality" both are expressions that basically mean "I did it and I like what I did."

What dictionary are you referring to, to define "world class' and "quality" like that. That is not what webster is saying. But if you think that you are entitled to re-engineer the english language, what else would you not do?
Similarly someone could argue that "content" that you wash people's face with is devoid of meaning. Wouldn't you agree that a web site that has a Google pagerank of 5/10 may not be devoid of 'content' all? While we are still on the subject, how do you define 'content' according to your dictionary?

To all who have replied to my post, i just want to make something clear.
My site has been up since 2001. so in 2006, even if i would submit once a year that is already 5 times. I read the guidelines before i submit to the open directory. and I had once a web site listed on ODP and still have one listed there in another field of endeavor. If i was able to do it twice, i should be able to do it again, using the same skills. but the sad reality is that odp is not what it used to be in 1999. it seems that the freewheeling spirit has been superseded by a bureaucracy of editors who can sit and watch their navels. with over 50 million web sites around, don't you think you have to be a genius to deliver 'unique' content? you are not going to re-invent the wheel. sorry!

soulcis,

If a genuinely listable site has been suggested to the directory and has not been listed, you may count on it being because no editor has reviewed it yet. Until it is reviewed, we won't know if it is listable or not -- what anybody says here has no bearing on the review of any one particular site*. And suggesting it again is not going to make a review happen faster; it is likely to make it take longer, however.

I'd like to ask all concerned to please stop the semantics discussion. Thank you.

*Well, almost. Anybody who says "I'll pay to have site X included" will affect their site review -- that site would be instantly disqualified from inclusion. That's got nothing to do with this thread, just wanted to cover all bases.

but the sad reality is that odp is not what it used to be in 1999. it seems that the freewheeling spirit has been superseded by a bureaucracy of editors who can sit and watch their navels.

Click to expand...

I would say that the perceived slowness of site reviews and listings is much more to do with the increase in the number of people building and submitting websites to the ODP, coupled with the deceptive practices some people employ in an attempt to get unlistable sites listed, and the fact that many more people don't follow the submission guidelines and suggest their sites multiple times to multiple categories.

The editors job is not just to process suggestions from the public, but just focusing on that aspect: we now have many more suggestions to look at, need to examine them more carefully before accepting, and also have to deal with tons of duplicate and inappropriate suggestions. It's hardly surprising that reviews now take much longer.

Before expecting anything from the ODP and rushing to blame the editors, perhaps you should ask what you have done / can do to help the effort? (Hint: suggesting the same site multiple times does not help.) You might also want to make sure you understand that the ODP is not a listing service for webmasters. It is a directory for the benefit of web-surfers.

You should think of 'unique content' as something that a web surfer would find useful. No content = not useful (so there's no point in listing). Not unique = can be found elsewhere on the web (so we'll just list the primary source).

I don't want to redefine the language. I merely take note of the connotative effects of other people's abuse of it.

>Wouldn't you agree that a web site that has a Google pagerank of 5/10 may not be devoid of 'content' all?

That would be yet another tidbit of trivia that plays absolutely no part in our website reviews.

Wouldn't you agree that a site full of unique information ought not to be discriminated against, just because it has not been flogged by professional link-spammers until it has a high PR?

And therefore, as any reasonable person would recognize, PR ought to have no effect on our website reviews. (I think we do a pretty good job of approaching that ideal.)

But we can take that reasoning a step further. Suggesting that we do take PR into account, is by definition accusing us of unfair discrimination. And suggesting that we SHOULD take PR into account, is proposing that we should abuse our editing privileges.

it seems that the freewheeling spirit has been superseded by a bureaucracy

Click to expand...

I assure you this is not the case - the majority of sites I have added have not come from the suggestion system but are sites I went out and found myself. I think this is true for many edtors.

regards

I thank everyone for their participation in this thread. If i had anticipated it would generate this much reaction, i certainly would have refrained from starting it. I never knew this forum existed until i stumbled upon it by looking up a client. since i had read a few comments on how hard it was getting to get listed on odp - some of which not flattering - (but you can't please everyone), i said to myself let me ask. i know that you have better things to do. thanks and you all have a great day!

bobrat said:

I must admit I have no idea what the exact definition of "world class" means (although it appears many consider their web sites to fit that definition) , and since the URL has been removed I can't check it. But of several thousand web sites I have reviewed. I would doubt that more than 5 would be even close to that concept. However, we don't use that kind of criteria in determining what to list. We look principly at content, not design.

Click to expand...

Once again a lethal heavy handed approach is wielded in the face of a helpless webmaster buy a trigger happy gun toting editor. Only too happy to fire the gun and ask questions later.

Is there no end to the wanton violent attitude some editors have against simply friendly questions tactfully and endearingly put by webmasters.

A child can understand the frustration of the original post. It did not require you to belittle the terminology of “world class” and your denomination of the number of sites that fit your interpretation of it. Are you trying to belittle all webmasters?

A simple question was asked. Polite, sincere and to the point. It oozed class and definition about the contents of the post. But you have turned it into a fracas and a fiasco about what "world class" means.

I know one thing, your ability to communicate is "Third World Status". I give you a ZERO out of ten for your communication skills. “My” denomination of where your editorial talents are is more of a place than a number, “in the gutter”.

Just ask him to re-apply and that somebody will look at his website in due course. You mechanisms are automated and re-applications could have erased previously applied ones or if a few people in his group overlap applications they would be nyllifying each other and yes, it could take years since each nullification would result in the bottom of the list.

Once again a lethal heavy handed approach is wielded in the face of a helpless webmaster buy a trigger happy gun toting editor. Only too happy to fire the gun and ask questions later.

Click to expand...

May gently suggest that if you have nothing positive to contribute, they perhaps you can save a few electrons by simply not posting.

You are contributing nothing to the disucssion or to the goals of this forum.

Anyone can do what you are doing -- stand on the sidelines and snipe -- and you are not helping anyone. Not in the least.

If you don't like our answers and you don't like our tone, go elsewhere. You are not an instrument of change, no matter how much you think you are, you are simply contributing to the inhospility.

spectregunner said:

May gently suggest that if you have nothing positive to contribute, they perhaps you can save a few electrons by simply not posting.

.

Click to expand...

OK, how about this for a productive post.

This is a magical forum. Like a word processor with all the frills of fancy tools with editing ability.

You type in simple diplomatic pure text to a DMOZ editor. And you get back colorful metaphors or a bold diatribe of threats and denounciations underlined with emphatic condemnation and censure.

Ah, that's your problem. Don't do "simple diplomatic speech". Tell the truth instead. You'd be amazed at the difference that makes.

hutcheson said:

Ah, that's your problem. Don't do "simple diplomatic speech". Tell the truth instead. You'd be amazed at the difference that makes.

Click to expand...

hutcheson,

I can relate to the original post since I too have in the past experienced the complaint of the original poster. But please note that the ending of that post thanked any editor for their attention.

The first reply by an editor was terse and implied being appalled. That is it, nothing else.

This is not the way to give an answer.

Other editors jumped on the bandwagon of reviling the posts contents. Personal derogatory statements made about the "world class" statement.

I am not a DMOZ editor. Yet I know that having a website listed in DMOZ is a prized possession and a privileged one at that. Made a privilege by default of the methods used by the directory, and the treatment applied by search engines. At the very least, it guarantees a website to be found by all of the major search engines. And in some cases a meteoric rise in the serps. Please don’t challenge me on this unless you have been discussing in depth about link value for the past 10 years.

Unfair advantages are bestowed upon favored websites that are listed. Whether you like to admit it or not. A distinct advantage is given to a listed website within your directory. There is no doubt about it and it is undeniable.

Your "good content" slogans are nothing but a slogan. No definitive explanation relates to what you say. Based on this, I find it trivial that DMOZ editors should trivialize the statement "world class" when in fact it is more understandable as to it's meaning than the vagueness of "good content".

I’m sure you take all posts with a pinch of salt as I do.

I find it trivial that DMOZ editors should trivialize the statement "world class" when in fact it is more understandable as to it's meaning than the vagueness of "good content".

Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite. What the heck is a "world class" website?

Is it one of a half million real estaae sites that is template based and totally devoid of content?

Is it full of flash and other bells and whistles that demonstrate the programmers skill set, and total lack of common sense?

Or is "world class" defined by the total number of revenue opportunies avaialbe to the site owner?

It is probably not a Geocities/Yahoo/Tripod site, even though many of those are very listable because, while crude and unsophisticated, they can rich in content that is quite unique.

Or does "world class" mean someone spent a fortune on development and thinks that is the way to get into the directory?

I contend that "world class" is meaningless.

You both misrepresent the editors and fail to read what has been said.

We talk about "unique content" (not, note well, "good content").

That is a meaningful concept. And, in fact, someone defined the concept for you, in this very thread.

Furthermore, it is far from being a slogan. It lies very close to the core of what we TRY to do, and helps us recognize what we CAN'T do. I remember two major changes in editing guidelines, based solely on discussion of what "unique" actually meant for specific kinds of sites. (I don't claim it is a TRIVIAL concept!)

spectregunner said:

OK, I'll bite. What the heck is a "world class" website?

Is it one of a half million real estaae sites that is template based and totally devoid of content?

Is it full of flash and other bells and whistles that demonstrate the programmers skill set, and total lack of common sense?

.

Click to expand...

spectregunner,

Your intelligence quotient is restricted to blindly self assessing webmasters assumed mental tendancies.

So I won't bother with you because I have a much bigger fish to fry in hutcheson.

---------------------------------------

hutcheson said:

You both misrepresent the editors and fail to read what has been said.

We talk about "unique content" (not, note well, "good content").

That is a meaningful concept. And, in fact, someone defined the concept for you, in this very thread.

Furthermore, it is far from being a slogan. It lies very close to the core of what we TRY to do, and helps us recognize what we CAN'T do. I remember two major changes in editing guidelines, based solely on discussion of what "unique" actually meant for specific kinds of sites. (I don't claim it is a TRIVIAL concept!)

Click to expand...

I take all of what you say with a pinch of salt and a hint of aromatic herbs to make pallatable what you say before I digest it. Or indeed regurgitate the corpus of doctrines you seem to have been indoctrinated with relating to matters of common terminologies that a child can decipher.

"Furthermore, it is far from being a slogan. It lies very close to the core of what we TRY to do" A slogan none the less.

In reply to your trivial interpretation then of "world class", my interpretation of what you say about "good content" is not as you have described it.

You canonized "good content" at DMOZ in a clandestine and stealthy manner as to it's interpretation amongst yourselves, and that is why you are living in a "third world" state of mind.

Your interpretations of the outside world do not match what you and other more sonorous DMOZ spokemen interpret within the impenetrable walls of a quasi organization purporting to be a directory.