Why my site is not listing on DMOZ ?

Hamboid said:

Sensible suggestion No.1

Don't allow site suggestions for categories that tend to attract large amounts of spam e.g. shopping (you guys know the others). This way editors will be free from the shackles of ocassionally having to do a token search through the suggestions to find the odd reasonable one. You will then have more time to add your own found sites to the category. Also, it will eliminate the need to review the 80 odd percent of sites which are rejected.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed and decided it would not work. The spammers would just go to another category and suggest their sites. BTW we don't have to review all sites that are not listable. Like my mailbox we have spamfilters.

Hamboid said:

Sensible suggestion No.2

Introduce a filter which recognises passive domains like .edu .org .gov etc.. which are more than likely not spammy and can therefore be reviewed quickly and added more quickly.

Click to expand...

OK, good suggestion. But it wouldn't solve anything as these sites and finding them are not a problem. Most of them never get suggested and when they are it is in specific categories with very low amounts of spam.

Hamboid said:

Sensible suggestion No.3

All chip in and give the "Editor of the month" a bag of sweets.

Click to expand...

I like sweets.
:gift:

Gits like me

motsa said:

Where did I say that?.

Click to expand...

Sorry, got the name wrong

motsa said:

And there are no shackles on editors to perform even a token occasional look at the unreviewed pool so there's nothing to be freed from..

Click to expand...

If it's true that around 80 percent of suggested sites are rejected that seems like a pretty ineffective use of editor's time..don't you think?

motsa said:

You do know that any Joe Blow can register a .org domain, right? It's not limited to organizations. And .edu and .gov domains rarely encounter a problem being reviewed quickly. In fact, most of them were added manually by editors, rather than being submitted by someone else. So it's a filter that really wouldn't do much.

Click to expand...

OK..fair point

Sensible suggestion No.4

Scrap the whole process of site suggestions. This way Editors won't have to spend time in this forum repeating the same old answers to gits like me.

Hamboid said:

Sensible suggestion No.4

Scrap the whole process of site suggestions. This way Editors won't have to spend time in this forum repeating the same old answers to gits like me.

Click to expand...

Has been discussed internaly. As there is still value in the suggestions it was decided not to do so.

If it's true that around 80 percent of suggested sites are rejected that seems like a pretty ineffective use of editor's time..don't you think?

Click to expand...

Right. Which is why some editors prefer to look elsewhere for sites, and never visit the suggestion pools.

After all this work and its not showing up

well i have try listing my website over and over in odp.why its not showing up.can some one please inlite me what i'm doing wrong
<url deleted>
and thank you for your help.

Well the answers have been given over and over again in this forum.

Firstly - check the guidelines to see if it is listable (better still get someone else to do it for you who is independant )

If you have not suggested it since the outage, suggest it once to the most appropriate topical category with a good title and description, checking the category descriptions for that category and those above it to be sure you are in the right place. Note a low level category description may seem correct but the category descriptions above may indicate it is not. Getting it wrong will merely add a delay.

Then forget it and go and promote your website in other ways. We cannot predict when an editor will review it but eventually they will.

regards

Forum for discussions about the process of suggesting a site for inclusion. General discussion only, no mention of specific sites here please.

Click to expand...

Terse I know, but it is this forum's subtitle .