Why wont DMOZ show submitted site status?

Well I know that RZ has stopped siste status check requests. But what I want to know is why doesnot DMOZ have an automated system that tells about site staus. Like I also know there is no schedule, but an automated tool which can tell about the staus of a site, the number of sites in the category awaiting review would be great for ppl who submitted. And creaing such a script would not be too great a work. I believe this would have been discussed to death here, but I cannot get the idea behind this decision.

That question is answered in the FAQ linked above under:

Well, if you won't do status checks here anymore, why don't you provide an automatic status reporting system for URL listing suggestions?

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the link. But let me say some things on the points raised.

1. We have very limited programming resources and we prefer to focus them on improving the directory itself and the tools that our editors use.
2. We have finite server capacity. This would be adversely affected by automated status enquiries from anxious site owners.
3. Some areas of the directory suffer from a deluge of websites that don't satisfy our listing requirements. An automated status reporting system would make the resubmittal of declined websites more efficient. This is hardly constructive.

Click to expand...

1. Is it really that major programming task? I donot fancy myself as very good programmer, but I have some experience with DBMS and programming. All of DMOZ data would be in some RDBMS, how much work is pulling some data from a database and formatting it?
2. If you allowed AUTOMATED querries as in using SW to make querries. But it is pretty easy to use a captcha to disallow softawres to make querries while allowing humans to ask.
3. Obviously it is a double edged sword, but IMHO, for whatever it is worth, is that the advantages to genuine webmasters far outweighs the advantages to spammers.

>> Obviously it is a double edged sword, but IMHO, for whatever it is worth, is that the advantages to genuine webmasters far outweighs the advantages to spammers. <<

Unfortunately the amount of spam submitted outweighs the number of useful submissions by (probably) at least 10 to 1; and such a tool would be very useful to spammers.

shabda said:

1. Is it really that major programming task? I donot fancy myself as very good programmer, but I have some experience with DBMS and programming. All of DMOZ data would be in some RDBMS, how much work is pulling some data from a database and formatting it?
2. If you allowed AUTOMATED querries as in using SW to make querries. But it is pretty easy to use a captcha to disallow softawres to make querries while allowing humans to ask.
3. Obviously it is a double edged sword, but IMHO, for whatever it is worth, is that the advantages to genuine webmasters far outweighs the advantages to spammers.

Click to expand...

1. It may or may not be a major undertaking, I am just an editor the technical stuff is best left up to those who know what they are talking about . But it isn't anything that is viewed as high priority since it offers nothing that is seen as beneficial to the general surfing community nor does it offer anything helpful to the editors working on the project.
2. I never quite understood what good this information could possibly be to anyone. What does a site owner do if they know their site is waiting to be reviewed? Is it any different than the one who's site is already listed or even the one that knows their's was not listable in the first place? IMHO No. A site owner should be focused on adding the content and features to their sites that benefit their target audience (their customers) whether they are listed in any directory or not.
3. Ahh but since webmasters are not the customers of dmoz.org, this information can only cause more harm then good in most cases to the directory and the work of its editors.

There are some really good things that can come from status checks, I do agree with that. The problem is the few good things that these did provide are vastly out numbered but the ill effects they can have.

""
>> Obviously it is a double edged sword, but IMHO, for whatever it is worth, is that the advantages to genuine webmasters far outweighs the advantages to spammers. <<

Unfortunately the amount of spam submitted outweighs the number of useful submissions by (probably) at least 10 to 1; and such a tool would be very useful to spammers.
""
Since you have inside info and I dont I guess I donot have any thing to say to that. But what would you say to 1 and 2.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: this suggestion has been made (and discussed) countless times (both in this forum and internally -- have a look around this forum and you'll numerous threads) and, at this time, it isn't a suggestion that is being considered.

I don't mean to be a hardass but there's really little point in starting the discussion up again.

Really, we've interminably discussed this topic time and time again, both here and inside ODP. Use the search here and you'll see.

Trust me on this, we aren't going to implement your suggestions any time soon. In the unlikely event that it ever does happen, it will be because it provides a benefit to the directory and the decision will be made internally.

<motsa was faster - again >

Right, that is pretty obvious. And I said it myself

I believe this would have been discussed to death here, but I cannot get the idea behind this decision.

Click to expand...

But can you point me to appropriate links where I can learn more about this.

You understand that we aren't likely to keep a list of discussions of suggestions we're not going to implement, right?

Just have a browse through this forum -- the suggestion pops up every couple of weeks so you shouldn't have too much trouble.

A simple forum search for "Automated Status Checks" would probably lead you to more than you would care to read

>IMHO, for whatever it is worth, is that the advantages to genuine webmasters far outweighs the advantages to spammers.

I've heard that before. You'll find many places where editors have argued (without any kind of response, effective or not) that there are NO benefits in this to owners of legitimate sites--that the information is of no practical use whatsoever.

Start here: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=site:resource-zone.com+automated+status+check

All of DMOZ data would be in some RDBMS

Click to expand...

Care to place a small wager, he asked, with a twinkle in his eye, and the slight nervous twitch that only appeared when he had a live one on the hook.

>All of DMOZ data would be in some RDBMS

Yes, well, a couple of issues with that:

Ah, having worked in databases, I have fewer illusions about the magic of RDBMS. The fact is, it really doesn't matter (from a performance perspective) whether a database is relational or not. Underneath the hood, it's indexed or hierarchically linked. Putting an "afterburner" switch on a Geo dashboard doesn't give it a passing gear. And -- these databases are HUGE. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions, of records: not indexed for the purpose you propose. The ODP doesn't have that kind of server horsepower, and if it did, there would be better things to do with it.

The other issue is: you say a lot about YOU being a legitimate webmaster. And that may be true. But look around you at the submitters of the NEXT nine submitters. If you're the non-spammer, every one of them are spammers. And ... if you're the non-spammer, then everything you do -- each of them does ten or a hundred times. Because, remember, they are spammers, that's what they do professionally! The "little load" you'd impose on us gets magnified multiple orders of magnitude, as all those spammers try to hide in your shadow, taking advantage of whatever sympathy we have for you, sucking up whatever resources we'd be willing to give. And you know, the fact is, for about 90% of the submittals, we want to not give a status. We want those spammers frustrated at not being able to tell which brick wall they are knocking their heads against.

Suppose we try to tell the difference between you and the spammers? We can do that, you know. We just review the website. And at that point, ... if the website is rejected, the submitter is a spammer.

So before the website is reviewed, we don't know whether to give a status or not. After it's reviewed, either EVERYONE sees the status (i.e. it's accepted) or we don't want to give a status (i.e. it's rejected.)

That's life on the internet.

And, of course, it still begs the question. What practical use is there? For a non-spammer, I mean: I know the spammers need this information desperately, to be able to figure out how to make that NEXT submittal even more deviously deceptive. But what are the non-spammers going to do with it?

Nothing. It is undisputed (and, I believe, undisputable) that there is no practical use for that information.

<url removed>