Will i be notified, if my site is rejected?

I have submitted my website http://www.ebulawa.com in category
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/E-mail/E-greetings/Invitations/

long time back. How will i know, that my site is rejected or accepted?

Please help me.
thanks

By judging the quality of your site. There is no listing/rejecting/... notifier whatsoever

Since you wouldn't have suggested a site that does not meet the ODP guidelines, there won't be a problem anyway, right? So nothing to worry about. A lot of further reading is in the FAQ linked at the top of this forum.

Widharp,
Thank you for your speedy response.

>> There is no listing/rejecting/... notifier whatsoever
Can you be more clear on this? I didnot understand, what you are trying to say here.

srikondoji said:

>> There is no listing/rejecting/... notifier whatsoever
Can you be more clear on this? I didnot understand, what you are trying to say here.

Click to expand...

He means that there is no notification to submitters when a site is rejected. Nor is there any notification when a site is listed, but in that case of course you will be able to see the listing when it appears in the directory. You simply have to check DMOZ yourself occasionally.

Thank you jtbel,
I think, i should go to himalayas for meditation and hope to see it listed on dmoz by the time, i come back.

This board is wonderful for its responsiveness.

Great work.
thanks
sri

Remember that we don't know it is your site. And we aren't offering you any service. Quite the contrary: you are, from our point of view, just helping us find good sites (or not, as the case may be.)

I don't want to criticize meditation, but ... if there is something you could be doing to promote your site, you could be doing it, and doing it now. Note that submitting to the ODP does not really fit this definition, so if you thought that was all you needed to do, you could not have been more wrong.

hutcheson

I understand the things as it is from your point of you.
As you guys are flooded with barrage of sites, everything is same for you, even if it is http://www.microsoft.com, yahoo.com or something.com

These are just limitations of the system and nothing else.

As far as helping the system....
1) There should be some editors dedicated to distributing the categories among other editors. This way, all categories are given equal importance. Sort of Load balancing. I know, you guys don't like the word 'LOAD". Again, allowing Editors to choose their own sites/categories is not entirely correct approach. They should also be given some 'must edit' categories on top of editor choosen categories.
2) Drawback of Editor choosen categories: If you know any Editor, don't you think there is chance of back door approaches from website owners? Sort of, choose my category and site to edit and i will pay you this much?
By saying this, iam not blaming anyone in particular. Again, my apologies, i still don't know the whole system and its functionality. I may be dead wrong here.

Thanks
Sri

srikondoji said:

Again, allowing Editors to choose their own sites/categories is not entirely correct approach. They should also be given some 'must edit' categories on top of editor choosen categories.

Click to expand...

The biggest drawback of that plan is that, if implemented, the VAST majority of editors would quit instantly. We are volunteers. We don't get paid, we do this because we like to categorize things (in this case, web sites). I have a manager at my job, I don't need one for my hobbies.

If you know any Editor, don't you think there is chance of back door approaches from website owners? Sort of, choose my category and site to edit and i will pay you this much?

Click to expand...

If editors are caught taking money for site placement, they are banned. If site owners are caught offering money for site placement, the site is banned.

bekahm said:

The biggest drawback of that plan is that, if implemented, the VAST majority of editors would quit instantly. We are volunteers. We don't get paid, we do this because we like to categorize things (in this case, web sites). I have a manager at my job, I don't need one for my hobbies.

If editors are caught taking money for site placement, they are banned. If site owners are caught offering money for site placement, the site is banned.

Click to expand...

I know, that editing is hobby and people don't like a boss for a hobby.

What, i was trying to drive a point here is, there will be some categories/websites which will be punished for no reason.,Simply because, someone doesnot like the category or a website.


Should we not have a debate here to find a way out...
Which will make editors feel, that, what they are doing is a hobby and still equitably address every category/website?

One approach would be...
Get a list of categories left un addressed for months. Keep them open for new editors. Close out all categories, which are having enough editors.
Set a rule, For 'X' number of webistes in a 'Y' category, only 'Z' number of Editorsare allowed. If, we reach the limit, then close that category temporarily.
I agree this requires some programming resources and some effort.

thanks

(1) Allowing the editors to choose where they work is the most effective way imaginable for focusing effort where it is most needed and most productive. It is the most effective way imaginable for extracting the maximum amount of effort from volunteers. It is the most effective way anyone has yet devised of correlating editing effort to surfer interest. And, last but assuredly not least, it is the management model that has attracted the current development community. Changing this is, um, slightly less likely than peace in the Middle East.

(2) As for the moral issues you raise: the ODP isn't about being "fair". It's about being "generous." Nobody could pay for the knowledge, passion, and effort poured into the ODP daily by people who are giving the best of themselves away for their own reasons.

If you don't want that and would prefer fairness instead, give us a list of all the possible actions we could perform that would help you beyond your own deserts, and we will do our best to refrain from them all. Is that fair enough for you?

(3) Ethical issues are paramount, and editor corruption is one of the largests concern of the ODP administration. You may see this, by going to any SERP perp forum, and reading the complaints of ex-editors -- then looking at their websites. And you can see this in another way also, by offering to pay for a listing -- then watching to see how fast you and all your websites and all your associates and all their websites disappear from the ODP permanently. (I do not recommend trying this yourself, but if you lurk around the forums long enough, you can see someone else perform the experiment for you at their expense.)

I think the administration is well-advised to do as they do -- to focus on keeping the ODP editors and submitters honest, and to avoid imposing artificial and arbitrary models of "fairness" on actions.

(4) The ODP is what it is, but there is nothing that says you must be the same. Of course, if you can find a better way to do what the ODP does (or, more likely, to find a good way to do something different than what the ODP does), you'll have something that may be worth trying to build a community around. Just apply your own concepts of fairness, ethics, and management principles to your own website -- thus trying to begin to lead by example, which is the only way a volunteer community can be led.

Hi all,
Thanks for all those who responded.

I am not requesting a change in the approach of ODP. What ODP is following is a time tested approach and is serving its best. What iam trying to say is, can we just add something else to make it a fair play?.

Being generous is the most, anyone can expect. But asking to be fair in someones generosity is too much.

While Editors community is doing their bit (generously), big firms like google, who pull ODP data should come forward to add fairness to this process. This can be done by adding programming resources/funds/contributing developers etc.

My apologies for all my previous messages, where i was requesting fairness from Editors.

-sri

srikondoji said:

What iam trying to say is, can we just add something else to make it a fair play?.

Click to expand...

Fair play? Fair to who?
For us every suggested website is equal as all suggestions will be looked into at some time. Sites who don't follow our guidelines get rejected the other sites will be listed. Unfourtunately a lot of sites don't meet our guidelines but their owners knowingly still suggest them and waste a lot of our time. And more important for all honest webmasters will slowdown the review of their sites.
But remember we never promised you when we will review the suggested site, we also never promised you your site will be listed or that it will be kept in the directory after it has been listed. I think this is very fair. Much fairer as you will see on many other directories or search engines.

There's a very simple rule to tell whether a category "has enough editors" -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with number of sites, as you'd realize if you thought about it for even a millisecond: are there twelve sites in the category because there are only thirteen sites, and one is owned by a wannabe-briber; or because there are twelve thousand sites and nobody has ever cared whether they were listed? You don't know, you can't know, and neither do we. The only relevant rule is "is someone else willing to help, and able to contribute to it?"

There's a very simple rule to determine whether a category "needs help" -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with number of submittals, as you'd realize if you thought about it for a millisecond. Are those submittals massive spam, or good sites? You don't know, you can't know. The real rule is "is there someone who is able to tell how the category should be built up, and who cares enough to ... be willing to do something about it?"

Same rule as before.

What does all of this have to do with submittals? Nothing whatsoever. If we could find editors (no, WHEN we find editors) who can build up a category without the help of a single submittal -- you'd have us boot those noble and talented individuals out to build their own link pages in obscurity. We desperately want them to build up our link pages.

It should be obvious which attitude gets ODP link pages built.

Thanks again for all responses.

I think, we should end this thread right here. I am happy to have learned the DMOZ procedures and did spend sometime reading DMOZ listing rules and FAQ on this forum.

Thanks to all the editors, who are doing great work in their spare time.
Even, i would like to be an editor and contribute my little mite.

sri

srikondoji said:

Even, i would like to be an editor and contribute my little mite.

Click to expand...

Then please apply. Make sure you read the guidelines thoroughly and pick a small category to start off in. Hobby related categories are often best for new editors as they tend to get less spam than business related categories.

That's truly the way to learn.

Note that Google draws on many sources other than the ODP. While I may think the ODP is one of the best sources of good sites, mine is only one opinion. In a way, Google does something very much like the ODP does -- rather than trying to create a single definition of what "everyone wants", it draws from billions of pages, to "average out" what everybody wants. And everyone (me included) looks at Google results and says "that could be better." Sure it could! But ... who's willing to create links to spend their precious online credibility to make Google better?

If you can't help the ODP, you CAN help Google -- your personal page can provide Google with links to your neighbors, your community, your business associates, your religion, whatever you think ought to be better represented on the web. Google notices. (And so, eventually, does the ODP.)