Site acceptance or rejection?

[Guest Ferdinand Ibon]

I was reading the different threads on the forum and noticed that members are interested in "site status information". I'm very new to this forum, in fact just today and the reason why I registered is to know more how a particular site will be accepted or rejected on DMOZ. I have read that site owners have waited 5 years for their sites to get listed while others have given up hope.

 

I have heard a lot of feedbacks regarding DMOZ and the importance of the directory, but on theses cases I have read, how will DMOZ inform site owners & webmasters on their site status. I know that DMOZ implemented a new policy for "Status Checks" and this is fine if it would defeat the purpose of the forums, but what is the purpose? who will define that purpose? the editors or the DMOZ as a whole (editors and Members)?.

 

As I read a lot of post regarding site status I can feel the emotional hardships of the site owners and webmasters on not knowing the reason why their sites are still not listed on a specific category. Their agony on waiting for a response from DMOZ.

 

Site acceptance or rejection>>>

[bobrat]

  Quote

I have read that site owners have waited 5 years for their sites to get listed

True, but others may be added within days, best to assume the time frame is random.

  Quote

while others have given up hope.

Good idea, suggest a site and forget about it.

  Quote

how will DMOZ inform site owners & webmasters on their site status.

We won't, there is no notification in place, and there is no intention to ever offer such service.

  Quote

Their agony on waiting for a response from DMOZ.

I fail to understand the agony, this is not life or death, it's just a listing in a directory.

[motsa]

  Quote

this is fine if it would defeat the purpose of the forums, but what is the purpose? who will define that purpose? the editors or the DMOZ as a whole (editors and Members)?.

The purpose of this forum is defined by the people who run it, i.e. ODP editors.

[akishore]

Notification after review

 

If a website suggestion has been reviewed by an editor, then I feel the submitter should be notified about the results of the review especially if the website is rejecyed so that the submitter will stop looking in DMOZ directory for inclusion.

 

I completely agree that the DMOZ directory is for the surfers and the contents have to be useful for surfer. I suggested a website about 2 years ago and do not know if it has been looked at by an editor or not. Looking at other website in the same catagory, I would think the website I suggested would be very useful to the surfers looking for the product in that catagory. It would provide more choices to the surfer. I would not consider myself a spammer as I have only suggested one website ever. This website has real contents and the surfers who do come this site find it very useful as it provides them with choices. New contents are being added to the website regularly to provide more information to the surfers.

 

It is possible that a website that has been rejected for inclusion might have a very different contents after it has been rejected as websites have to constantly add new contents to help the surfers in order to keep up with the changing aspect of the the business. Businesses can not remain static and hope to survive in today's economy / market. By notifying that the website has been rejected, it may be suggested again if the website has a lot of new contents. The editor can have a second look in due course at the website with new contents. I am assuming that the editor does not come back to the website once it has been rejected. From this perspective, it would be useful if the submitter could be notified of the results after the website has been reviewed.

 

Regards,

 

Anand Kishore

<url removed>

[hutcheson]

>By notifying that the website has been rejected, it may be suggested again if the website has a lot of new contents.

 

In our experience, this is simply not a possibility that occurs often enough to waste time designing processes for.

 

A webmaster who thinks it IS a possibility, should adjust his OWN process, and NOT suggest the website UNTIL the additional content has been added.

 

In other words, the complete solution to the problem is already in the power of those who perceive it.

[giz]

Yesterday I typed a couple of keywords into Google and then looked at the first 30 results returned. I found 7 sites that look like they are listable in the ODP, and they will get added shortly.

 

I haven't written to the other 23 sites to tell them that if they changed the content of their site, that they too could be listed. Why should I? I have found 7 sites that between them say just about all there is to say on the subject, I don't actually need any more to make a comprehensive category.

 

The other 23 have made the site that they have made, and cater for whatever audience they had in mind. If they change their content in the future, and become listable, no doubt an editor will notice that fact and do it.

 

Now, I also just peeked at the unreviewed of some category or other. There are about 50 sites suggested there. It looks like about 10 sites are listable, and the rest are not. The 10 will get listed eventually, and the other 40 will not. The 40 that are not listable will receive the same feedback as the unlistable sites that I saw in Google (none).

[bobrat]

Although there is no automatic process to tell about acceptance or rejection, editors can choose to notify site owners if they wish. However, it's suggested that editors do this with care, since sometimes it's not a good idea.

 

E.g. when I started, I notified a couple of site owners that their sites had been listed. The result was a bunch of complaints about the description and arguments back and forth about it. I stopped doing that.

 

I still occasionly send an email if the site is almost listable (and I would really like to list it), but just needs a small change. I find that in less than 10% of those case does the site get changed and resubmiitted. It's seems it is a waste of my time.

 

I would never consider informing about rejection when the site is nowhere near being listable.

[spectregunner]

  Quote

If a website suggestion has been reviewed by an editor, then I feel the submitter should be notified about the results of the review especially if the website is rejecyed so that the submitter will stop looking in DMOZ directory for inclusion.

 

You are entitled to hold that belief.

 

We experimented along those lines for quite a while when we did status submission checks.

 

We learned several lessons with that experiment:

• Many people take bad news poorly
  
• spammers used that infomration to increase the pace of their submissions
  
• The information we provided let spammers know what techniques worked and which ones didn't work.
  
• Ther are websites that will never, ever be listed -- and we all benefit from that fact.
  
• People over-rate the importance of an ODP listing.
  
• Too many people assume that if their website is not listed, it must be corruption.
  
• People cannot follow even simple rules that tell them how many days to wait between status checks.
  

That is an experiment we are unlikely to attempt again.

[Guest Ferdinand Ibon]

Editors...members or as a whole...

 

Just got back and was happy that the response on the thread is good.

 

  motsa said:

The purpose of this forum is defined by the people who run it, i.e. ODP editors.

 

Thank you for this short but extremely powerful "quote". By stating this, can you answer what is your definition of a "Forum"? I was just wondering for a forum functions much like a bulletin board; users submit postings for all to read and discussion ensues for open discussion. A forum has certain rules but it's an open rule...no bad words, respect for others opinions and sticking with the topic of the thread.

 

I understand that editors are there to moderate and guide the members so the forum will be interesting and I agree that the forum is nicer without the bad words, however a forum should be like a family where each member can share concerns, successes and disappointments. And if their concern is their site listing then why deprive them.

 

An editor was right, getting your site listed is not a matter of life and death and DMOZ is just a search directory, however not all people are alike and each life situation is different, others like the big companies try to list their sites and don't care if their site gets listed or not for they have other means to advertise and be known like the route of Pay per clicks or banner advertising (paid ads), but the common work class, who is working hard 9-5 and wants to earn a few bucks on the side so they can have some royalties of life from time to time or those that have no work and establish a site to feed their family, they can't go to the High Priced Pay your all Advertising, instead they will resort to directory submissions, link exchanges and maybe even go house to house just to promote a site and make a living. These are the people that the Forum should help, now if by helping these people the bad guys take advantage then by all means punish theses bad guys, it's just a click away ... by the editors

 

I’m glad that DMOZ is here and I'm sure DMOZ has help a lot of site owners already, but it would not hurt to be more accommodating and hear out the voice of the members. One big happy family and spammers punished

 

Editors...Members or as a Whole.

[shadow575]

Editors don't punish, penalize or reward site owners. Ever. Any benefit that a site owner receives from being listed at dmoz.org is an unfortunate side effect (one that in my opinion is over-rated most of the time) and most definately not an intended side effect.

 

  Ferdinand Ibon said:

however not all people are alike and each life situation is different, others like the big companies try to list their sites and don't care if their site gets listed or not for they have other means to advertise and be known like the route of Pay per clicks or banner advertising (paid ads), but the common work class, who is working hard 9-5 and wants to earn a few bucks on the side so they can have some royalties of life from time to time or those that have no work and establish a site to feed their family, they can't go to the High Priced Pay your all Advertising, instead they will resort to directory submissions, link exchanges and maybe even go house to house just to promote a site and make a living. These are the people that the Forum should help, now if by helping these people the bad guys take advantage then by all means punish theses bad guys, it's just a click away ... by the editors

I fail to see how that would be fair to anyone? The directory and its editors are not and cannot be concerned (ever) with how big the sites owner is, how much money they have, or how they wish to promote their site. The editors and the directory only have two concerns-

1. Unique content and
   
2. how much of it there is.

 

This forum is here to help explain the directory and highlight processes that are involved in it, including becoming a volunteer editor. It does not exist to help anyone promote their site. I think perhaps that has been miss-communicated.

[hutcheson]

You're obviously confusing the ODP with the Spanish Inquisition. We have no power to punish evil, so your proposed solution is just surreal.

 

And your idea that ODP editors arrogate to themselves the power to judge life situations -- that's without a doubt the most arrogant concept of the ODP I've ever heard. We're not here to judge life situations -- that would be the most abusive action imaginable! It is not for me to judge the fairness or greed involved in your desires, or the industry or sloth involved in your work. All I can say is: I have a right to choose what I consider worth working on, and I can't see how any particular stranger's retirement income has anything at all to do with me. And I can't imagine other editors feeling they have the right to pick and choose who has a luxury retirement, and who doesn't. And what gets done at the ODP is -- just what each editor does. So there's nobody to judge life situations. Which is a good thing.

 

What we do is very different. We review WEBSITES. That's all. You could be a filthy rich, lazy jerk, and your website SHOULD still get the same review anyone else's does -- and it will, if we can help it, unless you harass or threaten an editor.

 

I wish, I really wish, we could add a little clickbox to all site submittals "Webmaster believes this site needs an ODP to succeed." Then we could save oodles of time for everybody and improve the web -- by simply auto-rejecting all suggestions with that box checked.

[bobrat]

  Quote

by simply auto-rejecting all suggestions with that box checked.

An excellant idea, since the chances are that that type of website will fail to survive, and listing it will be a futile waste of time. It is highly likely it will die, or fail to be supported, and another editor will than have to come along and delete it within a year.

 

Any site that feels it has to rely on an ODP listing should never ever be listed.

[motsa]

  Quote

  Quote

The purpose of this forum is defined by the people who run it, i.e. ODP editors.

Thank you for this short but extremely powerful "quote". By stating this, can you answer what is your definition of a "Forum"?

Since I wasn't referring to the concept of forums in general in my comment, there's no point in my defining the general term. My definition of this forum is everything at the domain http://resource-zone.com .

 

  Quote

I was just wondering for a forum functions much like a bulletin board; users submit postings for all to read and discussion ensues for open discussion. A forum has certain rules but it's an open rule...no bad words, respect for others opinions and sticking with the topic of the thread.

 

I understand that editors are there to moderate and guide the members so the forum will be interesting and I agree that the forum is nicer without the bad words, however a forum should be like a family where each member can share concerns, successes and disappointments. And if their concern is their site listing then why deprive them.

Forums are only as open as the people who are running them want them to be and a forum's rules are only as flexible as the people who are running the forum want them to be.

 

Yes, this forum is public. No, it is not open in the sense that you're talking about, where members are free talk about anything they want as long as they don't swear. We, as the people running this particular site (resource-zone.com), have made a number decisions regarding the topics that are acceptable here. Topics like site suggestion status checks have been deemed unacceptable.

[Guest Ferdinand Ibon]

Thanks for the replies, I understand now. More power to the ODP.

[peterx14]

Hello,

 

  shadow575 said:

Any benefit that a site owner receives from being listed at dmoz.org is an unfortunate side effect (one that in my opinion is over-rated most of the time) and most definately not an intended side effect.

 

Since a lot of people seem to attach a lot of significance to being listed in the directory, and since this appears to be driven by the effect (real or perceived) on search engines such as Google, why don't you have a robots directive to prevent search engines from indexing the directory?

 

(appolgies if this question has been asked before. It stikes me as an obvious one, which usually means it has been covered... but if it has, I can't find it!)

 

Peter.

[giz]

What will that do?

 

The directory also exists at directory.google.com and several thousand other cloned sites.

 

They will still be indexed too.

[peterx14]

Oh yeah -- I hadn't thought of that! (/me slaps own forehead)

 

That does make my next point mostly moot... but anyway... do you think allowing search engine robots access to dmoz.org is beneficial?

[spectregunner]

We don't seek to benefit from it, and it does not cause us harm (assuming the robots use good manners).

[peterx14]

I'm just thinking that given the frequent posts about someones dire need to be listed, and the frequent answers saying [broadly] any search engine benefit is unintended and thus the directory is what it is, it may help your [DMOZ.org] argument if it looked like you'd tried?

[spectregunner]

The problem here is that there is really no problem.

We (collectively) put togeter lists of websites that meet our criteria.

We publish those lists and tell the world that they are free to use those lists, providing they appropriately document where the list came from.

 

That is it.

 

It is really quite simple.

 

No vast conspiracies. No draconian plot to take over the Internet.

 

The people who run aorund shouting "DMOZ is evil" have their own agendas -- usually financial. we are not going to change because of them, and we suspect they will never change (everyone needs a cause in life).

 

Even if the the ODP opponents were to somehow prevail, and they shut down this great resource -- the same basic core of editors would probably be found helping out someplace else.

 

There are those who build and those who seek to destroy. We know who the builders are.

[peterx14]

First up -- totally, I know my point is mostly moot from any practical perspective. I completely understand the obectives, and I understand there isn't a conspiracy!

 

My point (whats left of it anyway!), is if there is no benefit to search engine robots not being blocked, then why don't you block them? If you did, then you gain an additional counter argument to anyone claiming the importance of their being listed. No?

 

Anyway -- zero practical difference, but a 30-second robots.txt editting session and a [albeit, very] minor gain. Thats my £0.02's worth for today!!

 

All the best,

 

Peter

[hutcheson]

>is if there is no benefit to search engine robots not being blocked, then why don't you block them?

 

Since there IS a benefit, and we've all agreed there is a benefit, why do you keep asking hypothetical questions about situations that cannot happen?

 

In any case, the policy of the project, from the beginning, has been, "let the users make of it what they will." With that in mind, there is only one conceivable policy for search engine spiders -- "let them come, so long as they do the ODP servers no harm." (IIRC, some rude spiders have been blocked.) That means we don't have to ask who or what might be benefited. We accept that we probably will not know, and certainly will not be allowed to control, all the beneficial effects. Because the ODP social contract says nothing, NOTHING, about anyone having to show a social benefit BEFORE using ODP information.

 

And we simply aren't that desperate for counter-arguments about sites being listed. No sites are guaranteed a listing -- it says so right in the submittal policy.

 

And there aren't really any material arguments to counter. What the ODP has, is the links that thousands of people thought important for some reason or another. That constitutes the largest collection of sentient-reviewed links in known space. The presumption is, that's useful. Somehow, sometime, to someone.

 

There is no presumption that it's complete. There's a welcome for people who want to work on it, in places where it seems (from the point of the user) most incomplete. And that's all.

 

There's nobody that has standing to argue. The webmaster and his hirelings simply don't get a vote. The ODP is not for their benefit, and if it GAVE them no benefit at all, that would not be a concern at all.

 

There's nobody to argue about listings with. There is no argument that can be made for a listing, that the site itself doesn't make best. Every other source of argumentation is counterproductive -- at best.

[bobrat]

And one should note that many users of DMOZ data, in particular the Google directory, do not use robots to grab the information from the DMOZ.ORG site. Instead they periodically download and parse the DMOZ RDF files and use that to propagate their directories/search engines.

 

In those cases the use of robots.txt would have no effect.

[peterx14]

Thanks for all your answers!!!