Is my site Not Good Enough?

[hrozob]

Hi. I have been working at least for 2 years on <URL deleted> and for my experience a tourism site is a never ending task.

 

I have been submiting my site to Dmoz for over a year and have never had any result. My site has never been included.

 

I would like to know if anyone here can see or identify a possible problem with my site, not good quality, bad content, anything that would help me solve the problem and be able to get listed.

 

Thank you for any comment or advise.

 

Hector.

[hutcheson]

I'm not sure what you mean by "quality" (good) or "content" (bad). We tend to talk about "unique, authoritative information" (as in presence or absense of) instead.

 

You can surely not have failed to notice the amount of affiliate/doorway spam in the travel-marketing business? It is likely (approaching certainty) that any editors willing to work in that area will not quickly or easily find any other kind of sites. In the natural course of events, it may take much longer for them to find yours.

 

On the other hand, any unique content had better be prominently displayed in the site, because an editor or other surfer won't hunt for it, if the main page is dominated by the usual.

 

It should be obvious that the editor doesn't and can't know what unique knowledge you could bring to the web -- only you know that. But that's what we look for on websites. You already know how easy it would be to find on your website. There's really nothing we can tell you, that you don't already know.

 

If you've suggested the site ONCE, you've done all that is helpful; anything more would be counterproductive at best. But it always makes an editor feel nervous when someone uses a progressive tense with reference to ODP submittals -- it's like hearing machine-gun fire and seeing tracers in your direction. Once more: one submittal, once, is all that it takes to help us.

[crowbar]

You can surely not have failed to notice the amount of affiliate/doorway spam in the travel-marketing business? It is likely (approaching certainty) that any editors willing to work in that area will not quickly or easily find any other kind of sites. In the natural course of events, it may take much longer for them to find yours.

 

To be very frank and honest, as a Regional editor with 10,000+ site suggestions available for review, this area is so spam ridden and time consuming to deal with, I prefer to spend my time more productively.

 

In the time it takes to wade through all of the information (and misinformation) on one of these sites, I can review 10 other sites that don't give me a headache, .

 

My own time is valuable to me, I give it freely for the benefit of others, but, I want to use it efficiently, as you probably try to use your own time, .

[chaos127]

If you have been submitting your site several times, then case please stop. Not only does it create more work for the (over-stretched) editors, but it may also delay the eventual review and potential listing of your site. Whether the site had been rejected or not, a re-submission isn't going to help. Assuming that your site is listable, then the overwhelming most likely reason for it not being listed yet is that it has yet to be reviewed.

 

There are a finite number of volunteer editors and a large number of sites suggested by the public. We're therefore unable to offer any time scale for reviews, and delays of a couple of years are not uncommon. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that having suggested a site there's nothing you can do but wait patiently -- it would obviously be unfair to give sites whose owners post here any special treatment (and you could image the stampede if we did).

[hrozob]

Well, according to what you guys say regardless if my site is or not a spamming site, it will be inside the 10000+ package of possible travel spamming sites.

 

So I really hope someone to have a look at my page and notice the effort we have done to try to build a nice and effective site.

 

What I do not agree with, is what crowbar say that knowing there is so much spamming on travel sites, it is no worth to look for the good ones.

 

I hope an editor to have a look.

 

Thank you

Hector

 

[hutcheson]

>What I do not agree with, is what crowbar say that knowing there is so much spamming on travel sites, it is no worth to look for the good ones.

 

You had already voted -- you didn't think anything having to do with building the directory was worth your time (and crowbar didn't have a vote on that.) But Crowbar has decided the directory was worth a lot of time (and you didn't have a vote on THAT either.) Everyone gets a vote, but only for their own time.

 

What we're telling you is not what you have to think -- we know you have different priorities. But we can tell you what, in our experience, most public-spirited volunteers DO think most of the time.

 

That way, you can set your expectations realistically, based on reality, and not on what you erroneously think someone else might think.

[anjordan77]

If i buy you a bottle of tylenol for the headache will you consider looking at my site? haha. but i'm not in the real estate business mine's pretty straight forward.

 

I think what they are trying to say is they have trouble sorting out your quality website from the 100,000 spam websites and it takes them hours before they find a nice quality website like yours when in other categories they could have listed about 10 websites in the time they spend in real estate.

[crowbar]

I'm happy to say, that I'm totally drug free, anjordan77, .

 

Editors are not forced to do site suggestion reviews at all, there are many, many other tasks to be performed that are just as important, and maybe more important in building a quality Directory.

 

We have complete freedom to choose the type of task we want to work on (as long as we have the editing permissions to do so, of course).

 

As a Regional editor, I may want to find new sites for a small locality (town/village) in order to give them a chance to be equally represented out on the Internet, or, I may choose to clean up the sites and categories in a large city, for the users benefit.

 

As a part of quality control, I may find and investigate dead URL's, to see if the site can be relisted under a new url (not every site owner thinks to leave a message pointing to their new address), or I may check for proper titles, descriptions, correct spelling and punctuation, and make sure the site is in the proper category (where it can be found).

 

Then, there is the spam issue. Certain categories, like Real Estate, are noted for receiving spam, so, I make it a habit to go check them to see if some enterprising rascal has been trying to get tricky by submitting various versions of his site in an effort to get an unfair advantage over his competition. (it's usually these fellows who yell the loudest about unfair treatment by editors like myself, )

 

It's always a pleasure to catch them, I hate cheats, .

 

So, we have many tasks to choose from, and each one of them is a different kind of pleasure to do, .

[anjordan77]

that sounds like me trying to help the little guy out while still keeping the big guy happy and really punishing those cheats out there.

[crowbar]

Not punishing, I understand why they do what they do, just keeping them honest, .

 

My job isn't to form opinions about people or the type of content on their sites, it's to apply the Guidelines impartially in my listing of them, .

[ekschmitz]

But What If It Doesn't Pass Muster?

 

Y'all,

 

First time in the forum, reading through this thread, wondering myself what has happened to the review of my site.

 

I understand it may take some time for sites to pop to the top of the stack and even then it may be yea or nay.

 

Will we hear from you, Glorious, Overworked & Under Appreciated (but not by me!) Editors, if our site is not up to snuff?

 

Regards,

Beth

 

p.s. waiting 11 months on 1 submission, <url removed>

[hutcheson]

No, if you've helped us by suggesting a good site, we'll just tell the world about it (by listing it.)

 

If someone has wasted our time by suggesting a site without significant unique information, then we won't waste any more of our time telling them -- telling them what? to please go away, they aren't helping? What else do we have to say?

[makrhod]

it may take some time for sites to pop to the top of the stack

I understand you were simply keeping the tone of your post light and jocular (thank you for that!), but this is a common misconception, so although it may not be your own understanding, I'll explain anyway.

 

As can be seen from many previous threads (and even some editor signatures), there is no "queue", or "stack", or any sort of orderly progression of suggestions from newly arrived to next in line for review. As volunteers, we are absolutely free to spend our ODP time as we choose, as long as it is in accordance with the Guidelines and our level of permission. So all editors can review sites from anywhere, including magazines, advertisements, television, the internet, and any suggestions made directly to the ODP. If an editor decides to use the latter as a resource, he is perfectly free to choose a site at random, or to look at the oldest first, or the newest, or even the one suggested closest to his birthday.

 

This is why we keep saying that there is absolutely no way of knowing when, or even if, a site will be reviewed.

[ekschmitz]

Now I'm Depressed!

 

In a word... Gulp!

 

Beth

[crowbar]

Don't be, Beth.

 

There are many, many times when I've been editing in a category, and run across sites that have only been there one or two days, and I list them.

 

Do I feel bad that site suggestions may take a long time to be reviewed, and that there is no way for a submitter to check on it's status?

 

Of course I do, and yes, I care, but, all of us are just ordinary people, with real lives and real jobs, doing this as we have time to in our spare time.

 

The real solution is for people like you to join us as editors, remembering what it was like to have to wait, and deciding to lend us a hand so that others don't have to wait as long.

 

All ODP editors are givers, not takers, working for a world wide community of users.

 

A wonderful place to edit is right in your own town, finding and listing every site you can, to give your own locality a presence on the web.

 

You would apply in the Regional part of the Directory.

 

Here's the "Becoming An Editor" FAQ :

http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_editor#faq_faq_become

[Eric-the-Bun]

Another aspect to consider is that for an editor to work in a category, they need to have some sort of interest in it. Many editors concentrate on particular areas because it is an extension of their interests and hobbies (e.g. folk dancing is mine). They often join because they see that the directory in their area of interest could be improved. (So logically, if an area cannot attract new editors, it is not of intense interest to the internet community as a whole).

 

Hence the growth of the directory (ie where sites get added) reflects what the editor community thinks is important at the time. There are many editors that can edit over the whole directory or areas other than their main interest so no category is actually without an editor. However edtor interest means that some categories can expand and blossom overnight whilst others can remain static for a long time.

 

To counteract your depression, the good news is that the ODP has nothing to do with the success or otherwise of any particular site. Whether your site is listed or not, does not prevent you from promoting your site and improving its visibility on the internet. To counter any future depression concerning your ODP suggestion, follow our advice - Suggest and forget - having suggested your site, there is no more you can or need to do to.

 

regards

[hrozob]

Based on what you guys have said, I think the unfair issue here is that very small companies, like mine, trying to succeed on a limited budget and with huge competitors, have to rely on this kind of directories to be able to achieve the results big companies can achieve spending cash.

 

It looks to me, that the fact a category like travel is full of spamming, makes editors to avoid spending their valuable time going over sites not worth a look. But my site is in the middle of that pack and I think my site is good.

 

So these ideas make me feel that by selecting what editors prefer doing, people, companies or sites like mine are left behind and without the opportunity of, at least, being evaluated and possibly included in the directory.

 

I think all categories should be seen, regardless if they are full of spamming or not, as a good site could be in the middle of it.

In fact I think editors should see, that by doing this they are fulfilling a commitment with the people submitting their work to get their OK and be listed. I don't think their commitment should be only with the ODP but

also with the people of good faith, that still believe in the objectivity of the persons who requested to be editors.

 

Is not my intention to say, all editors are not doing their job. My intention is just to point out the fact that people like me depend on guys like you and is not fair to hear that my site is in the middle of a full of spam category and because of that no editor will be willing to spend their time revising it.

 

Thank you

Hector

[Hamboid]

Don't get upset

 

Hrozob,

 

Don't get too upset about not getting your site listed.

 

I too am frustrated about my site's lack of inclusion. I tried to get it listed a couple of years ago and then again more recently when it was appropriate for a very different category (I've since found out that was probably a mistake).

 

The fact is that this forum cannot get you listed more quickly. It took me a while to get used to that but the reality is that, from what I can gather anyway, the ODP doesn't work like other internet directories.

 

One editor who seems to regularly post on this forum sometimes makes sense.

 

He or she (he I suspect) said recently.....assume your site will never get listed. That way you are in a win win situation. If it doesn't get listed you expected that anyway...if it does...great.

[hrozob]

well.........

 

Hambold.

 

Is not "upset" only is also "frustration".

 

It should not be a matter of not believing my site will be listed.

 

It should be the ethical process for every site to be revised in the proper way, with a proper protocol and in an ordered way to guarantee everyone that ODP is worth the wait.

 

Thank you

Hector

[Hamboid]

Sympathy

 

I know what you are trying to say but the ODP has its own ideology about how they list sites.

 

I have the same expectation as you i.e, that any influential internet directory would use a fair way of inclusion that takes into account time on the "waiting list" and so on.

 

Unfortunately for people like us this just not the case with the ODP. Editors are voluntary and therefore are not in any way compelled or obligated to follow fairness etiquette or even to list sites that you and I think deserve to be there.

 

When you think just how many sites they do actually manage to include it is pretty impressive though so you've got to admit that if and when you ever get listed you will go back to respecting the ODP and what it stands for.

[shadow575]

It should be the ethical process for every site to be revised in the proper way, with a proper protocol and in an ordered way to guarantee everyone that ODP is worth the wait.

Worth the wait for what? I am really having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make here. I am trying, just not following it. The ODP exists to provide information to websurfers seeking it. It does not exist to provide every form of that information, only the most unique. Not every site will be listed, no site is guaranteed a listing, and public site suggestions are just one (small, and in some cases not very useful) way editors uncover sites that need to be listed. There really is nothing to wait for, hamboid has got it right. Suggest your site for consideration and move on to better ways of promoting it. There is no pot of gold at the end of the ODP rainbow, there is just another link.

[shadow575]

Editors are voluntary and therefore are not in any way compelled or obligated to follow fairness etiquette or even to list sites that you and I think deserve to be there.

To clarify, not in any way obligated or compelled to follow fairness etiquette by the definition you are trying to place on it. Editors are obliged to give each site a fair and honest review and to treat each site equally. If the guidelines say the site should be listed, when an editor reviews it, is will be. Otherwise the editor is not upholding their duty. There is no mandate for how an editor chooses the sites they want to review though. Some use the suggested sites, others choose to look for sites on their own and ignore the site suggestions. If you think you have a site or know of a site that deserves a listing-suggest it. I (and every other editor) thank you for your help. Someone will eventually get to look at the suggestion and if it fits the guidelines it will be listed, if not thanks for suggesting it anyway.

[crowbar]

That was a good post, hrozob, and though I really don't enjoy editing in those categories, I will make it a point to do so from now on, , because I believe you're refering to a post I wrote.

 

As a very small business, myself, I do have great empathy for mom & pop outfits (meaning small entities with limited resources, as well as, small villages/towns). Though I try very hard to be impartial in my editing, I do enjoy helping the disadvantaged, and where I edit is my choice.

 

I can only speak for myself, personally, I have no influence over any other editor, or the Directory as a whole.

 

It should be the ethical process for every site to be revised in the proper way, with a proper protocol and in an ordered way to guarantee everyone that ODP is worth the wait.

 

However, I totally disagree with this next post. There is no such protocol, and there is no such guarantee. Editors have complete freedom to use their own protocol, and we do.

[hutcheson]

The problem here is that we have absolutely conflicting goals. Some people want to use the site suggestion system to control what editors are allowed to do -- they want to prevent editors from reviewing the millions of great sites whose webmasters waste their time building content rather than promoting it. Their definition of "people who deserve fairness" is restricted to SEO professionals (who, of all the people on the earth, ought to need LEAST help promoting their sites.)

 

Editors, on the other hand, want information about sites that might be good -- no matter where that information comes from. We want to look for those great sites, using whatever combination of search techniques seems most effective. We want to be fair to surfers; it is our chief value in society that we are so effective at protecting the ODP from the crass commercialism of the SEOers, and the vicious biasses they introduce into search engines. Not only that, but for major search engines the ODP isperhaps the single most effective counterweight to the SEOing bias.

 

So...we trust editors, because it is editors who built the ODP to what it is. We don't trust suggestions, because in our experience the vast majority of them are deceptive. And therefore our protocol is NOT to systematically check up on editors before letting their work be added; and NOT to give suggesters a controlling voice in anything that is done; on the other hand, TO systematically check suggestions before letting them be added, and TO give editors a controlling voice in priorities of suggestions.

 

But, if you don't like it: no problem, there are thousands of directories controlled by webmaster suggestions. You can take all the time you were about to waste waiting for an ODP listing, and spend it all in controlling those directories that were set up for you to control. Go ahead, we won't be offended. The internet is big enough for all of us.