Will Sites My Ever Be Listed?

[malkie]

I have submitted sites to DMOZ over a few years and have never had one listed in the directory. Some of my sites are at the top of search engine results and have Wikipedia references. I have sites that get 15,000+ unique visitors a month and 100,000+ page views

 

My sites contain news and information that I believe are interesting to my website viewers and the testimonials I receive confirm that I am providing a useful web service.

 

One site in particular I submitted (which has not been listed) gets a lot of it's content ripped by a 'quick rich type of site', this site is now listed in DMOZ.

 

I did send a message to the editor listed for my category and never received a reply.

 

It seems that one of my sites will never be listed because it contains similar content to a site already listed that steals content from me.

 

But, I have to ask will any of them every be listed?

[jimnoble]

The short answer is that we don't know.

 

We can't predict when some volunteer might evaluate your listing suggestions or the result. Not all websites are listable of course.

[malkie]

Thanks for your reply.

 

So it is not the category editor that check's my submission's?

[motsa]

It may be, if there is a listed category there. Or it may be the editor of a parent category or any of the 200+ editall+ editors who can edit anywhere in the directory.

[chaos127]

One site in particular I submitted (which has not been listed) gets a lot of it's content ripped by a 'quick rich type of site', this site is now listed in DMOZ.

I'm not sure whether or not this applies here, but if a site's content is all copied from elsewhere, then it would probably fail our "unique content" test, and so shouldn't be listed.

 

If the copying is obvious to anyone looking at the site(s), then please let us know so that we can remove the poor site from the directory. Either use the "update listing" link on the dmoz.org category page, or post in the Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here thread.

[malkie]

Thanks to all for your helpful replies.

 

The site I mentioned, that takes mine and other's content is being prosecuted at present, I believe, so I will see what happens.

 

Copied content is an interesting point, I run some sites which are PR sites, they publish people's press release's so they do not really have unique content.

 

One of these site's, which I submitted to DMOZ a few months ago, is referenced from Wikipedia and referenced occasionally by well know newspapers, websites and TV companies so I would think that it could be considered a 'useful' website and a worthwhile addition to the DMOZ directory.

[motsa]

"Useful" doesn't always mean "listable".

[malkie]

OK, so what does "listable" mean.

[malkie]

The helpful replies seemed to have stopped!

 

Do any of the DMOZ staff know what is acceptable for a DMOZ listing?

 

The "get rich quick type of site" that steals content, I mentioned, is "listable" as it has been listed.

 

How did that happen! if one look's at the "get rich quick type of site" website I refer to, it was, and it still is, quite clear what was going on.

[chaos127]

Do any of the DMOZ staff know what is acceptable for a DMOZ listing?

The guidelines used by editors to determine listability are (and always have been) publicly available. I included a link to them in my post above: http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

 

The "get rich quick type of site" that steals content, I mentioned, is "listable" as it has been listed.

Not necessarily. Editors are only human, they can make mistakes (either through a lack of knowledge, a lack of care, or by complete accident. There are also cases of deliberate actions contrary to the guidelines, but thankfully these are rare. It's also possible that the site looked different when it was originally listed, and has changed between then and now.

 

I've already explained how you can report inappropriate listings to us to help us fix any mistakes that may have been made.

[motsa]

The helpful replies seemed to have stopped!

People don't hang around here 24/7 just waiting to answer questions. Try to give us more than an hour or two to answer you before you get upset about not getting a reply.

[malkie]

People don't hang around here 24/7 just waiting to answer questions. Try to give us more than an hour or two to answer you before you get upset about not getting a reply.

 

I am not upset by waiting an "hour or two" you seem to have misunderstood me, I have plenty of time. I do not expect people to hang around 24/7 to answer questions.

 

I do not understand why you are using an aggressive tone with me. I thought a forum was a place were one could express opinions.

 

The "get rich quick type of site" I mention did not conform to the guidelines when it was listed and does not now.

 

I looked at the guidelines before I submitted my sites, My sites did conform.

[jimnoble]

We were probably all fooled by your comment

The helpful replies seemed to have stopped!

Here's my excuse. I watched the first show of the new Top Gear series on TV (outrageous as always) and then went down the pub for an hour. I'm now going to bed.

[malkie]

We were probably all fooled by your comment

 

Here's my excuse. I watched the first show of the new Top Gear series on TV (outrageous as always) and then went down the pub for an hour. I'm now going to bed.

Nothing wrong with that

[motsa]

I am not upset by waiting an "hour or two" you seem to have misunderstood me, I have plenty of time. I do not expect people to hang around 24/7 to answer questions.

"OK, so what does "listable" mean." followed an hour later by "The helpful replies seemed to have stopped!" would seem to indicate that you expected someone to respond to your post within an hour. My apologies if that wasn't your intent.

[jimnoble]

@End2End. Please don't hijack somebody else's thread to talk about an entirely different topic. I've moved your post to here.

[malkie]

Thanks again for your replies.

 

This seems to be quite an intimidating forum, I have visited such forums before run by commercial organizations where Administrator's and Moderator's direct one to FAQ's, etc. and no one replies except 'officials' of the organization.

 

Looking at other threads on this forum, for example; http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51643 or http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51638 many posts seem to by Administrator's and Moderator's.

 

I have to ask is there any point in having this forum, if Administrator's and Moderator's 'micromanage' many threads.

 

Looking at the “Currently Active Users” at the bottom of this forum, mods and admins out-number members.

 

It must cost DMOZ a lot of money to run this resource!

 

Anyway, the site I have mentioned above, the 'quick rich type of site' did not meet the DMOZ guidelines on more than one count, when first listed, and still does not.

 

This site has been reported to DMOZ for not complying to the guidelines and nothing has been done.

 

Since the last post I made I have had the chance to look at more sites listed on DMOZ, there are some very good sites and some very poor one’s. It is not hard to find site’s that do not meet DMOZ guidelines.

[mads2000]

Well I misunderstood that comment as well, so my apologies also

[birdie]

It must cost DMOZ a lot of money to run this resource!

DMOZ don't run it.

[motsa]

I have to ask is there any point in having this forum, if Administrator's and Moderator's 'micromanage' many threads.

It's actually "micromanaged" a lot less than you would expect. But it's not a free-for-all community forum -- there are loads of those available elsewhere.

Looking at the “Currently Active Users” at the bottom of this forum, mods and admins out-number members.

And at other times, it's the other way around.

It must cost DMOZ a lot of money to run this resource!

It's owned and operated by editors, not AOL or the Open Directory itself.

This site has been reported to DMOZ for not complying to the guidelines and nothing has been done.

Consider that investigation has to be done. And consider that the people doing the investigation are volunteers. It all takes time.

[malkie]

Thank you for your replies.

 

I have misunderstood, I thought this was an 'official' DMOZ forum!

 

Regarding your point motsa, "Consider that investigation has to be done. And consider that the people doing the investigation are volunteers. It all takes time."

 

How long does it take?

 

The site was reported many months ago!

[motsa]

Reported how? I'd presumed you'd used the abuse reporting form but I see now that that probably wasn't the case. You mentioned earlier emailing the category editor -- that's not the ideal way to report an unlistable site. chaos127 gave you specific suggestions for how to best report that kind of situation. Have you followed either of them?

[malkie]

The 'quick rich type of site' that did not conform to DMOZ guidelines was reported through the abuse system.

 

"You mentioned earlier emailing the category editor -- that's not the ideal way to report an unlistable site."

 

The site I emailed the "category editor" about, was my site.

[motsa]

Is the abuse report still open? You can check the status of it by putting the ID in the box at the bottom of the abuse report page.

[malkie]

I am not sure if the abuse report is still open.

 

What I am sure off is that a site that did not conform to DMOZ guidelines was listed, that site was reported for infringing DMOZ guidelines and/or standards, whatever you want to call them, and it was not removed.