Regarding the frequent complaints about submission status

[hutcheson]

For example, if an editor rejects a URL then it goes into a queue to get re-evaluated in x months for example.

 

That's a good example. The hidden assumptions are:

 

(1) There ARE any "queues"--that is, collections of future required actions with priorities or deadlines. (But in reality, there aren't.)

 

(2) If a site is rejected, there's still a significant chance it could be accepted in the future. (But in reality, on averages, we'd do better to NEVER re-review ANY site until ALL sites on the internet had been reviewed at least once. At least an unreviewed site has a 2% chance of being listable--that's not something you can say of the reviewed-and-rejected sites.)

 

(3) The big gaps in the ODP are among the suggested sites. (In reality, it's the webmasters who focus on their content so much, they'd NEVER think of going around the web promoting it, that we want to find, and that we're often missing. We've got a good handle on suggested sites: they won't be lost until they're listed -- or considered not worth listing. But if anyone has any ideas about how to find the promoted sites... now THAT would be help!)

[The Old Sarge]

If it can't be operated to commercial timescales, don't allow it to be the 'definitive' source of data for leading search engines. (bolding added)

 

How other people/entities decide to use the directory is up to them, within certain legal guidelines. The fact some SEs use the ODP/DMOZ is their choice, not ODP/DMOZ's. How should we DISallow such?