Would like to receive some advice from the community

[streatmek]

Hello. My name is Steve from (company and url removed). We submitted our website approximately 3-4 months ago to dmoz.org, but still have not been added. Can someone from the community provide us with tips on what to do?

 

We suggested our listing under the same category that our competitors are currently listed under. Is there someone we can email/phone? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank You,

Steve

Sales Manager / International Coordinator

(urls removed)

[Eric-the-Bun]

No, there is nothing more you can do to speed up a review of your site. The most common reason for a listable site not being listed is that no editor has reviewed it yet. We cannot predict when one will.

 

If you have a bricks and mortar business (i.e. somewhere where customers, clients might visit, or where you have employees) and have not suggested under it's locality in the Regional area, you may do so as well. There is also no telling when an editor may review the site there either.

 

Have a look at the FAQs (see link above).

 

regards

[makrhod]

  Quote

Can someone from the community provide us with tips on what to do?

Yes indeed: please don't keep suggesting your site(s).

 

Each time you do, you acknowledge having read the instructions, which clearly explain the consequences of excessively repeated suggestions. If you skipped over that part, here it is again:

  Quote

"Please only submit a URL to the Open Directory once. Again, multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites."

[mystic]

Just a reply

 

makhrod..

 

of all the moderators on this forum.. you seem to be the most helpful...

 

I read somewhere you had a crash on your site awhile back and lost many submissions... is there a link for system status on this site... some place we can check if we need to resubmit a link if there was another server crash?

[jimnoble]

The system crash was in late 2006. Since you suggested your site only a few months ago, there's no need to do so again.

 

Some volunteer will process your listing suggestion in time but we can't predict who or when that might be. Elapsed times can range from a few days to a few years. There is no need to re-suggest your website and doing so could be counter-productive because a later suggestion overwrites any earlier one.

 

As the announcement at the top of this forum says, we don't do status requests any more. dmoz.org doesn't either and never did.

[sjw]

Steve, I would suggest trying the regional categories, eg, the Business and Economy section of your area.

 

I think this is easily overlooked by a lot of people as it's natural to go straight to the category the site 'seems' to fit most, particular when suggesting a business website. I too tried other categories that I thought would be relevant, until trying the regional category where, afterall, it should be and lo and behold, only after a few weeks our company appeared there.

 

Put it down to luck, or just having a site that meets the guidlines and suggesting it to the right place.

[hutcheson]

Meeting the guidelines, and suggesting it to a category that is obviously right, isn't a matter of luck. It's intentional (and some editor intentionally thanked you for intentionally helping.)

 

Regional categories are often easier to build.

 

Fewer spammers target most localities, and the ones that do, find it hard to conceal their identity, and easier to expose their basic (geographic) ignorance. But real people, real organizations, real businesses always exist somewhere, and always know exactly where they are. And if they want real customers, they always TELL customers exactly where they are.

 

On the other hand, the volunteer editors often do work in their own community categories, despite where their main topical interests lie.

 

So review times are frequently shorter in the regional categories. And a regional listing doesn't preclude (may even promote) a cross-listing in a topical category.

[daiweb]

Just two questions

 

  jimnoble said:

The system crash was in late 2006. Since you suggested your site only a few months ago, there's no need to do so again.

 

Some volunteer will process your listing suggestion in time but we can't predict who or when that might be. Elapsed times can range from a few days to a few years. There is no need to re-suggest your website and doing so could be counter-productive because a later suggestion overwrites any earlier one.

 

As the announcement at the top of this forum says, we don't do status requests any more. dmoz.org doesn't either and never did.

 

Hello, I am a webdesigner for about ten years now, I try to do my job as well as I can and I always suggest relevant websites to ODP. Since I started to do that, ten years ago, they have always been listed... the thing took different time for each website... but it was ok. Now I see that there is something different because it takes years.

I read the faqs and your answers and I understand. Anyway I'd like to know if you honestly can say that the differences we face now in time delaying are the "usual ODP way". To be honest I think that something happened: the last 5 websites I suggested have not been listed at all for years, so hope that it is not due to a lack of editors (I saw lot of directories without editor) because it would mean that ODP is loosing its credibility instead to increase it.

The second question is: how to recognize if a website is still waiting for editor's process or if it has been declined? I think that to be clear about that would allow ODP to have less people who keep suggesting the same websites into the wrong directories.

Please consider that if we all are here trying to have our websites listed in ODP is just because we think that it's great and we agree totally with your rules, so take our questions as suggestions to make ODP greater.

Thank you for your attention.

[Eric-the-Bun]

  Quote

how to recognize if a website is still waiting for editor's process or if it has been declined?

Simple - if it meets the guidelines, it probably is still waiting for a review.

 

  Quote

Now I see that there is something different because it takes years.

One problem everyone faces (search engines included) is that the number of websites has been increasing almost exponentially each year. As a result there are more suggestions.

 

Unfortunately this explosion in the number of sites includes a larger and larger proportion of not very good sites so more effort can be required to extract and list sites from the pool.

 

Another aspect is that the goal for the ODP is not quantity but quality and as the directory grows more effort has to go into maintenance.

 

regards

[daiweb]

  Eric-the-Bun said:

the goal for the ODP is not quantity but quality

 

Thank you for the answer.

It would be nice to discuss about your sentence in a philosophical way because someone could say that quantity is quality in a place called World Wide Web...(try to think of a phone directory having not all the numbers).

What ODP should think about is that opening the directory it took on its shoulders (even though it is private) the responsability of have became a "public service" and as a public service, right now, it realizes a manifest injustice giving different treatment to companies of equal quality, some of which are published while others are not published for years. I fear that even from a legal standpoint, the characteristics of public service that ODP has acquired put it at risk regardless what is declared.

Regards

[jimnoble]

  Quote

try to think of a phone directory having not all the numbers

Phone directories here don't contain all the numbers.

 

Also, I'm quite sure that a lot of the numbers that are listed belong to horrible people that I'd never want to talk to

[mauri]

  daiweb said:

...(try to think of a phone directory having not all the numbers)

 

If a lot of those numbers were referred to a same holder or if their mainly purpose was to attract more people to a same service/product/company, yes, a phone directory with a selected list of numbers is much better and useful of a directory that simply lists all the phone numbers that have been activated on the planet.

[hutcheson]

The Open Directory is a moving target, like the web. It's not really appropriate to think of it as like an archival monument, baked permanently into clay tablets (or tree pulp or granite or whatever.)

 

The philosophical question is not "can we reach the goal today?" (which would be an incredibly stupid question, since the answer is always "no"): the questions are (philosophical) "is the goal worthwhile?" (which editors answer "yes" by their actions, and non-editors answer "no" by THEIR actions) and (practical) "what's the best first step to take towards the goal today?"

 

It's pointless to discuss practical implementations of a philosophy with people who don't agree on the philosophy.

[Eric-the-Bun]

see following post :o

[hutcheson]

Editors don't deal with the legal aspects of the ODP; only AOL can do that. If you wish to discuss legal issues, you'll have to contact AOL Counsel.

[daiweb]

  mauri said:

If a lot of those numbers were referred to a same holder or if their mainly purpose was to attract more people to a same service/product/company, yes....

what we are talking about is just if they dont...

[mauri]

  daiweb said:

what we are talking about is just if they dont...

 

Then you are not talking about World Wide Web, because the WWW is quite similar to what I described with the example based on phone numbers.

[daiweb]

  mauri said:

Then you are not talking about World Wide Web, because the WWW is quite similar to what I described with the example based on phone numbers.

 

Yeas, you are right, Mauri. I am not talking about the www (the example which I used was just to describe the opposite side...someone could say that the WWW is quality, depending on the philosophical point of view about what quality is....with the same philosophical approach I could have answered Jimnoble that persons at the other side of the phone can be horrible depending on who you are....but it would have been just waste of time). I am talking, instead, about a good directory containing just relevant websites and no spam. I was just answering about the sentence "our goal is quality, not quantity" and my idea is simply that lots of websites having a good quality (at least the same quality of the websites already in) are out waiting too much to enter. And my idea is that it is not fair for an important public directory as the ODP. Mine was not a criticism, as I said in my posts earlier, even if my sentences can be taken as a provocation to stimulate the discussion, I totally agree with ODP's policy and mission. Do you know? Some years ago I even asked to become and editor but I got back on my steps because honestly I realized to not have time enough to give the ODP the attention which it deserves. I simply said that lately it works badly and it makes me sad...I'd like that it could work well. Is that a fault?

And we are here just to express our ideas, I think and hope, I am so sorry but it seems that the ODP's "pensée unique" gets disappointed if you think differently. How sad were hutcheson's answers: "Editors don't deal with the legal aspects of the ODP; only AOL can do that. If you wish to discuss legal issues, you'll have to contact AOL Counsel." and "It's pointless to discuss practical implementations of a philosophy with people who don't agree on the philosophy." Regards

[makrhod]

  Quote

Some years ago I even asked to become and editor but I got back on my steps because honestly I realized to not have time enough to give the ODP the attention which it deserves. I simply said that lately it works badly and it makes me sad...I'd like that it could work well. Is that a fault?

Perhaps not actually a fault, but surely hypocritical?

If* I understand you, you were once an editor but you were not active enough to keep your account open?

It requires only one edit every 4 months to maintain an account, so if you were unable to achieve that, it seems very strange that you are now criticising others for not doing enough, when they have managed to keep their accounts.

 

*If I misunderstood your comment, then I apologise, but it is still inappropriate to criticise volunteers for how they spend their hobby time.

[mauri]

  daiweb said:

I was just answering about the sentence "our goal is quality, not quantity" and my idea is simply that lots of websites having a good quality (at least the same quality of the websites already in) are out waiting too much to enter.

 

Ok, point taken. But all volunteers that during the years have contributed to this project could not know that the growth of the WWW would have been so exponential.

 

So...yes, there are certainly lots of good quality websites that will be added, but we, as human hobbyists, simply don't have the resources to manage numbers so big in a short or predictable time.

[daiweb]

  makrhod said:

Perhaps not actually a fault, but surely hypocritical?

If* I understand you, you were once an editor but you were not active enough to keep your account open?

It requires only one edit every 4 months to maintain an account, so if you were unable to achieve that, it seems very strange that you are now criticising others for not doing enough, when they have managed to keep their accounts.

 

*If I misunderstood your comment, then I apologise, but it is still inappropriate to criticise volunteers for how they spend their hobby time.

 

hello Makrod, no I never have been an editor, I asked to become but I didn't go to the second step.

And I don't criticise volunteers, I just wonder, after the first reply, if the number of volunteers is too low for the ODP's dimensions and trying to create a serious talk about how to face the future of ODP....but I realized that you all are hypersensitive and each try to open a talk is taken as a criticism, it's ok, I understood. Thank you.

[makrhod]

  Quote

I realized that you all are hypersensitive and each try to open a talk is taken as a criticism

Hmm. Pot...kettle...black.

 

if you would like to see the directory improve, then please re-apply to become an editor. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of complaining?

[Eric-the-Bun]

My original point on quality was "Another aspect is that the goal for the ODP is not quantity but quality and as the directory grows more effort has to go into maintenance." i.e. as the directory goes so some of the effort needed to add new sites is taken up by maintainance which contributes to the reason why sites may not be added as fast as when the directory was smaller.

 

Your picking on the phrase "our goal is quality, not quantity" ignores the entire point - that quality takes up resources and, by extension, that there is a lot more to keeping a directory going than just adding sites.

 

You seem to be saying that because other people have decided that we should do something other than what we do, we should fall in line with their expectations. When we say no, you say we are defensive.

 

Reality means that 'n' volunteers add 'x' sites during a period when 'y' sites are removed and 'z' new sites are created. These numbers could be 1000, 5000, 10,000... we don't know. The fact is that it means there will always be sites out there that could be added and have not been. Philosophically whether these number in the thousands, millions or trillions, does not matter.

 

The dimensions of the directory are determined by the number of volunteers which fluctuate. If they increase so the directory may increase in size or not, if they decrease, then the size may also decrease or not. The number of volunteers has no effect on 'x','y' and 'z' .

 

Up to a point, more volunteers means more listings but will never give rise to a 'Golden Age'. Even if we were listing all the sites that met our guidelines people would then complain that the ones that don't, should also be listed.

 

It's extremely complicated looking at all the dynamics involved. Other than a passing curiousity, it is not something that I (and probably most editors) are interested in.

[jimnoble]

I think the key here is to look through the eyes of the surfer - particularly in 'popular' categories.

 

If he's desperate to find a UK web designer beginning with the letter S, he's already spoilt for choice with a list of 78.

 

If he wants a hotel in UK/London/Westminster, we list 104.

 

In neither case would I claim that we list all possible entries, but I do claim that we've listed enough to satisfy the surfer's needs. Mission accomplished .

 

We can be very responsive when there's a real need. The Swine Flu category was created within days of the first outbreaks in Mexico and it continues to grow.

[daiweb]

  jimnoble said:

I think the key here is to look through the eyes of the surfer - particularly in 'popular' categories.

 

If he's desperate to find a UK web designer beginning with the letter S, he's already spoilt for choice with a list of 78.

 

If he wants a hotel in UK/London/Westminster, we list 104.

 

In neither case would I claim that we list all possible entries, but I do claim that we've listed enough to satisfy the surfer's needs. Mission accomplished .

 

We can be very responsive when there's a real need. The Swine Flu category was created within days of the first outbreaks in Mexico and it continues to grow.

 

Thank you. All of your reply made me more conscious of how big the job is, that editors work as well as they can and the maintenance is important as well as the inclusions. In a world where all seems to be made by algorithms to have an army of human volunteers checking manually the quality and dealing with a so large offer is a goal already and I hope that most of the human activities would evolve giving back to the human hands the control. Yes, Jimnoble, sometimes who, like me, works on the internet forgets to look through the eyes of surfers because we (with our tiredness) look more through the eyes of our clients, the websites' owners, who ask us continuosly to have relevant positions in directories and search engines ... they are able to transmit this anxiety.

Anyway, the discussion was interesting. Thank you again.