How will I know when my site is reviewed.

[CentralTrans]

I have submitted my site <url removed> about a month ago. How will I know when my site has been reviewed.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Les Lieurance

[motsa]

If your site meets our criteria for listing, then you'll know it's been reviewed when it actually gets listed. However, we can't estimate how long that might take.

[CentralTrans]

will I know whether it has been approved or rejected? If it has been rejected, will you notify me or will I just be left hanging?

[jimnoble]

You can self-check whether or not your website is listable right now .

[windharp]

What people meant when they did not say there is a notification is: No, there is no notification. For the other details see the above answers.

[Fantabublast]

I generally think that the dmoz work ethos is rather convoluted and designed to create "little gods" out of the editors. The rules clearly state that multiple submissions "may" result in exclusion (read will result in exclusion).... and further that you can re-submit if your site has bee rejected, but there is no notification of when your site has been reviewed and rejected, and, the guideline state that it can take a year to get listed! So when exactly do we "GUESS" that the site has been reviewed?

 

If indeed the great thinkers who set up this cleptocracy that is dmoz can not re-tune the working structure to fit within the new century (we left the 90's way back) where the number of sites going live per day equates to the number that went live in a year during the 90's, then it is about time that the directory was shut down. We already have enough gods as it is (gugo and microsomething jump to mind)

[motsa]

The rules clearly state that multiple submissions "may" result in exclusion (read will result in exclusion)

Nope. "May" is the correct word. Many people suggest their sites for inclusion multiple times but are not penalized. It's the degree of multiple submissions that can get a site excluded.

So when exactly do we "GUESS" that the site has been reviewed?

If you are confident that your site meets our criteria for listing, then you KNOW it's been reviewed when it gets listed. No guessing involved.

[hutcheson]

where the number of sites going live per day equates to the number that went live in a year during the 90's

 

All the more important that the rules to allow anyone to suggest each site more than once, don't you think?

[Fantabublast]

All the more important that the rules to allow anyone to suggest each site more than once, don't you think?

 

Actually, I think being at least a decade into the new century, ODP would by now have adopted technology to handle this kind of thing, aka a subsequent submission would only result in a penalty of removing the initial submission from the top of the queue rather than resulting in exclusion ..... simple and adequately punitive .... me thinks

[Fantabublast]

If you are confident that your site meets our criteria for listing, then you KNOW it's been reviewed when it gets listed. No guessing involved.

 

As responses go, this is nowhere near talking to a stone wall ...... make that a RED BRICK wall. So I will re-phrase:

 

So when exactly do we "GUESS" that the site has been reviewed before we can re-submit and not get excluded if, as the case is, we never get notified of the reasons why the site has not been included when it is reviewed?

 

The persistent "excuse" of editors being mere volunteers engaging in their passion / interest (though applaudable) can only go so far. Surely, even the editors know there are ways in which the process can be improved, if only their voices can be heard by the ODP Junta ...... again, me thinks.

[pvgool]

Actually, I think being at least a decade into the new century, ODP would by now have adopted technology to handle this kind of thing, aka a subsequent submission would only result in a penalty of removing the initial submission from the top of the queue rather than resulting in exclusion ..... simple and adequately punitive .... me thinks

First of all there is no queue of suggested websites. It is more like a pool which editors can sort in many ways.

Secondly. As can be read in many of our answers in othre thread. When a site is suggested in the same category as it was suggested before the old suggestion will be overwritten. This might result in a longer time between first suggestion and review.

Suggesting a website to several categories is more problematic and can result in ban. Repeated suggestion of an unlistable website is also a problem and can result in a ban.

 

So when exactly do we "GUESS" that the site has been reviewed before we can re-submit and not get excluded if, as the case is, we never get notified of the reasons why the site has not been included when it is reviewed?

There is no need to guess. The guidelines we use to determine if a website is listable or not are open for everybody to read. And they are very easy to understand. As a result there is no need to tell anyone that a website is rejected.

As rejected websites should not have been suggested at all there is certainly no need to suggest them again. They stay unlistable.

That leaves the listable websites. They are either listed or still waiting review. In both cases there is no need to suggest them again.

[Fantabublast]

First of all there is no queue of suggested websites. It is more like a pool which editors can sort in many ways. ........

Fair enough, POOLED QUEUE seems the best I have got you to admit there is something with the word "QUEUE"

 

.... When a site is suggested in the same category as it was suggested before the old suggestion will be overwritten. This might result in a longer time between first suggestion and review.

 

Congruence of thought there, but thats where it ends. I believe being demoted in this pooled queue is adequately punitive for multiple submissions.

 

Suggesting a website to several categories is more problematic and can result in ban. Repeated suggestion of an unlistable website is also a problem and can result in a ban.

 

Different kettle of fish that, but since you brought it up I'll say this: Good on the rest of us who comply with the listing rules and still not get listed for months on end.

 

... As a result there is no need to tell anyone that a website is rejected.

As rejected websites should not have been suggested at all there is certainly no need to suggest them again. They stay unlistable.

That leaves the listable websites. They are either listed or still waiting review. In both cases there is no need to suggest them again.

 

There are many inherent assumptions in the above statements, but pertinently, the Juntaish stance is clearly present. Well I suppose thats why the ODP command such respect (operative word here is COMMAND). RED FOREVER!

[The Old Sarge]

... there is no notification of when your site has been reviewed and rejected, and, the guideline state that it can take a year to get listed! So when exactly do we "GUESS" that the site has been reviewed?

 

Whether it's been reviewed or rejected is not the point. If it hasn't been reviewed but is still in queue, there's no good reason to suggest it again. If it has been rejected and you've made no significant changes to it, there's no point in suggesting it again as it will most likely be rejected for the same reason/s. Your knowing, or not knowing, of its rejection is irrelevant. The content, however, is totally relevant.

 

If indeed the great thinkers who set up this cleptocracy that is dmoz can not re-tune the working structure to fit within the new century (we left the 90's way back) where the number of sites going live per day equates to the number that went live in a year during the 90's, then it is about time that the directory was shut down. We already have enough gods as it is (gugo and microsomething jump to mind)

 

Why, if you feel such negetive things so strongly, do you bother? If DMOZ is such a useless relic, why are you concerned with a listing for your site?

[motsa]

Fair enough, POOLED QUEUE seems the best I have got you to admit there is something with the word "QUEUE"

It's not a queue in any sense that anyone would really recognize. Editors can sort the pool of suggested sites in a category alphabetically or by last suggested date, but that doesn't in any way obligate them to review the sites in that order. Some do, most don't.

Congruence of thought there, but thats where it ends. I believe being demoted in this pooled queue is adequately punitive for multiple submissions.

See my note above -- a change in suggested date would only affect when a site would be reviewed if the editor reviewing those suggested sites was adhering to a strict FIFO review policy and very few editors do that.

 

ODP editors DO NOT exclude a site simply because it has been suggested a couple of times. That's a myth, pure and simple, so your calls for a change in ODP policy on the topic are pointless. What you've suggested is already how things function but, as I wrote above, having the suggested date change with each resubmission doesn't really mean anything since editors don't work on a FIFO basis.

[The Old Sarge]

Surely, even the editors know there are ways in which the process can be improved ...

 

Yes, indeed. But improved for whom?

[Fantabublast]

Yes, indeed. But improved for whom?

 

Toss a coin! Heads for webmasters, tails for editors.

[Fantabublast]

Whether it's been reviewed or rejected is not the point. If it hasn't been reviewed but is still in queue, there's no good reason to suggest it again.

 

By the ODP's own practice, it is impossible for a webmaster to know if a submited site has been reviewed and /or reviewed and rejected. There are a finite posibilities here:

1. Reviewed and passed to editor of appropriate category.

2. Reviewed and rejected.

3. Pending review.

4. Reviewed and approved.

Do you realise that for the first three cases the webmaster has no way of knowing whether / or / if their site has been even seen by an editor? Thats where the complaints arise.

 

If it has been rejected and you've made no significant changes to it .....

 

I am surprised you fell for that one. There is NO WAY that a webmaster can tell whether their site has been reviewed and rejected, therefore, making significant changes to the site is not even a moot point!

 

Why, if you feel such negetive things so strongly, do you bother? If DMOZ is such a useless relic, why are you concerned with a listing for your site?

 

I am sure you have no time to be patient anymore (thats what old age does to some!), however, I have not made any insinuations / allegations or even charges foster your accusation of me refering to to ODP as useless. Infact, I have 6 of my sites and several of clients' sites listed on ODP (not that I am letting them on to you now, the term MALICE springs to mind), and have another one "pending" review (I won't tell you that one either!).

 

Reason I mention that is I was of the opinion that ODP discussion fora are exactly that, DISCUSSION FORA where editors,webmasters and SEO consultants can exchange ideas and seek knowledge (about / regarding ODP et al). I am doing my bit, are you Old Sarge?

[hutcheson]

Surely, even the editors know there are ways in which the process can be improved ...

 

The most important lesson that new editors have to learn (to become good editors) is: all that matters is finding, categorizing, and listing good sites. Anything else (like suggestions, ESPECIALLY suggestions) are only a means to the important goal.

 

Once people understand that, and stop worrying about tracking which suggestions have been rejected, and focus on finding good sites whether suggested or not -- then better implementations of the "finding good sites" part of the process start happening. An effective editor may switch modes many times in an editing session, from "looking at suggested sites" to "googling" to "browsing link lists" to "mining deeplinks", depending on what seems to be the most effective way of finding new good links.

 

And an effective mentor may be teaching other editors how to do this most effectively. All of that (which is what the ODP is about) would be totally invisible (and totally uninteresting) to someone who's trying to track one suggestion.

 

But tracking one suggestion is not a useful activity. If I know about a site, I can review it, right now, regardless of whether it's ever been suggested or not. If I don't know about it, and it's not on the topic I'm building, then it doesn't matter at all. If I don't know about it, and it IS on the topic I'm building, then ... it's available if I think it might help.

 

So, nearly all the time, it doesn't matter how easy it is to track a suggestion, because nobody tracking a suggestion is going to do anything useful with the information.

[hutcheson]

Do you realise that for the first three cases the webmaster has no way of knowing whether / or / if their site has been even seen by an editor?

 

That's true. And that's a really really good thing.

 

How well could restaurant critics work, if the restaurant knew who they were, or when they were coming? The whole point of the exercise is, to get an un-manipulated impression of what visitors normally see.

 

All kinds of abuses, abuses by webmasters and abuses by editors, are made much more difficult because nobody -- not the webmaster, not the other editors, not AOL, NOBODY knows whether / when a site has been, or will be, reviewed by an editor.

 

Of, course, at least 99% of the time, an owner of a LISTABLE website knows it's been reviewed because it's been listed. Mostly, that isn't a problem. But even when it IS a problem, there's nothing we can do about it. The whole point of the exercise, remember, is to list good sites -- for EVERYONE to see.

[motsa]

By the ODP's own practice, it is impossible for a webmaster to know if a submited site has been reviewed and /or reviewed and rejected. There are a finite posibilities here:

1. Reviewed and passed to editor of appropriate category.

2. Reviewed and rejected.

3. Pending review.

4. Reviewed and approved.

Do you realise that for the first three cases the webmaster has no way of knowing whether / or / if their site has been even seen by an editor? Thats where the complaints arise.

Situations 1 and 3 are essentially the same -- if the site was suggested to the wrong category, the editor of that wrong category has to forward it to the right one, where another editor will then have to review the site. Even if the first editor completely reviews the site, it still has to be re-reviewed by the second editor. For sites that fit situation 2, our guidelines regarding listability are pretty clear. If a site is rejected for being unlistable, there is no net benefit to the directory or to directory users of informing the site owner why it has been rejected. (We experimented with that here in this forum several years ago and all telling the owners of unlistable why their sites were rejected got us was people arguing and/or changing their sites to better fool editors into thinking they were listable.) And site owners can see situation 4 for themselves.

[Fantabublast]

.... ODP editors DO NOT exclude a site simply because it has been suggested a couple of times. That's a myth, pure and simple, so your calls for a change in ODP policy on the topic are pointless.

 

May seem pointless to you, but I still have the right to express them and expect a reasonable response. In any case, that you feel obliged to respond to a discussion not directly addressed to yourself is proof enough (at least to me) that all I am saying is not un-warranted.

 

What you've suggested is already how things function but .........

 

Talk about u-turns. In one breath what I am suggesting is pointless, and in the very next breath what I have suggested is how things function BUT.... Honestly, you must by that know that if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it most likely is a duck. (I am trying my best to be gentle with you here, but it definitely is a duck, Old Sarge!)

[Fantabublast]

The most important lesson that new editors have to learn (to become good editors) is: all that matters is finding, categorizing, and listing good sites. Anything else (like suggestions, ESPECIALLY suggestions) are only a means to the important goal.

 

I totally agree, and for good measure, I was only addressing this issue from a webmasters point of view. How editors find the sites to review / categorise, was and is NOT part of my "grimes" .

[motsa]

If you're going to use names when you quote, you might like to make sure you're using the right name. ;-)

 

May seem pointless to you, but I still have the right to express them and expect a reasonable response. In any case, that you feel obliged to respond to a discussion not directly addressed to yourself is proof enough (at least to me) that all I am saying is not un-warranted.

Oh, I'm sorry, was this a private discussion? Because it seems to be a public discussion in a public forum on a topic that I know very well. You really should be clear when you post if you only want responses from certain people.

 

BTW I say they're pointless charges not because I don't think you're entitled to voice your opinion (though technically, as one of the people running this forum, I do have the right to decide what can or cannot be discussed here) but because you're asking for things to change from one way of doing things to another when they are already done the way you suggest.

 

As for the second quote being a contradiction of the first, you suggested that sites that are resubmitted have their dates changed, thereby putting putting them at the bottom of this queue that you envision. The change of date already happens. The problem is that there is no FIFO queue and so changing the date has virtually no effect on when a site might get reviewed since editors are rarely reviewing sites in a FIFO manner.

[Fantabublast]

That's true. And that's a really really good thing.

 

How well could restaurant critics work, if the restaurant knew who they were, or when they were coming? The whole point of the exercise is, to get an un-manipulated impression of what visitors normally see.

 

I am not sure you brought up the best of comparisons for this one, restaurant critics and directory listing, in my mind, are fairly dissimilar.

 

All kinds of abuses, abuses by webmasters and abuses by editors, are made much more difficult because nobody -- not the webmaster, not the other editors, not AOL, NOBODY knows whether / when a site has been, or will be, reviewed by an editor.

 

But surely, and only if you wish to press on with the restaurant / directory analogy, even failed restaurants get notified of their failure to attain Michelin Stars (or is that for hotels?)

 

So here comes the suggestion of suggestions, rather than give feedback in the fora regarding rejection, why don't you create a rejected list of sites that have been submited for inclusion.(interstingly, that would be a list I would use to apply access filters on my home PC!)

[Fantabublast]

If you're going to use names when you quote, you might like to make sure you're using the right name. ;-)

 

My Bad!

 

Oh, I'm sorry, was this a private discussion? Because it seems to be a public discussion in a public forum on a topic that I know very well. You really should be clear when you post if you only want responses from certain people.

 

Now you are being childish, you must be tired.

 

.... (though technically, as one of the people running this forum, I do have the right to decide what can or cannot be discussed here)

 

Its getting pathetic, you need to rest.

 

... The problem is that there is no FIFO queue and so changing the date has virtually no effect on when a site might get reviewed since editors are rarely reviewing sites in a FIFO manner.

 

Moot point then, don't dwell on it, move on! God, you really are tired!