http://www.football4sale.com

[Guest]

It's been some time since I registed my site for the third time, been trying for 4 months now. This is even the second try in this forum for asking this question. I'm beginning to think you don't like me ;/images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

[Guest]

It's been moved to unreviewed in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Sports/Soccer/ , which has about 270 sites in the unreviewed queue.

[Guest]

Thanks, any idea when to expect it listing, will I be told ?

[thehelper]

It is up to the editor who reviews you site whether they will send an email confirmation - it is not automatic - and hardly any editors do it.

 

There is no telling how long it will take. 270 unreviewed sounds like a backlog to me so it might be a while. You can always apply to be an editor - http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Sports/Soccer/ is really too large for a new editor but I am sure any of the subcategories below it would be happy to have you /images/icons/smile.gif

[hutcheson]

>>will I be told?

 

999+ times out of 1000, NO.

[Guest]

It is now 6 weeks since I submited my site, can anyone tell me where it is in the queue. Is it still waiting for an editor ? If they would accept me as an editor I could have cleared the backlog ten times by now.

[beebware]

Queue size is 151, you site is still pending a review.

 

Please don't submit http://www.example.com/ _and_ http://www.example.com/index.(html|asp|php) as it is possible an over zealous editor may note the domain name and delete _both_ submissions... just http://www.example.com/ will do. I've deleted the the URL in the latter style (and I'm deleting a few 'spam' submissions from the category so the number of unreviewed should drop to around 130...)

[Guest]

Thanks a lot, seems like I need to wait another 6 weeks or so then.

 

Sorry I re-submitted after doing a major update on my site, I just assumed that my site had been rejected or fell into the sea :/images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

Can you or anyone tell me if site of done in any order if could you tell me where it is in the list.

[beebware]

Basically, when an editor looks at each categories 'Unreviewed', they can have it sorted in several formats:

a) Title of the site

b) URL of the site

c) Date of submission

 

Therefore if I say it's position X in "my list" (I personally have them listed by URL as it's slightly easier to catch spam that way IMHO), it may not be the same position as the next person...

 

But, all that is largely irrelevant, as editors are free to 'pick and choose' which ones to do. The way I personally work, is go through the list and delete/move obvious inappropriate submissions (for example: someone that's submitted every page of their site), and then I look at the list - and the first one that kinda stands out as "Title and Description look like they need minimal modification" - I start there (of course, I check that the site actually matches the submitted details). And the I can either go 'Next' or 'Previous' in the queue - and it's just random which way I go. I very rarely start at the first site and work my way down.

 

Of course, what other editors do (and the order they do it), is up to them.

[Guest]

Well here we are two weeks on anyone even looked at soccer/shopping/ in the these two weeks. Just wondering if I have any hope of the site getting submitted in it's current form.

[giz]

Whatever you do, don't resubmit as that will take you to the back end of the queue. Most editors, when faced with multiple sumbissions from one site will delete all of the oldest copies, and keep only the newest one, and will then work through the backlog starting at the oldest one first. [However some just work in alphabetical order].

[Guest]

Thanks for your advice, it seems some don't work at all I recently heard from a new editor who said he had sites that where one year old submits in his area when he joined.

[giz]

A few days ago, I listed a site that had been submitted only 8 hours beforehand, but in another category I also came across one that had been lurking for 8 months. These things happen. I spent much more time deleting another site that had made 21 submissions of deeplinks to their site. They aren't going to be listed at all, but took up 90% of my available edit time. This is why sites sometimes take a long time to appear. If someone has only a short time to edit, then most will spend that time deleting spam.

[Guest]

I don't think the spam should take presidence over subbiting sites. I also think editors should be forced to taker each site in the order of date subbitted. This would solve the problem with people becoming editors, adding their site, then doing nothing else. Perhaps DMOZ would be better off asking for editors who delete spam only. I would be happy to do this simple task and the guildlines would be simple to follow. So why not give people who want to help that role instead of refusing editors. Then if they perform well it that they could be concidered for editing.

[dstanovic]

<<I would be happy to do this simple task and the guildlines would be simple to follow. So why not give people who want to help that role instead of refusing editors.>>

 

This is actually not a simple task <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

 

It took me over 1-1/2 hours on one site that did not look spammy at all. Turns out they had 15 domains for the same site/company/services and 10 were exact mirrors of the submitted site. It took a lot of research and then I emailed a senior editor to tag each of the mirrored sites. Think about how much time that took between the two of us <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

 

Also, you cannot just go in and start deleting submissions - you need to make notes and explain why they are being deleted being sure you’re not deleting eligible sites.

Cleaning up duplicate submissions does not take much time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

 

If you read my posts in this forum before I became an editor you will see that "I too" made the assumption that "it doesn't have to be this hard" and I questioned a lot of decisions of the editors. Once you see it from this side you begin to see why things are done the way they are. Believe-it-or-not they have a great system of checks and balances put into place for very good reasons <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

 

I know this does not help you or your sites in any way – I just hope it gives you some insight on how things really work, and not just how they seem.

 

Dave

 

Question/Comments: Why is it so difficult to become an editor? They don’t really want editors it’s a closed Club. Why do sites take so long to list?

 

Flip Side Comments: Look what this editor did! Look at the description on this site! This company has 4 listings! This affiliate site is included, why isn’t mine! This editor listed their affiliated sites and destroyed the other listings! This person shouldn’t be an editor!

 

It’s a no-win situation between submitters and editors unless the submitter begins to have an understanding that when chances are taken on new editors – there is often times repercussions to this decision.

[Guest]

Ok I stand corrected the job is not as easy as it seems but I still think a) all sites should be edited on a first come first served basis and b) Some editors are very selective both on sites they do edit and the descriptions they use. I think Dmoz should edit or rejection within a senable time period, by the time some sites are looked at they have closed simply for low traffic reasons. I repeat it can't be right for sites to sit waiting for 12 months & it can't be right for editors to spend time clearing spam. I'm sure you do a good job and most of the rest of the editors also do thier best.

[old_crone]

a) all sites should be edited on a first come first served basis

 

If every submitter followed the guidelines than the first come first serve rule might be appropriate. But when an editor only has a shot time to volunteer his/her time, then they will look for submissions that won't take a lot of time to edit first. First come first serve will not make the time it takes to wade through bad submissions go any faster. If you could see the queue, your eyes would roll back in you head! And after several months looking at it you would find it hard to spend time there.

 

No one gets paid to work in the ODP, everyone seems to forget that. You can not expect volunteers to do more than they are willing or have the spare time to do. If I were editing on the ODP and they made a rule about first come first serve, I'd choose to do none. And I believe I would not be alone in that choice and the queue would grow even larger and the waiting time would be even longer.

[Guest]

I have seen the queue and I know the work is unpaid the important point is the credablity of DMOZ as a resource to find web sites. If only the sites picked by the editors are entered then it is a I said in another posting "a club" not a SE or DIR.

Leaving this to the editors, the system is open to abuse and thats not fair of the people who submit thinking they have done so on an equal footing as everyone else. Whats to stop me offering money to an editor to get my site included the same day I submit it ?

DMOZ might as well charge like everyone is doing at least then editors won't have the excuse of "it's free so what do you expect". I give my time for free and offer services for free. Just because it's free I don't exspect to give less of a service and nor do my customers expect me too. Sorry but if you have that attitude then it shows a mistake was made allowing you in to edit.

[old_crone]

Sorry but if you have that attitude then it shows a mistake was made allowing you in to edit.

I don't edit on the ODP and have never edited on the ODP. I have edited (still do) elsewhere and I'm very good at it.

 

You failed to read the part If every submitter followed the guidelines Why is it that people like you hold the ODP to unreasonable standards while ignoring your responsibility to read and at least try to follow the guidelines when submitting their site(s)? Then come here and complain and never give a moment of consideration to the fact that they may be a part of the problem.

 

If you have seen the queue then you know that less than 10% come remotely close to following the guidelines. So, I prefer to edit those who do try first, since they cared enough to read and follow the guidelines.

[old_crone]

Leaving this to the editors, the system is open to abuse and thats not fair of the people who submit thinking they have done so on an equal footing as everyone else.

 

Yes, this is a problem but that's what happens when you have a project geared toward a volunteer work force.

 

If a guide takes money for listing a site they will be removed if it's discovered. There are rules against taking gifts/money for favors.

 

I don't think editors use their volunteer status as an excuse for what they do or don't do. Not the good editors anyway. They merely choose how to spend their time on the ODP.

[dstanovic]

driftwood,

 

I am only continuing this conversation/thread in hopes that other submitters are reading this and will understand both sides. I am not saying you do not make valid points - I am saying you do not fully understand.

 

I can say that I spend anywhere from two-eight hours per day doing actual editing and listing sites. I have a "real" business to run, family, and children. I caught the flu bug or something the last couple of days and have not done a whole lot of actual editing – listing/moving maybe 40-50 sites.

 

When I go into a category I first delete all duplicate submissions, updates that are not warranted, and move non-working/dead urls into my private bookmarks to check later. I have a broadband internet connection and on a category that has 800 –1000 or more unreviewed it can literally take minutes just to bring up the edit screen of unreviewed sites. I cannot imagine what some editors go through with a simple dial-up connection. I have heard it is a real plus to have a broadband connection as many times the dial-ups time-out before bringing up the screen. I sort the sites by date and then will copy all of the unreviewed sites from the screen including titles and descriptions and paste into a document for editing. This is much easier for me to open the sites from the document and rewrite the changes to urls, titles, descriptions, and editor notes. I complete 10-20 listings and then go in and list them by copying and pasting the info.

 

One site can take two minutes and the next may take ½-hour investigating something that doesn’t seem quite right. So the time it takes for one site may mean that 15 others may have been able to get their sites listed in the time spent on one. Do I like it – No, but I will not delete a site because it is taking up time and I won’t just click through and list it because it’s too much of a bother to take the time required to treat it properly. You also have to remember we do not “judge” sites on their design or quality – it is listed based upon the value of the information contained. If you had to wade through some of these sites that have 3-minute Flash presentations with “no” skip-intro link you would know what I mean. Chances are a person with a dial-up connection will never see their contact information as it would take 10-15 minutes just to get to it. Do I delete the site – No.

 

It is not a glory filled position being an editor as there are no benefits at all being an editor. I think that is why many editors leave or the Metas do not approve as many as you think they should.

 

No, dmoz/odp or the editors are not perfect and neither are the submitters that send their sites to be listed. I don’t hold it against the submitters so please don’t hold it against us <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

 

Dave

 

Added: Just wanted to add that I had a lot more ideas/solutions when I was on the other side of the fence like you are – I had not a clue when I hopped the fence <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

If it wasn’t for the great Mentor that I had/have I would probably still be clueless.

[Guest just_browsing]

dstanovic

 

I'm with you all the way....except for

there are no benefits at all being an editor

the problems occur when an editor decides that there are benefits, that is promoting their own site, or delisting/refusing competitor sites.

 

Therefore ODP has to be (very) fussy about accepting editors.

 

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchman?)

[dstanovic]

Agreed, but that is usually (not always) caught before they do too much damage <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

 

I wouldn't touch any sites that I am affiliated with a 10-foot pole as you are just asking for trouble <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

 

Dave

[jimnoble]

"there are no benefits at all being an editor"

 

Apart from the enormous satisfaction of doing a job worth doing and the comradeship of like minded editors <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

[dstanovic]

Jim,

 

I agree <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

 

I may of painted the picture of editing a little too drab. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

 

I thoroughly enjoy editing, the distant relationships, and camaraderie that is shared between editors.

 

I certainly don’t want people to think it is an arduous “job” with no rewards – there are rewards but they come from within oneself and are not tangible benefits (at least that's what I was/am trying to get across) <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

 

Dave