http://www.nokiaringtone.org

[Guest]

I've been trying to add my site for 6 months now. I've submitted once every 2 months. I think it's worth being added, but I'm ofcourse a little bit biased /images/icons/wink.gif

 

http://dmoz.org/Business/Industries/Telecommunications/Wireless/Equipment/Phones/Ringtones/

[windharp]

Why do all you guys think you have to resubmit sites every month or so? If its entered it will be processed. Even if it was deleted there is no need to resubmit if there was no increase in content. <Sigh> Only generates lots of useless work for us, deleting all the dupes...

 

To the question: Sites which where once classified as redirects or mirrors are ones the editors don't like to check. So it can take some time, till someone will look at it again. There is one copy waiting for review, so please be patient.

 

Btw: I love the wayback machine, it can tell you a lot about the history of some sites /images/icons/smile.gif

[arlarson]

If they use exactly the same URL, and submit to exactly the same category, the new submission should replace the one waiting in the unreviewed queue. (But there is no benefit to the submitter.)

 

Speaking more generally, if submitters would present proposed titles and descriptions which meet ODP standards, rather than hoping we won't notice their hype, keyword repetition, inappropriate capitalization, and emphatic punctuation, they would receive much more efficient service.

[Guest]

"Why do all you guys think you have to resubmit sites every month or so? If its entered it will be processed. Even if it was deleted there is no need to resubmit if there was no increase in content. <Sigh> Only generates lots of useless work for us, deleting all the dupes... "

 

If nothing has been told, it's hard to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I've tried several times, because editors were hopping in and out, and everybody ignored my request. Even a simple email saying "You are rejected. Now go home and cry a little bit." would me more informative than the way it is now.

 

 

"Btw: I love the wayback machine, it can tell you a lot about the history of some sites"

 

I've checked the wayback machine and it indeed lists 3 pages of mine on 2001. That was when the site indeed wasn't professional, and it kind of sucked. Archive.org hasn't indexed our site since then. Why ? I don't know. All I know is that we've been bringing actual an UNIQUE content to our visitors since January. I can even proove that if you wish.

 

Note: this is probably not the way to get my site in. But I'm just not accepting the fact that you think my site is just another site with content copied from others.

[Guest]

"Speaking more generally, if submitters would present proposed titles and descriptions which meet ODP standards, rather than hoping we won't notice their hype, keyword repetition, inappropriate capitalization, and emphatic punctuation, they would receive much more efficient service."

 

It is possible that I've been doing something wrong here, but when editors notice this, is it really that hard to send a mail explaining what I did wrong ? The only thing that's going to happen if you just ignore an inappropriate submission, is that the same webmasters will post the same websites with the very same mistakes again.

[Guest kujanomiko]

This happens all over the directory. When you go through 100 unreviewed and there is maybe 6 or 7 descriptions that you can let in without modification, then it gets to be a hassle to email everyone.

[Guest]

It's still there waiting to be reviewed.

[old_crone]

"It is possible that I've been doing something wrong here, but when editors notice this, is it really that hard to send a mail explaining what I did wrong ?"

 

Is it really that hard for webmasters to read the guidelines before submitting their sites? Why would anyone expect the editors to send out hundreds of emails explaining what is already in the guidelines? If webmaster don't care enough to read and follow the guidelines, why should the editors care if the webmasters are notified? Not to mention that the editor reviews hundreds of submissions while the webmaster has only one site to write a description for.

 

Sorry guys and gals, couldn't resist this one!

 

old cranky crone

[dstanovic]

old_crone,

 

I don't like to admit it publicly but I agree with you /images/icons/frown.gif

I have been editing for just over a month and I listed my first "submitted" description yesterday (I almost emailed the submitter to say “thanks”). That's the first listing in the few hundred I have added. Just listing the "real" name of the company would be a great help. We wouldn’t have to search by the phone number etc.

 

Just a tip : Many times I have looked at the "source" for the default page and the meta name="description" content is the same as what was submitted to dmoz. This works for some search engine submissions - doesn't for dmoz.

 

Dave

[old_crone]

Oh, a question - is your site affiliated with http://www.gadzillo.com/?

[old_crone]

It is nice when you get a submission that doesn't have to be edited. It's rare, so rare that it's hard to believe what you are reading! ;/images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

 

I am aware that most webmasters use their meta description when adding their site to directories. While they are okay for search engines, not many directories accept them simply because of the hype. It's really too bad webmasters don't do a little more research before trying to submit their sites. Even if they don't want to take the time to read the guidelines, there is a lot of info on the net for webmasters that covers what the ODP expects, as well as the other people powered directories.

 

It really is too much for webmasters to expect the editors to do their job for them, especially when the editor has far less to gain, other than the feeling one gets for doing a good job.

 

You're a new editor, I hope you continue to enjoy the work and don't get too stilted by all the garbage. The end users will appreciate the effort, especially as the web grows.

[windharp]

Back to the topic:

I said: There is another one waiting for review, and since I told you it would be checked I thought I didnt have to say that I left a note to recheck it.

 

Since some webmasters of those sites (as you surely know when you are in the business) are under the most-wanted spammers of the net, its very hard to find sites that changed from bad to good. Just an explanation why it oculd take some more time.