Post Site in DMOZ

[sheelgohe]

Hello Friends,
Can anyone tell me how can i post my website to a particular category in DMOZ.

Regards
Sheel

[honey]

goto dmoz.org, find the right category and use the submit link button.

[sheelgohe]

Thanks Raider for your help,
But DMOZ doesnt show submit link button nowadays on every category.

[davedx]

Well, I'm afraid that means you have to submit to categories with a submit link ;)

[TheWebJunkie]

dmoz is a bloody joke, add your site and if your lucky you will get listed next year :(

[jlawrence]

DMOZ is a complete joke. So far I've been waiting 6 months to get a site listed, I've got no faith that it ever will get listed.
Perhaps, it's time there was a replacement for DMOZ - surely we can come up with something better.

[davedx]

Please can we not turn this into yet another dmoz bashing thread?

[marinaroz]

There's a "suggest url" link on the top. If your directory doesn't have one, go into uppropriate subdirectory.

[rob777]

If there is no "submit url" button for that category. It is usually because it is a target category for spammy submissions. And usually after a few 1000 irrelevent, affiliate, mirrors, cloaked url, etc. submissions to one category, the submit button is turned off.

Find a better fitting category for your site. Probably in a sub category.

[jlerner]

Sheel - be sure and read the submission instructions very carefully. If you violate the DMOZ submission protocol, it could result in the delay or rejection of your listing.

[antonaf]

DMOZ is a complete joke. So far I've been waiting 6 months to get a site listed, I've got no faith that it ever will get listed.
Perhaps, it's time there was a replacement for DMOZ - surely we can come up with something better.

I've been wondering about this. Is this a flaw in DMOZ or is this a procedure they employ?

Trying to reason, I believe DMOZ may wait for a period of time before listing any given site, because it want to be sure that the site will actually hold value in the future as well as not become a dead link in a short time. I'm sure DMOZ receives thousands (if not millions) of links each month...and if they submitted each link they receive they will be faced with 75% of dead links by the end of the month. Could waiting a long period to get listed actually be their systematic way of doing things?

[jlerner]

Could waiting a long period to get listed actually be their systematic way of doing things?

Hmmm... good point. There are a number of DMOZ editors who post to this site. Perhaps one of them will be able to validate the theory.

[rob777]

I am an editor. As far as I know, there is no holding a site before listing it procefure.

In some of my caught up categories (no more waiting for review) if a site is submitted and I happen to feel like editing that category, that day, I will review and edit that site.

It is not uncommon for some sites to be listed within a day or two. IF that category is caught up and doesn't recieve 200 spam submissions per day.

If your website is on topic with the majority of others accross the net (mainly-Shopping, or Computer related) you will have a LONG wait to even be looked at. These are the type categories that draw the most submissions AND the most spam.

Now, I can't speak for every editor, but I think most all editors just edit the sites in order of the waiting list. A short list=a short time until review.


Later,
Rob

[antonaf]

Thanks for the clear up Rob777

Therefore, my site is computer>internet related ...I suppose I will have a long wait. My site is only a month old from 'going live'....my submission to DMOZ is 2 months old, plus I have submitted a duplicate (45 days later)....will that affect my submission? And if so, how do I fix it? Or am I screwed?

[rob777]

antonaf,

There are a couple issues here.

1. You submitted your site before it is live? Do you mean it is still under construction?

This could be bad- If by some slim chance your site was reviewed quickly, it probably got deleted with an editor's note "under construction" or "not found" what ever your case happens to be. Some (few) editors will place an under construction submission in a watch list that they can check on once in awhile and seeif it is done yet and ready for "possible" inclusion. And some editors will tag the comment above and leave it in unreviewed to check on later. If they check back a few weeks later and the site is still not done, they will delete it.

2. The duplicate submission 45 days later. Is usually not a problem (95% of the time). But some editors are strict and you might catch one on a bad day, etc. The majority of editors will just delete the duplicate and leave one submission to be edited when it's turn comes.

Sometimes in the higher categories I will chainsaw dupes from the list that sometimes are as many as 10-15 of the same site. I still leave one to be edited.

It would be nice if we could submit our site when we first think about building it so that hopefully Dmoz will finally get to it when we are finishing the building of it. But then you take the risk of getting deleted for not being a complete site.

I can't say for sure, but in my opinion, your site probably hasn't been looked at yet, and if you get it done before they review it, you should fine. (as long as it meets the guidelines for inclusion).

Hope this helps,
Rob

[antonaf]

antonaf,

There are a couple issues here.

1. You submitted your site before it is live? Do you mean it is still under construction?

This could be bad- If by some slim chance your site was reviewed quickly, it probably got deleted with an editor's note "under construction" or "not found" what ever your case happens to be. Some (few) editors will place an under construction submission in a watch list that they can check on once in awhile and seeif it is done yet and ready for "possible" inclusion. And some editors will tag the comment above and leave it in unreviewed to check on later. If they check back a few weeks later and the site is still not done, they will delete it.

2. The duplicate submission 45 days later. Is usually not a problem (95% of the time). But some editors are strict and you might catch one on a bad day, etc. The majority of editors will just delete the duplicate and leave one submission to be edited when it's turn comes.

Sometimes in the higher categories I will chainsaw dupes from the list that sometimes are as many as 10-15 of the same site. I still leave one to be edited.

It would be nice if we could submit our site when we first think about building it so that hopefully Dmoz will finally get to it when we are finishing the building of it. But then you take the risk of getting deleted for not being a complete site.

I can't say for sure, but in my opinion, your site probably hasn't been looked at yet, and if you get it done before they review it, you should fine. (as long as it meets the guidelines for inclusion).

Hope this helps,
Rob

No, my site was not under construction when I submitted it but it was still being optimized, but it had all working links. Actually, it was unofficially open for the first month....it had active members but was still being worked on in the background and optimized for search engines...keywords, adding content, meta-tags, etc.

Thanks for the info. I'm taking your heed and guessing I haven't been reviewed yet. I will not resubmit again for at least 6 months. See what happens! Thanks.

[rob777]

Oh ok.

For you and everyone else who might read this thread. Dmoz does not care about the meta tags, alt tags, and other optimization. I get a lot of update requests..."we have just changed our meta keyword and meta description. We would greatly apprieciate it if you could update our listing."

The only concerns we have when reviewing a site is the ease of navigation, complete and not under construction, very few broken (internal) links, and CONTENT.

We see some visually horrific sites , but they can still be included if they provide good content and are functional. Have you seen some of the tripod free hosted sites in the directory. They will not win any design awards, but they offer good content.

We review the sites thinking about the users browsing the ODP, not about the search engines that spider the directory.

So if your only problem was lack of SEO...No worries. We don't look at that.


Later,
Rob

[antonaf]

That's good to know.

That works hand-in-hand with a point I was trying to make here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=13838

[minstrel]

CBP over at WebProWorld has repeatedly said that if you re-submit your site to DMOZ it will go to the bottom of the queue.

So there in fact IS a penalty for re-submitting.

If you believe the Resourceless Zone DMOZ editors, there is also a penalty for asking what's going on with your site more than once within a 6 month period.

While I respect your courtesy, Rob, and what a few others here have said about you as a DMOZ editor, I have to say that I don't think the way you "do business" as an editor is at all representative. Read the statements of numerous editors at the RZ or on other forums (WPW being a good example) and you'll get a very different picture.

As for the hypothesis that DMOZ editors deliberately leave a site in queue to see if it sticks around or as some measure of longevity, forget it. It's not there to prove anything, other than perhaps that the DMOZ editor for that category is god and won't be questioned -- it is there until if and when the editor deigns to have a look at it, or perhaps never if s/he thinks the category is full enough.

[rob777]

CBP over at WebProWorld has repeatedly said that if you re-submit your site to DMOZ it will go to the bottom of the queue.

He must have some sort of tool that he uses then. Because the way an unreviewed list is displayed to us is in 4 options.
We can sort by date submitted, alphabetical url, title, or category.

There is also the regular list display. which lists sites newest at the top to the oldest at the bottom...(but this is not in a 100% order because of the sites that editors moved from different categories. A 2001 submission might be between an April 2002 and a May 2003, because the other editor sent it over to this category in that time frame.

There is nowhere there for us to send a site to the bottom of the list (unless someone made an editing tool that I haven't heard of).

I think the only way to keep a site at the bottom is to leave an editor note stating the heavy submitter label. Which makes it so when he clicks next on the list and this site comes up, he can see the note and then just skip it until later.

So there in fact IS a penalty for re-submitting.
Yes there is. If someone is a heavy multiple submitter (1 a day evry day, 3 times a week, etc.) they will have their urls tagged with an alert status to let the editors know what is hapening. (we can also see the url's history of edits, so it is not like they can just tag any site without cause and us editors not know about it).

But a couple submissions in a couple month time span will not (SHOULD NOT) be penelized. The penalties are for spammers, aggressive deeplink submitters, or sites that are already listed and keep trying to get their site listed in another categories.

While I respect your courtesy, Rob, and what a few others here have said about you as a DMOZ editor, I have to say that I don't think the way you "do business" as an editor is at all representative. Read the statements of numerous editors at the RZ or on other forums (WPW being a good example) and you'll get a very different picture.

Thanks. I understand your frustration with the RZ. I do not go there often, it is too hostile for me.
I edit like I have learned from those around me. Maybe that is why I think that the majority of experienced edtors are straight up.
I have read many of there statments, and too me it seems like they are explaining the guidelines and people are not understanding them. And the more the editors repeat the guidelines, the more people get frustrated and so on. And I admitted sometimes it might seem like a couple editors might have a god complex on occasion. But back in the ditors zone, they are nice and willing to help the other editors like a community. I don't know?? I really shouldn't talk about the PR because I am not i that area. So I will stick with the rules and procedures of the actual editing, in my comments.


- it is there until if and when the editor deigns to have a look at it, or perhaps never if s/he thinks the category is full enough.
That is false. We as editors are instructed and expected to manage the category. Meaning that when the list of sites reaches a big size 70-200 sites (up to that category's editor's best judgement) we are supposed to start breaking it down into new sub-categories. There is no set number to decide this, but generally when we get about 20 sites that could be placed into their own sub-category, it is time to create a sub-cat for them. We are NEVER supposed to ignore new sites because a category is too big. And the categories that can't be broken into sub-cats, but start hitting the 100's of sites in the category, an alpha-bar is created and the sites are sorted into each letter. Like the personal homepage category or artists, they are sorted into an alpha-bar.

Sorry for the long post AGAIN! :D

Later,
Rob

[minstrel]

There is nowhere there for us to send a site to the bottom of the list (unless someone made an editing tool that I haven't heard of).
CBP doesn't say that he is doing anything special - he indicates that that is a policy (perhaps unofficial) for DMOZ editors. He has made this very clear in numerous posts. Perhaps he means it as a "mental note" type of punishment ("This guy has resubmitted so put him to lowest priority") but he has been very clear on this point.

back in the editors zone, they are nice and willing to help the other editors like a community
I don't think any of us ever doubted that editors are (mostly) nice to other editors. That doesn't alter the fact that at RZ they are intolerably rude and condescending to anyone not in "the club".

it is there until if and when the editor deigns to have a look at it, or perhaps never if s/he thinks the category is full enough
That is false. We as editors are instructed and expected to manage the category. Meaning that when the list of sites reaches a big size 70-200 sites (up to that category's editor's best judgement) we are supposed to start breaking it down into new sub-categories. There is no set number to decide this, but generally when we get about 20 sites that could be placed into their own sub-category, it is time to create a sub-cat for them. We are NEVER supposed to ignore new sites because a category is too big. And the categories that can't be broken into sub-cats, but start hitting the 100's of sites in the category, an alpha-bar is created and the sites are sorted into each letter. Like the personal homepage category or artists, they are sorted into an alpha-bar.
Perhaps you should spend more time in the RZ and/or on other forums. This is no exaggeration or invention on my part: Editors have repeatedly posted comments to the fact that certain categories have not been updated in 2 or 3 years because they already have enough sites in that category -- one recent example of this statement was by several editors in a thread (I think at RZ but possibly on another forum) about why new real estate sites weren't being added. I believe one of the comments was "Because there are already 185 (or some number) sites in that category and how many does anyone need?".

It's refreshing to know that some of the claims of DMOZ editors do not reflect DMOZ policy. But at the same time it's rather discouraging to think that so many of the editors are apparently creating unofficial policies and enforcing them.

[rob777]

Perhaps you should spend more time in the RZ and/or on other forums. This is no exaggeration or invention on my part: Editors have repeatedly posted comments to the fact that certain categories have not been updated in 2 or 3 years because they already have enough sites in that category -- one recent example of this statement was by several editors in a thread (I think at RZ but possibly on another forum) about why new real estate sites weren't being added. I believe one of the comments was "Because there are already 185 (or some number) sites in that category and how many does anyone need?".

I've just spent an hour reading and searching the RZ and couldn't find anything. If you have it handy could you post a link? If not, thats ok I believe you.

But if your reffering to instances like the real estate directory dicussion, to me it's a grey area, but to other editors it is black and white.....Dmoz requirements state tthe site needs orignal/unique content. The hardcore word for word following editors, would perhaps not add any more directory sites because maybe the properties in those directories are found on many of the other already listed directory sites. There for, there is really not much unique content compared to the sites already listed. First come first serve. That is the argument that is raising the bar for directories to be included in the ODP, (so stated by an editor in one of those RZ threads.) I agree, but feel bad because the work a webmaster put into the design of his site and he/she feels that it is different than the rest. Well technically it is different, but the content is not that different.

If there were 200 directory sites that only listed widgets applying for submition to the ODP and all the widget manufactures added their listings to every one of those 200 directories, should those 200 directories be considered to contain unique content and get listed in the ODP.

That is the argument those editors are making...why would a Dmoz surfer need to sort through 200 listing of the same content?

So when the only submissions a category is recieving is duplicate content, the ditors discuss and sometime decide to close a category from new additions.

The gray area for me is...to me the features of those sites would be the uniqueness and I would tend to list them as long as they a few different contents also. But I can't change the rules so I have to follow rules as instructed by the more experienced editors.

The problem is the variance of human interpritation of the guidelines. Some are stricter than others. And this will never change because everyoone has their own opinions of what the rules really mean, a general statement or word for word.

And because every webmaster builds their website different, we have to interputate the rules and use our own judgement (this is where the agruments all lead to and stem from and nothing we do can change this). It would be nice if the rules stated x number of articles, x number of pages, x number of photos to be included, but that is not possible with the variable of human built websites and human managed directories.

It is not just ODP, it is most every human directory. I just read a complaint about a rejection from a Digi Pt member's directory. One of the same complaints as at DMOZ. this Thread here (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=13416&page=6&pp=10) It is a small complaint now, but if Bobby's directory grew to 1,000,000 sites and had 1,000's per day submitted, you would start to see all the same arguments as with ODP. People will start to call Bobby's editors corrupt, rude (well maybe not rude, as he has auto replies), and self-proclaiming gods of the internet.

(Lots of sites=lots of variables + lots of editors=lots of variables + lots of people interacting=madness) Total=world of complete and everlasting unrest and conflict.

Later,
Rob

[bnaze13]

dmoz seems to take forever to actually enter the site. Anyone else experience this?

[minstrel]

That is the argument those editors are making...why would a Dmoz surfer need to sort through 200 listing of the same content? So when the only submissions a category is recieving is duplicate content, the editors discuss and sometime decide to close a category from new additions.
How much unique content can a real estate directory have? I mean, they sell buildings and property, right? I'm not in that industry but the logic seems to me to be grossly unfair and that is what people who ARE in the industry are pointing out: Why should somebody who managed to find a sympathetic editor in 1997, or who knows someone who is or knows an editor, be given the advantage over his/her competitors of a DMOZ listing (see below)?

I think if the DMOZ is to meet its obligations to its mission and to the internet community, it MUST be impartial and inclusive rather than exclusive. I don't mean it should have to list all sites but it should list all sites that meet the DMOZ criteria, if only to be fair. As I have said elsewhere, the problem is that it is an impossible task for human editors to keep up with the number of new and deserving sites being created every year. That would be okay if DMOZ clearly stated the following:

We are a selected set of bookmarks chosen according to the subjective opinions and biases of a limited number of human editors, many of whom are motivated by self-interest since they have websites in the categories they edit. We make no claim to being objective, fair, or unbiased. Even though DMOZ is known as "The Open Directory", we also make no claim in reality to being truly open. Thus, the sites in the DMOZ directory are no better and in some cases perhaps not even as good as the collection of sites you have in your bookmarks.
Instead, what DMOZ states is this:

The web continues to grow at staggering rates. Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet.

Instead of fighting the explosive growth of the Internet, the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. As the Internet grows, so do the number of net-citizens. These citizens can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.
But the statements of its editors are at odds with those official statements -- its not about "keeping only the best content" if the true policy is "first come first serve", is it? And as for link rot, DMOZ can't even keep up with link rot in its own directory...

It is not just ODP, it is most every human directory. I just read a complaint about a rejection from a Digi Pt member's directory. One of the same complaints as at DMOZ. this Thread here It is a small complaint now, but if Bobby's directory grew to 1,000,000 sites and had 1,000's per day submitted, you would start to see all the same arguments as with ODP. People will start to call Bobby's editors corrupt, rude (well maybe not rude, as he has auto replies), and self-proclaiming gods of the internet.
The difference, as you and everyone else well knows, is that Google doesn't feed its directory from that DigitalPoint member's directory, so if Bobby's editors are rude or corrupt, people stop submitting and go somewhere else. And I think you also know that the only thing propping DMOZ up at this point is that Google connection.

[Blogmaster]

I have read this whole thread. Very good thread. The best I have ever seen when it comes to discussion DMOZ issues.
I have submitted sitetutor.com 20 times between 2002 and 2004 and have been red tagged for it. Too bad it happened before the new content got up, huh?

One thing I myself am tired of is self serving behaviour. I see it on both sides. And once again, RZ is not an example of the average DMOZ editor. I have just seen Will's post about Hutchensen's personal life, wow, scarry to find out what can be found out about someone.
I am not surprised it has come to this. I have PMed Hutchensen on RZ to show him and also mentioned that he has some explaining to do about his behaviour.

It does not have anything to do with "Why is my site not in" but with what he has been displaying which is completely unacceptable behaviour. The fact that he has labelled himself as a Christian reminds me why I have not attended service in so long.
people who use positions trying to make others feel guilty.

Just like the 3/day spammers don't show themselves in the RZ, the good editors are usually far away from the RZ as well. It is a war zone there. Not something anyone wants to get caught up in.

If Hutchensen can run the RZ and have some sort of support from editors enjoying his grandstanding, that is very very sad and should not be supported by DMOZ.
I am no longer participating in the bashing because I have seen the good and the bad and I cannot make it a DMOZ editor specific issue. And if you guys think everything is united between editors, you are wrong. There are flamewars going on in the editor only part of the RZ. Editors having senior editors (or whatever they call them) overwrite their editing and so on.


Another thing is that some get very sucked in over there and on a one on one basis they act very differently than they do on when it comes to uniting against people who remind them of the ones who cannot give up trying to get their sites listed.

I have once posted on a forum saying I was looking for good internet marketing related sites because I am editing this category for JoeAnt. What I was looking for was good, quality weblogs and sites such as DazzlingDonnas blog. Next thing I knew I was being PMed with commercial sites which didn't meet the restrictions for being commercial (such as having to have 2 forms of contact visible etc.) and one of my inclusions was overwritten. After that the follow up PMs followed and I was about to be argued with over regulations I cannot control and let me tell you: I can feel the frustration and can only imagine what it must be like dealing with this everyday.
About first come first serve:

Well , some of us got online early and have an advantage, such as the guys registering domains like business.com back in the days.

Thas life.

I have to say, the Hutchensens and the spammers equally should be put in the same category. Everyone is selfish to some extent but what matters is pinpointing the bad apples and help wheating them out.
That is all I have to say.

Mike

[minstrel]

I have just seen Will's post about Hutchensen's personal life, wow, scarry to find out what can be found out about someone.
Where is this?

[minstrel]

http://dmoz.org/profiles/hutcheson.html

Name: Stephen Hutcheson
Email: Send to hutcheson
hutcheson's bookmarks (34)

Categories
Arts: Literature: Poetry: Genres (177)
Arts: Music (108,355)
Arts: Music: History (92)
Arts: Music: Styles: Classical (1,698)
Reference: Education: Colleges and Universities: North America: United States: Tennessee (338)
Reference: Museums: Arts and Entertainment: Music (28)
Regional: Middle East: Israel: Society and Culture: History: Archaeology (70)
Science: Social Sciences: Archaeology (4,866)
Shopping: Music (2,680)
Society: History: By Topic: Social History: Religion (91)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Christianity: Bible: References and Tools (390)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Christianity: Church History (646)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Christianity: Denominations: Catholicism: Music (26)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Christianity: Music: Hymns (341)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Computers: Software (5)
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Shopping (5)

Profile
I'm a Christian: an occasional teacher and for many years a regular song leader (without formal training for either, but with considerable slightly-organized reading.)
I'm a programmer by profession, with training and experience in computer languages and systems. I'm particularly interested in proof techniques and knowledge organization and representation (both their techniques and their limitations).

I'm an avid reader of nonfiction (archaeology; History of science, technology, and religion; linguistics; natural history; and miscellaneous other stuff printed on paper); For relaxation, I read an eclectic (but narrow) selection drawn mostly from English classics and science fiction. In desperate circumstances, I'd read a dictionary (but probably not a phone book.)

I listen to music: concentrating on high German baroque, but almost any style from Purcell to Poulenc. (However, I carefully avoid musical genres where the identity of the performer or performance is more significant than that of the composer or the composition.)

My hobby (indexing hymnals) represents a conjunction of all these characteristics: here was something which I would need regularly and had the tools to do, but which was being done spectacularly badly. And web research for it brought me to the ODP.

I do not have a web site, but have done scanning, proofing, and formatting of hymnic material for the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

I aggressively tend ODP "Hymns", and have adopted several orphan or vacant categories (where I could pretend some minimal knowledge) as a caretaker or housecleaner. I consider the "Editall" and "Meta" privileges a great honor; I also appreciate the community's voting me two "Mozzie" awards: 2000 "tie for second most congenial editor" and 2002 "tie for best science editor;" but would feel more comfortable displaying the award banners if I had thought they were, um, well, actually deserved.
Do you still think the DMOZ editors disapprove of this guy, Tutor?

And... he's a Christian! :eek: Talk about living your beliefs, eh? :D

I wonder if he can even see the irony of the discrepancy between what he says in his "autobiography" here and his actual behavior...