DMOZ IS a service it's documentation says so! People submit/suggest sites Editors approve them (or not) When where the definitions of things changed? LIST a site? from the submission queue? Sounds like a LISTING SERVICE to me
Of course it's a service, but as we keep explaining over and over and over, it is not a service for webmasters, so there is no requirement to do anything at all about the suggestions webmasters make. There is no "submission queue". Nothing has changed, this is what DMOZ has always been, but despite many thousands of similar explanations there seem to be some people who absolutely refuse to understand.
How do you know the difference between as webmaster's suggestion and that of the end user? Oh right... it's the suggestion queue. I missed that memo when they changed the definitions From the ADD page: Determine whether a site is appropriate for submission to the ODP: People submit to the queue, making it, by rights a submission queue... Re-read the add page, which is the ONLY thing a would be submitted should ever have to read, and tell me what else it would be called, or for that matter what a suggest site is once it's suggested. A suggestion? Sure, good answer... now add that change to the priority list of AOL, as it keeps calling those suggestions SUBMISSIONS in the documentation! Actually, the ODP has changed a great deal... they used to be open and honest about thing and used to LIST sites from the SUBMISSION Queue. Now they approve sites from web searches...
As someone who was (albeit very briefly) an editor, I know that you are being purposefully obtuse in order to mislead others. Not very helpful at all. As you well know, all sites are added as a result of editors looking for them. The point that you keep fudging is the fact that the suggestions made by other people are nothing more than one place editors can look if they want to, and such suggestions are not in any sort of "queue" at all. Not even if you call it by another name.
Submitted sites are approved or denied. All the sites submitted are put in what is basically a pool of submissions. The editors visit each site and determine whether or not it should be listed. they then make changes to the title, description, and category if necessary, as most webmasters have a tendency to use promotional language such as "the best" or "the biggest" or "the source," etc. The listing is then approved and listed, or not. Most people think that it's very hard to get your site approved, as if it has to be an authority site. That's not usually the case, actually. The most important factor is that the site provides a value, isn't spam, and doesn't have lots of broken pages, etc. Editors have to give a reason they denied a site. If it's obvious (spam, extremely outdated info, etc) it's easy. Editors don't deny a website because it's poorly designed (unless the design hinders regular functionality) or because they don't agree with the website's opinions, or it's not updated very often (except in extreme cases.) Each editor is different, but it's not a case of the website isn't good enough (most of the time,) it's usually because they haven't checked their control panel in a long time, or there is no editor for that category, or one of a hundred other reasons it's been neglected.
I should also add that as long as your website provides a value, the info isn't too outdated, and your design doesn't impede basic functionality, all you can do is submit the site. Submitting it multiple times won't help. Bitching about it won't help. There is no trick, no "secret method," just sit back and wait. I know it sucks, but that's how it is.
No they don't. There is no requirement for any volunteer to look at site suggestions at all. If they feel like doing so, they can, but it is entirely up to the editor whether they look at none, 1, 10, or 100. There are at least four other possibilities for a suggestion apart from "approved" or "denied": the site might not have been looked at, or the editor might have had a look and decided to come back another time to make a decision, or he might feel he needs to ask someone else for an opinion about listing it, or the site may be en route to a more appropriate category ... None of those possibilities fall under "approved or denied". Well, there are an awful lot more useful things to do than just wait for a bunch of volunteers you don't even know to do something for you. Well, I guess it does, for those who keep on wishing that DMOZ was a free listing service for them. However for the millions of internet users who find the directory (and its downstream clones) useful, I guess it doesn't suck quite so much. But that bit is true.
The Directory allows the public to submit suggestions to editors for consideration as a help to us in building categories. Depending on what area of the Directory you edit in, the suggestions can be either very useful, or more work than their worth. (in my opinion) The World of Warcraft "Games" category gets a lot of helpful site suggestions and I appreciate them. The site suggestions I get in the World of Warcraft category in "Shopping" gets a lot of spam junk sites that take a lot of time to weed out and really aren't worth looking at.
orl'y? That is certainly news to me. Are you saying that all the other editors here that talk about the queue are as misleading as I am? Or have I really missed the memo on the changing of definitions? Nearly every other editor here has called it a queue... it is rather strange that you now come in and say that it's not one. An organized sequence of suggested sites waiting for action... yeppers, sounds like a queue to me...
It's nearly impossible to be included in Dmoz though. The volunteer editors don't handle anywhere near the volume that is requested.
And as we're not a listing service, we never will. I can understand the misconception you all have that we are, but the truth is that the Directory is merely allowing the public to make site suggestions to us, as a help to us in building categories. Originally, it was just meant as a way for the public to say, "Hey, I found a really helpful site while browsing, and I thought you might want to include it in the Directory for other people." Not as a business tool for SEOs or e-commerce that you assume it is. You're never going to be satisfied because that's not what we do, so your basic premise is wrong, and there can be no meeting of the minds till you understand that.
I thought I'd head back to the dictionary... So, the ADD page calls it a SERVICE so it's a service of LISTINGS, which if I am not mistaken does in fact make it a LISTING SERVICE. I can accept that it's not a listing service for SEO's & Webmasters... but it's still a listing service. So maybe someone really needs to help get a fire under the Staff of the directory and get them to update their documentation to reflect the current views and aims of the current volunteers.
It's a service in the respect that we serve a group of people, but the group of people we serve are the information-seekers, not the information providers. When I'm building a category about Water Gardening, my focus is on the category itself, and how useful the sites contained in that category are going to be for a fellow water gardener. I'm not at all concerned about the owners of the sites that get suggested to that category, or how quickly I can take a look at them, and they have absolutely no right to be listed there. I'm "responsible" (I guess you could say) for building a good category. Where I get new sites, or when I get them, is totally up to me. The category, itself, is already a good resource for water gardeners. If I add no sites to it at all over the next couple of months, it will still be a good resource. My obligation is to the information-seekers, not to the owners of the site suggestions that might be waiting to be looked at. In this particular category, I do find that the site suggestions that are submitted are very much worth looking at, even though probably half of them will have to be moved to the Shopping category (that I also edit for expediency).
Call it what you will....it makes little difference as we are still free to choose wether to volunteer to look at them or not Building the directory is what we do and how we choose to do so and where we source the sites, is simply Editors choice.
I've suggested my site several times over the last few years and never got listed. As one of the more user friendly, inovative, informative and award winning websites in my "niche" you would have thought it would have been easy. I even applied to be a moderator and got refused as they thought I would be biased. Shame, I had a huge list of informative sites on my subject to add.
As you obviously ignored the instruction about suggesting it only once, the two events are possibly related. However, even if your site has not been banned for spamming, it is very likely no volunteer has looked at it yet. There are a lot better places to look for sites than in the pool of suggestions, but no doubt someone will look there one day. I'm afraid that cannot have been the reason. Many editors have websites, and provided they are honest and impartial, that is never a problem. Please re-read the detailed feedback you received, as it will help you to prepare a more acceptable application next time. That's wonderful! If you do not wish to re-apply as an editor, please suggest them so that volunteers will have a more useful collection of suggestions to look at.
Frankly I have given up submitting my sites to DMOZ a long time ago; I have a religious resource site that I have been trying to submit to for years and without any success. Good luck to those who keep trying.
How do you expect makrhod to know what "queue" is when she still can not understand what "completed transaction" and "positive feedback" means after so many times I have explained it for her? makrhod reminds me of what somebody once said: "the only qualification some the senior editors in DMOZ have is the fact that in real life nobody will give them even the responsibility for making the coffee"
its really hard to get listed in dmoz i really int get this..i m trying to get listed since a long time btu all in vain..