What kind of websites are accepted by DMOZ?

Is is true that if you have a website that has a commercial purpose, DMOZ will reject it? I have a website with a monthly subscription and is like a directory for pets and pet owners and I have submitted it 9 months ago but it was never added to DMOZ. I also have a blog on the same domain with useful information so it does have useful content for pet owners. Is there a way to get my website listed or there is no chance for such website to be listed?

 

Well, there is no written rule in their guidelines against listing commercial sites. Nevertheless, if you take a look to this forum you will find out that most sites have no chance of being listed.

 

Why they have no chance of getting listed? Is DMOZ closed or something? I still hear that they have editors and people who approve sites.

 

Since you don't want to search by yourself, I'm copy-pasting something I already said before:

 

I see. Google should then just drop their importance and everyone will be happy. I really do not care anymore about such directories as most of them want money for you to post your website and rarely bring any traffic. Why people still want to get listed with DMOZ is because of their high PR, and Google should be blamed for this.

 

DMOZ lists commercial sites.

Suggesting a site to DMOZ is just that a suggestion, it can take from a few days to several years before it is reviewed with a possibility of being listed. We are not a listing service and we do not undertake to review sites in good time, we also say that we retain the right not to publish any site. I am sure if you look at other threads here you will pick up, from editors (the people who actually do the job), how the directory operates and why this is so.

Please don't believe what you read on here about corrupt editors, it is simply not true. DMOZ editors are all honest volunteers and in my experience work extremely hard for the directory.

 

Even the importance Google gives to DMOZ isn't something in full consensus. Some people think Google gives extra pagerank for a DMOZ link, but owners of listed site haven't seen any difference in PR after being listed on DMOZ.
If you don't mind being listed among out-dated, spam sites or you are lucky enough to find a well-maintained category, there is no harm in filling the suggestion form.

 

Which websites are not accepted? What is the biggest reason for a website not to be included besides having no content or relevant content or being an affiliate squeeze page? I think that every legit website should be accepted by this open directory. Otherwise, it is not so open after all; more like private/closed directory in my opinion.

 

Thank God somebody is defending DMOZ editors. Oh, wait a minute... this is a DMOZ editor!

 

I'm not sure about this but every site that ranks well for the competitive keywords I'm after is also listed on DMOZ. It might be a coincidence but I think there is a relation between the two.

 

Far more likely not that web sites are rejected, though the ones you mention are not listed (though sometimes I have managed to list a few duff sites in error glad others found them!) but they sit in the suggestions pool waiting a review. Because a site is not listed in a few days, weeks, years it does not mean it is rejected just not reviewed. The majority of sites I have seen I have listed, but that does vary considerably as to where one is working, some areas produce a majority spam.

 

That can be solved easily. Just make people pay a fee if they want their site to be reviewed faster like in a week or so. That way, spammers will refuse to pay because they will know in advance that their website will not get accepted and will not waste your time.

 

You operate on a fundamentally wrong premise, I am afraid. We are not a listing service, we accept suggestions, but say that we may not review them in good time. Editors are there to build categories and have many resources to do that, the suggestions pool is only one and they are not obliged to use that. It might be worth a note that I read somewhere that Google liked DMOZ because it was unpaid and because the editors choose the sites and are not bound by submissions so the person looking at the directory was the person we built for.

I am most proud of one section of the directory that I built over several months, it has over 800 sites on it, but few were suggestions. I built the category because I had a fascination with the subject. I could have spent the time reviewing suggestions for other categories, but I wanted to produce this one. If I were forced to edit in some sections I would leave because I would be bored to tears. Editors are encouraged to pursue their hobbies, passions or interests to build categories. We hope that what interests us is of interest to others.

 

L.O.L.​

Explain why soooo many editors have been let go for corruption then... are you trying to say that all the corrupt editors are gone?

Here is another point against that, mind explaining why you have been banned from Digital Point several times if you are honest? Oh, I know, you are honest, you just have no issues with breaking the guidelines of the sites you are on.

The ONLY hard work I've seen you do is claim that DMOZ is your god... I wonder if you fellow church members know that my good reverend I've certainly not seen ANY evidence what-so-ever that you've done a single thing for the directory, as you post Anonymously.

If anyone wants to know what type of sites are accepted in the ODP, it's simple... check the ODP. Dead links, commercial sites, affiliated sites of the top editors... all these things are allowed and more! The guidelines are just that, GUIDELINES, and do not need to be followed, as there are exceptions to every rule.

 

Not again! Please no!

You editors can help yourselves of repeating the same thing hundreds of times. You should have learn by now that you need to speak the truth. Otherwise nobody listen to you.

And it isn't a matter of repetition. You seem to believe that repeating the same over and over will make that true. But it won't. It will keep being a lie.

This belief (of editors) in the magic of repetition is exposed in this thread where three editors reply the same thing to a single post! resourcezone is so empty that you answer a single post three times.

http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54609&page=2

Unbelievable!

PS:

WOW! During the time it took posting this message (before editing). Another editor (hutcheson) added yet another reply! God!

 

Thanks for the opportunity to say that i was banned for having more than one account, but I managed to prove my innocence. One account on here is quite sufficient!!

Our guidelines indeed set out the sites we accept. Though most of us have at some time accepted duff sites, I am glad that other editors have often found many of my mistakes and corrected them by removing sites that i wrongly listed.

 

"You operate on a fundamentally wrong premise, I am afraid..."
What is wrong about paying a small fee to get your site reviewed faster if everyone is given this opportunity? I don't see how Google will think less of DMOZ as a result. Even now, editors could accept payments without anyone knowing and list sites that paid them. I'm not saying that every site that paid to be reviewed should be accepted but this would lower the number of spammers.

 

Your ban was for 5 months... seems like a reasonable time to prove your innocence, or even maybe for your infraction to expire.

I'm sorry, there is no way for us to really know why you were banned from this site (more then once by the way, so were both for multiple accounts?) as the mods here generally practice something similar to your own "confidentiality" guidelines. So if you expect us to believe you on that, then I trust you believe that Ivan is also innocent?

Though, even if that were true what about the other editors that have been banned from here? Are you calling all of them honest?

I'd also like to thank you for not bothering to reply to the part about whether the corruption is really gone... I'll take your silence and your other post to mean that you truly feel the corruption has finally been eradicated from the ODP.

WHAT? You've added sites that do not fit within the guidelines? Has your account been reviewed? How on earth are you still an editor? I mean, I only listed 5 sites all of which were well within the guidelines and I get slack for that all the time... I'd hate to think what would have happened had one of them NOT been worthy

Then again, you post Anonymously so I guess it's pretty safe for you to say you've listed sites against the guidelines...

I'm sorry, but the ONLY way ANYONE can really say what is listed in the ODP is to simply look at the listings themselves. Let the viewer decide if it's a listing service... Skrenta certainly thinks its a listing service having over TEN THOUSAND affiliated deep links listed... Other Meta editors, editalls, and editors are Link Building Professionals, and that is WELL within the guidelines of the ODP, are they going to agree its not a listing service? Sites like Skriptlance with COMPLETED transactions with POSITIVE feedback also indicate that it's a service for listing sites... any sites according to what's actually listed there!

 

My friend, DMOZ editors will tell you wrong no matter what you say. As long as you have some improvement suggestion to them. They won't accept your suggestion because they what DMOZ to stay like it is now.
I know it's a little to early for telling you this. But you will reach the same conclusion eventually.

 

The wrong premise is that you believe we want to list as many sites as we can and want to do that for the benefit of the webmaster. We want to list sites that we think are of interest to the reader of the directory, so taking a payment to benefit a site to get listed more quickly has no interest to us, if we want the site in quickly we will do that for free.

Secondly as I have said elsewhere if an editor solicits or takes money to list a site the editor will be banned and so will the site. Editors have to be able to edit in most of the directory to make taking a bribe worth offering the service. Editors who can do that have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours for no payment to get to that position, you have to be devoted to the directory and its aims to spend that much time out of your life. Do you really think we would jeopardise all that? I know that I would not and neither would the many editors that i know.