Has anyone recently been accepted into DMOZ? Are they still having some trouble over there and backed up with too many site submissions to handle?
As always sites suggested can take from a few days to a few years for a review for a possible listing. Please remember we are not a listing service for site owners.
Sites are added daily, though seemingly most are NOT added from the suggestion pool, rather editors ignore that in favor of the same methods people today find websites... places OTHER then DMOZ. They are however still backed up in the suggestion pool as there still are a few editors that still bother to use it...and since using the pool is not a suggested method of finding sites for editors, the few that do use it simply can not keep up.
9000 sites added in Jan and 6000 in Feb .... that more than most directories have in total, let alone added in a month!
Can you back that up from anywhere? Consistently we have said that editors can chose which resource to use, the suggestions pool is one resource and they can choose to use it or not, but just provide some evidence for your usual not quite quoting what we say accurately but in a twisted and wrong way.
You can get listed a lot faster if you pay one of there editors a little money. If you post something on guru.com they will offer to get you listed, or atlest they would a few months ago.
So im assuming you can provide proof, show specific url's of someone that did this? Or are you just repeating hearsay? Editorial abuse is taken very seriously so if you have some proof, please provide it.
I had one of my sites recently added took a long time though. I now have another site to try to get a listing, the only problem its in the same category although a specialist field do you thinks I will have any look or should i forget about it?
Your posting history! You say it all the freaken time! You keep on & on about how editors generally do NOT use the suggestion pool. So who is twisting what? In fact, you are the one that NEVER EVER backs anything up. Recently I backed up a claim using the ODP guidelines to which you said I was wrong... so why should I bother to look anything up...you are just going to lie about it in the end and hide behind your anonymous name. I asked that you prove to use you are an editor... and I asked SEVERAL TIMES! Proof? NOT YET. But you expect me to back up my claims! I said that the ODP is a SERVICE and back it up with ODP documentation (the ADD page YOU keep pointing too) yet you keep saying it's NOT a servicve... again, proof on your part has not come to light. I gave links to POSITIVE FEEDBACK for COMPLETED transactions for ODP listings on scriptlance, yet you claim that's not proof... So honestly, when you ask for proof, what am I supposed to do? Follow your lead? LOL... Seriously, look through your own posting history and tell me just what people are supposed to think when it comes to the suggestion pool? That it's used? LOL... not with an average wait time from here till never....something you claim yourself.
I was told that DMOZ looks at the profile of the person who's registering as an editor. If you are able to prove youself as a specialist in your domain, the chances of your membership getting accepted is higher. And if that happens, listing is easier! Sasi
I've submitted several sites, only once of course, but nothing has happened in several years. I place them in the very last category with nothing more than the domain in the title and about 10 words in description. Haven't seen any of them listed.
You don't tell uys if they fit guidelines though or perhaps they are still waiting can take up to years for a review for a possible listing.
There are lots of backed-up submissions, but editors don't consider that trouble. As others have said a number of times, editors don't consider submissions as priorities. Not a formal one, of course, but a sort of de facto one if a site qualifies per ODP guidelines. It then should just be a matter of time before a site is listed. Don't feel bad, this is nothing. There must be thousands of sites waiting for review and many waiting for much longer than a year. Many sites probably have come and gone out of existence over the years before ever being reviewed. Of course a site might simply have been rejected, and you would never have known. It might seem logical that a specialist would have an inside track to being an editor, but that seems not to be the case. Academic types have often been editors but many, for whatever reason, have not worked out well as editors. The reason might have something to do with the seemingly overly pedantic rules the ODP requires that they aren't used to. It really isn't difficult being an editor, but some people just have trouble dealing with the minutiae in the details; some just feel above it all.