That's why I'd seem to think that the people who have been waiting for longer than a year, are probably within a category that doesn't even have an editor!
I'd assume that in at least some of the cases it's a lack of content that get's someone not listed. If you started a site 13 months ago and have been waiting for over a year, then maybe that's the connection. Re-submit assuming you'd added to your site in the last 12 months. But then, this is not really the thread for this... In fact, with such a simple answer I'm amazed this thread made it this far. (the answer being no, they generally do not tell you if you got accepted ort rejected). Q
There are absolutely good DMOZ editors and by swaying to one category they could identify what to list and not. Anyway if you don't find one on any sub cat try going up and up. There should be one and it shows when they log in. There are also the (i hate to say this) META's and some Extremely Good Editalls. (hi Annie and Gary)
No one in particular. I am generalizing. I suppose I could change my statement to say that most of the good DMOZ editors either get canned or resign in disgust.
Ok then Jeremy. Count me in but like I said they locked me out and canned me. I am Motsa's Favorite Boy and she's my favorite one. (to drown each other in Hells Pit)
Wait did she found out that i know u and had been involved in some of ur crimes? and she canned me for nothing, had only like 20 links submitted in an abandoned category, pretty mean lol
I wouldn't say that your assumption is a good one, even though you correctly referred to the editing guidelines. That may be a good reason NOT to include some sites, but I think it doesn't reflect reality. Lack of engaged editors (of which I am one) would be a much better reason, in my experience, and my humble opinion. I have to put my professional and personal interests ahead of editing, as does any other functional member of the editing community. I guess what I'm saying is, it's not high priority activity for me, and just about any editor will tell you the same thing, as is to reasonably be expected. There's just no way that I care more about your web page getting accepted than I do about things that provide me with love or money.
Reality is based on one's own reflection of life... In the ODP, it may be a reflection of one's category. Personal pages, blogs, chats, and forums, would/should all show at least some stability and staying power, and other then time content is key. And if it's not a matter of content, or lack there of, then there is no excuse other then laziness of editors... I've been a part of many many occult forums in my time on the net and while I've focused on only a handful, I've seen many many many others come and go. Most of these start out rather nicely in design and in some cases content, but there is no long lasting conviction. A forum that's just started out would need to show signs that it is here to stay. If it does not show that, then it's of no use to the internet community as a whole, or more specifically, the occult community in general. If a forum was slapped together with a few good posts, thats certainly not an indicator that it'll make it. However, if the good posts keep on coming, month after month, then I'd assume the place was here to stay. The same goes for Blogs, I personally have started a half dozen or more but keep falling back to the same one. The other 5 certainly have their worth, but they are certainly not worthy of DMOZ. The same should apply to other sites as well. An MFA site should likely not be listed, as while it may have some content, it's certainly lacking in true staying power and is certainly pushing out better sites that are there to help the community not pad the pocket of some bloke trying to squeeze a niche. A site grows (in content) shows more worth to the community as a whole and as such should likely be placed before a site that is seemingly there to make a quick buck...with many brand new sites it can be hard to tell. Please rephrase that so I don't think you are asking for love or money before a site is accepted. Q
There is really no need for new age philosophy in this matter. It's a simple matter of statistics, not altered perceptions of "reality". a) there are not as many (current) editors as is claimed by the ODP b) of those that are current, not all are active c) of those who are active, not all edit frequently d) of those who edit freqently, not all are edit-alls e) of those who edit frequently, not all have multi-category permissions f) of those who have multi-category permissions, not all edit frequently g) of those who have multi-category permissions, not all edit outside their interests h) of those who have full category permissions, not all edit all of the sub categories Most importantly, given all the above, there are still more websites coming in than editors to handle them. Remember, NO EDITOR is bound by any editing schedule. It's entirely up to the editor when they choose to edit. So, from that perspective, there is no such thing as a "lazy" editor. They are all real people, who have lives aside from making sure your (insert topic here) website gets accepted. There are a also lot of "blank" areas in the ODP, as far as editing is concerned. Categories with no editors, or sub-cats that nobody wants to touch. Real estate is one of those that comes up frequently. Such sites often can be the last to be reviewed, and many times only when an editor wants to move up to a new category, but must "clean house" before being approved to a new field of interest. (I'm speaking, of course, about the regional categories here) Are you actually an editor, or are you just making this stuff up? A site does not need to contain tons of content to be valuable. (according to ODP editing guidelines) It only need be unique or of some demonstrable value to the internet community. But certainly there is no need to prioritize sites by this arbitrary standard that you propose. Editors are free to do so, if they choose, but in real world terms, such a constraint would constitute bureaucracy. It effectively doubles the efforts on an editor who may not edit that often, anyway. I assure you that neither love nor money could get anyone a DMOZ link from me. You know, If everyone would stop equating DMOZ with SEO, this discussion would probably end right here, today.
I agree that those are not powerful enough, but what about "FEAR" i guess it can do wonders and sometimes can change onces life around.
I really don't know what you're talking about, but I don't need to resort to being bribed for a DMOZ link. I am self-employed in an honest business, (not related to DMOZ or SEO or webmastering) and I'm quite certain that it pays me better than any "dirty links" that I could hand out - if I actually had the permissions to do so, in the first place. Oh sure, I could probably work my way up, and fool everyone for awhile - but I believe that what goes around, comes around. Quite frankly, even if I actually felt compelled, it's just not worth the time, as I really don't have the same passion for editing as say, compostannie. (And no, Annie - there's nothing wrong with editing, if that's what you like to do.) But I can't see doing something so unethical when I barely enjoy doing the job in the first place. That would be like grave robbing gold crowns to sell for cigarette money...
Yes I am an editor, of a "new age section" regardless of that though, how can I not be partially correct when it's in the guidelines? According to that list I can in no way be correct, but you go on... The part I bolded shows that content can still be key, so you are trying to discount me saying that SOME are not added due to content, by agreeing with me. *boggle* And IMHO, if you are adding anything that's submitted, then you are doing the DMOZ community more harm then good. If you honestly do not have time to look at the submissions or to actually follow the guidelines, then maybe, just maybe you should step down. As I'm not making the guidelines up, I'm doing what I can to follow them. In fact, their section on what NOT to add is bigger then what they are supposed to add, so again, I point to content. But yes...they do need more (many more) editors. Q