I'm going to update this post every month it takes for me to get my site listed. It's for the travel category apparently I could be in for a long wait.
Just as a fyi for you. I have had no prior dealings with DMOZ I have no positive or negative feelings towards them. I am trying to be listed by them as the advice that I've received says that it would be a good thing to do. I'm certainly not going to volunteer as an editor to get my site listed because I'm not sure how ethical that is. I hope that eventually my site will come to the top of the list and is added. I've read a bit of what other people have had to say and I would hope that my site would not get to the top of the list for it to be rejected because it is likely to be competition to another site. I'm just interested in this process.
If the site is Travelodium then I would say it is unlistable and you will be posting every month until DP or DMOZ ceases to exist. I took some random text from a random page and it wasn't original but copied, without attribution, from Wikipedia yet the site claims copyright. So were I still an editor, I would have tagged it to prevent it being listed. You're lucky I am no longer an editor! You're also lucky that a large number of travel categories are choc full of unlistable sites so some editors are not being careful enough.
I've given up on DMOZ listing. Submitted my site in February and never heard a thing from them. I don't think wasting more time on it will help, so I moved on.
I think I listed over 8000 new and previously unlisted sites. Tagged somewhere in the hundreds at a guess. Maybe 1000, who knows, the stats aren't readily available. Tagging is a way of ensuring unlistable sites aren't listed by less experienced editors. Quality control is a problem in DMOZ, tagging is one method of improving that.
tbarr60, have anything to say? Wake your buddies up. If you need any help, I am there, but not going to submit any more applications for editor, submitted around 10 and got denied for all.
Yes that's true but I think you'll find that I do list Wikipedia as the source of the info. I'll have to go back and check - I do however have unique content. Thanks for the heads up.
That's about the right thing to do. depending on the category you submitted to, it could take a long time to get a review and, if appropriate, a listing. Remember that editors are not paid and in some categories there are hundreds of sites awaiting review. With more needing attention because they have gone 404. If you have unique content, and add value to the category, I am confident that one day it will be reviewed and listed, but don't hold your breath while waiting for that day to come and don't start resubmitting your site, that's a sure way to get it tagged as not to list. Good luck.
If this is true, it's fairly said. Someone has time to punitively tag a site but they don't have time to edit the link into a category or deny it?? DMOZ leadership should learn from Guy Kawasaki (former Apple evangelist) and adopt a "Don't worry be crappy" and "Churn baby, churn". It would be better to get edits done quickly (days not years) and fine tuned afterward.
Sorry, I may have given the impression that attribution was important. Giving attribution is not really the problem for DMOZ though, it is the fact that the text is not unique. Attribution just makes the decision not to list a bit easier - DMOZ lists sites with original content. If that original content is not immediately obvious in the 2 minutes or so an editor will take to make the decision it will be rejected. The editor will not check every page looking for something you wrote yourself. Tagging isn't a punative action, it is warning other editors about the findings of a review an experienced editor has already undertaken and acts as a quality control measure to save editors time in the long run. It is a weapon in an editor's armoury to stop unlistable sites getting listed, and potentially causing complaints from DP and elsewhere about DMOZ quality control and letting in sites that don't qualify. A tag will also be accompanied by a rejection/denial of the listing, or occassionally, an acceptance and listing. For example, a series of tags may be placed on a webmaster's mirror sites to prevent those from being listed, and a further tag may be put on the original saying this is the one to list, not the others. The process of tagging takes at most 15-20 seconds. Travel sites are very very difficult to edit properly as the vast majority are affiliate sites of one kind or another, or designed as a vehicle for an affiliate scheme. Often the evidence of that is very deep within the site, requiring examination of the source or even going as far as booking without proceeding to payment. Very few editors, even the senior ones, have the experience and sleuthing skills, to separate the affiliates from the rest. Examine North American travel services categories and you will find 80% or more of sites are incorrectly listed and are affiliates. Not at all. The main DMOZ problem is quality not quantity. It is already bad enough with editors spending a huge amount of their time going around fixing quality control problems. Maybe 600 properly active editors at any one time trying to look after 600,000+ categories. There are no easy answers. Removing whole branches and categories where the spam is worst - Adult, gambling, ringtones, etc. Turning off submissions for travel sites. Only this type of radical approach will have any impact at all.
I've been waiting a few months to get my football forum listed on DMOZ as well....How long should it normally take?
This is maybe the most popular question here. The answer is that there is no answer. A review (not a listing) can take days, months, up to several years, and because of the way DMOZ works no-one can predict which site will be reviewed next. The review may result in the site being rejected, in which case there is no notification. So your site may already have been reviewed and rejected. Best advice is to submit and forget. The listing will make no discernible difference to your marketing or visitor numbers, so it is infinitely better to spend your time on marketing you can influence rather than wondering about a DMOZ listing. In other words, never wait for a listing - it is a surefire way to develop psychological problems.
Please... don't worry about getting your site in DMOZ. Submit your quality site and forget about it. (Que Sera, Sera) The importance of that directory is mostly in the DMOZ'ers own minds. (as in power trip)
So you think by bumping this thread here will get you listed at DMOZ? If so you are completely wrong. Instead try to find a editor and contact with Paypal.
Hi Maldives, If that comment is directed at me then No I don't - I don't expect to be listed at all - waiting 7 months it's pretty obvious and also if it takes that long to be added how useful would it be anyway?. I'm interested in promoting debate - I work in sales and marketing in the real world and some of the things that go on in the online world would be completely unacceptable in that world. The fact that the DMOZ relies upon volunteers makes it difficult to be effective but the thing that would annoy most people is the non-disclosure. You apply, you don't know if anyone has looked at your site, if they reject it, you don't know if there is a problem with your site that makes it unacceptable. Same thing with most of the things that Google does like Adwords costs and the % of revenue that Google takes from Adsense - all in a cloak of secrecy. I will not spend $1 more in internet advertising, I personally think the money would be better spent advertising in magazines etc. At least there you have a better idea of what you're getting for your money. I understand that unique text is better than sourcing it from other sources does that mean that directories listing other peoples sites wouldn't be listed in DMOZ how unique is that?
The tag refered to here was relating to a second request for the same url. It had nothing to do with it being listable so it was inferring that there was a penalty for not waiting beyond a reasonable time. Editors are not spending a huge amount of time fixing new listings because there aren't a huge amount of listings. There are a good amount of submissions and a good amount of requests for editing privileges. If those in charge spent the 2 minutes as you mentioned, to edit many submissions and about that much time to approve new editing requests, DMOZ could be vastily improved. Instead delays happen, people get discouraged, and sites like Wikipedia do an incredible job in quality and quantity.
I have seen the reverse. I've seen print ads go out with no measurable result and even postcards go out with prize incentives and the results were 20,000 postcards out and 3 to 6 contest entries. While an online post card might go to 2000 and 600 respond. Online adverts are easier to respond to and much more measurable.