Hello, I'm in line to complain about DMOZ as well but I do understand that things take time. I have been trying to get our site listed in DMOZ for the last 6 months, and my boss is starting to doubt that I am trying as hard as I say I am. I am trying to add it to the distributor category under the business categories and the site is www.industriallive.com and the description I have been using is "Industrial Live is an online wholeseller of industrial supplies and equipment. Our 11,000+ product database ranges from electric motors, generators, variable drives, PLCs, sensors, motor controls and much more. Providing excellent customer service since 2007.". I've look at other listings in the category and have found that others are using the somewhat same descriptive text as I am. SO, that boils it down to why is my site not being listed? Any feedback or suggestions would be much appreciated! maybe I can finally get my boss off my back.
Few answers here: http://www.dmoz.org/help/submit.html#howlong BTW, I dont see reasons for complaining neither for the topic of your post
It sounds as if he apparently has no idea what dmoz does and/or has a misconception of the importance of one link from it. Hopefully, he wouldn't hold an employee responsible for a listing in a volunteer driven project that has minimal value and may or may not ever happen. If he does, I pity anyone who has to continue employment there. Firstly to clarify, not every site will be included. That is not the aim of the project, although the editors try and include as many listable sites as they can find (whether publically suggested or via personal searches or other resources). Only sites that meet the Guidelines for Inclusion will be considered. While a suggested description is almost never compliant thus needing a rewrite before publishing, a well written description at the time its suggested can help it stand out amongst the junk when/if an editor takes a peak at the pool of sites suggested. One with the example description like given above that includes a repetition of the title, hype, marketing and keywords is far less appealing to most editors than one that is suggested and made a good faith attempt at following the guidelines. A good description = subject+content-hype-keywords-promotional fluff. It may or may not have an effect on the time a review takes, but IMO it makes it more appealing to review first in a pile of ordinary junk descriptions. The site itself determines if its listable or not though, not the description its given upon suggestion. There could be any number of reasons that your site is not listed, the most likely of which would be no one has reviewed it yet but there could be other reasons. If your boss is really on your back about this, I suggest sending him to one of the resources on the subject like the Official DMOZ Blog Article on this very subject. It may ease him up, otherwise if it was really bad I personally would look for a different work environment.
Thanks for the feedback so far. My boss for some reasons think PR link-ins can be earned over night, which I know is not the case. So I just keep telling him I am adding directories weekly, we already have 370 some link-ins that google is finding in the webmaster tools, not sure how reliable that tool is. And in reference to the DMOZ, I really don't mind waiting, I know that when and if we get listed, it will help promote our business really well, it just seems a handful of people out there are griping or complaining, so I thought I would throw my 2 cents of an experience in, but in a nice way.
"I know that when and if we get listed, it will help promote our business really well" People think that because 10 years ago it was true. Google used to use dmoz as a starting point to indexing websites and having a listing there insured that your site would stay in Googles index, you would also receive a special boost in the results and Google would even list your dmoz category below your listing in the Google search results to show how special your site was. That was 10 years ago. None of that is true any more.
Then what is all the fuss about? All I hear about is DMOZ this and DMOZ that. If it isn't a beneficial source to have your information on it anymore like it was 10 years ago, why is everyone so eager to get listed in it?
Because they don't know what they are talking about or you are reading old news. A lot of sites were set up years ago when dmoz was very important and they haven't been updated...
The perpetuation of a myth... It was true, so some guy wrote an article about it, this lead another guy to write an article. Someone else read both articles and blogged about it. Those reading that blog then read the articles, and wouldn't ya know, there is now three sources to say it's true, and look, it was! The chain continued. Even when directory.google sat without an update for over a year there were new blogs saying that Google held the directory in the highest of standards and to be included in one was to be included in the other... a FULL YEAR! Others blog about how it is still the driving power behind the likes of the AOL search or even the Netscape search. These things are believable right? I mean, DMOZ is owned by Netscape, Netscape is owned by AOL...it only stands to reason they are interlocked some how...and at one time they were. Now the AOL search is powered by Google. Yet still, blog after blog after SEO article is still saying that its the link of all links. And these blogs and articles are little more then spider food, sadly the readers are also eating it right up without bothering to research things on their own.
It's not an important link and I know for a fact because I have had sites listed and delisted with no effect either way, and I've been a webmaster since before Google even existed, and a dmoz editor for years and years. Think about it, dmoz only has 4,830,584 sites, (and that is questionable since they also claim to have 75,151 editors when they really only have around 7000) but anyway those sites do not represent the best of the web by any stretch of the imagination and it's a very small number compared to what is available. No one in their right mind would give a special boost to those sites any more, the directory can't keep up, the listings are stale, and the new sites aren't included...it's too small of a selection, it's an old selection, and it's not even a good selection to begin with...
No, it doesn't. I think I know why you're confused though, I should have said that I have been an editor off and on since 2002. I let my account expire but have been reinstated... But that wouldn't matter anyway, even if I had never once edited at dmoz it wouldn't change any of the facts and you don't have to be an editor to know any of those facts...so why would I lie? Nice try
somebody call the internet police, or we might even need a ambulance to remove a head from the ass of dmoz. maybe he was speaking the truth and just never joined digitalpoint in the past?
If you were that much of an editor you would know that the total of editors is those who have contributed by editing and the number of active editors at the present time is much less, but unless booted an editor can always ask for re-instatement. I saw one recently who had not edited in 6 years be re-instated at the level they were at when leaving. Just interesting that you say "and it's not even a good selection to begin with" 'cos that does not say much for your editing does it?
So it's editor against editor now is it? Says a lot about the quality of the internal forums. If you guys can't get along in public just imagine how you are in the privacy of your own forums... Because they questioned the quality of the directory? Because they spoke the truth about DMOZ rather then making personal attacks against an ex-editor? Some categories are better then others, and if you add in the adult section, then the directory is full of filthy low budget porn. You must keep in mind that stereotypes generally do have a basis in truth, and when new sites can not get in while there are thousands of geocities pages made in the early 90s that have not been touched in 10 years it does say a lot about the overall quality doesn't it? DMOZ has wonderful potential, but there seems to be too many editors that think there is nothing wrong.
Bette since you left them, I have to say. This guy is from her own admission at best a half hearted editor, sort of on and off. Maybe the day she posted was an off day and not many on days for ODP Amazing we do agree on something, but most decent people do on this, we just need to persuade some of the staff But blanket coverage statements apply to all. Like ex-editors who listed their own site and jumped ship.
No and no. I would guess the same conclusion I reached, far to little basic knowledge that even a relatively new editor should know. However if the follow up comment is true and they are a long time editor, just making a few edits here and there around timing out and reinstating then it might make sense. I can't figure out why anyone would be playing dumb in this case, so I am guessing that its just a clueless long time editor who never got it.
Please let's not get personal, folks. Let's stick to information. I mostly agree. An enormous amount of misinformation has been given out over the years about the supposed importance of a link from the ODP. I would quibble a little on the details though. A listing in the ODP was a quick way into Google's index in the directory's first year or two, when listing was fast, because there were comparatively few submissions. But the ODP was just one good source of links for Google. It also spidered Yahoo. And a link from any other site Google already knows about will get a site indexed. A listing never was an absolute guarantee of a site remaining in Google's index. Google has its own rules for what it includes and can blacklist a site for breaches of its code, while the ODP has it listed. Listing the category below the listing in the Google search results was intended to give the searcher more information (another clue to content and a pointer to related sites), rather than pick it out as special.
Like editors like you that have to hide behind false names and spread lies about ex-editors? I stood up for annie, I was the first one to do it, I started threads questioning the hows and whys editors get removed. What did you do? Oh yeah, nothing because you are not willing to talk about... though strangely, you have no problems talking about why I supposedly left. Now what are you opinions on Annie? Is it too much to believe that I actually did leave because of her? It's nice to know that you not only support her getting fired falsely, but must perpetuate lies about those that did stand up for her honor. That's some man you are Revr.
That she's a fine individual who has shown grace under a very trying situation and has since moved on to other interests. She's a perfect example for others to follow. Now having spent half of 2007 arguing this topic, let's all move on to 2008.
If you can't argue with the facts make a personal attack lol 4,830,584 sites - 75,151 editors - over 590,000 categories Yes, obviously that is the total amount of editors who have ever edited and the current amount is much less, one of my points was that dmoz itself is also misleading people into believing that it is more important than it really is. To say on your front page "75,151 editors" implies to the public that you have 75,151 editors. My other point was that if they would mislead you in one way, you can be sure that they'll mislead you in another.