How long does it typically take to get DMOZ listing

Where the heck did you get that from, Q, it's totally wrong. Why are you saying silly things? If you weren't allowed to contact editors, we wouldn't have profiles with our contact information on them, <G>.

You've got that right, onlinedating. They love us or hate us. Editors have more work than they can handle as it is, without giving site owners a critque on their sites, which usually leads to arguements and more questions.

Getting listed isn't a right, and the Directory doesn't want every site. Editors don't just list sites that are presented to them, they attempt to build a category as a good reference resource for a web surfer who is looking for specific information on a topic or geographical area.

If the category has a good cross section of sites that have some unique content in them, then they've succeeded. Not even half the sites that might be available, need to be listed, just the ones that offer something a little different.

There's not always something wrong with a site, it might be perfectly acceptable, but editors are spread pretty thin, and we only edit in areas that we have some interest in, so there may be no editor in your area of the Directory that wants to edit there.

I edited everything within the United States, which is a very large area of 50,000-60,000 sites awaiting review, thousands and thousands of cities, each with a lot of sub categories. All of these categories also needed maintainance and structure work, besides site reviews.

I also edited a small category on water gardening, because I have an interest in the subject, as well as 4 or 5 other unrelated small categories.

Most editors do this, they kind of have a main area, and then when they run across an interesting topic, they may request editing permissions in it. If they get bored with it, they can resign the category and move onto something else. If something is no longer fun or enjoyable to do, then we stop doing it, plain and simple.

 

There are editors here that remain hidden because they fear the threads and hate that editors get. There are posts here that suggest contacting editors, and there are many editors that have said that was a bad idea. It's a real rough area to deal with, contacting editors. No one knows if it's good or bad. Though, from looking around here, and on other forums, contacting them, is certainly not the best way to get a site listed.

Why they have contact options in editor profiles simply has me at a loss. With how most editors feel about submitters it's any wonder that any editors actually use their standard email address from all the spam they are likely to receive.

So yeah, that was a silly comment of mine, that is why I ended it the way I did... though it was not all that far from the truth either.

 

Christopher, some times you make me laugh so hard it hurts.

If you are interested (and of course you are not interesed in anything that does not fit with your world view ) the feedback form is one of the main ways editors communicate with each other, and the feedback from submitters goes to the same adress. I read every feedback I get, and so would most editors. Responding to them, however, is something one needs to be wary of.

 

Now you are making me laugh. You try to make it look like I am talking out my back side by saying that there are ways of contacting DMOZ when I say that the doors of communication need to be open, then you end your post with one should be wary of replying to such feed back?

See, the closed side of the communication IS on the side of DMOZ. Thank you for confirming it.

 

You interpolate something from my comments that is not there. Here is a definition for you. Wary marked by keen caution and watchful prudence. In other words editors need to be careful which is different to a prohibition.

I am surprised you do not grasp this concept Christopher as running an occult forum you would presumably run into folks of various persuasions that you need to be wary of.

 

I know what the definition is. Do you know what defines OPEN communication? Wary is certainly not part of it. So again, thank you for confirming that the doors are still not open.

 

Well I am still surprised that you do not get it. i shall try a couple of examples. Do you remember that member of your forum who killed the Vicar in England that you told me about. Presumably you would have been "wary" of him.

There is a former editor who is a member here who has described in graphic detail what it is like to slit someones throat. Do you not think (for example) that it would be prudent to be "wary" of him?

 

OMG, it's no wonder you are wary of all the fine outstanding people that wish to contact you...I mean, a few bad apples, and wham, ALL webmasters are the evilest of all that is evil.

And no, I actually gave that crazy that killed the vicar a chance, and was not wary of him at all until he broke the rules of the site and had to be banned. You see, in most places, people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


Yes, yes, be wary of the ones that send you violent hate mail and the like, but the majority of those trying to contact editors are likely nice people.

 

A century or 2

 

im still waiting too...

 

DMOZ seems generally to be treated as an exception to that principle.....Just look at how many times editors (and/or the whole editorial process) has been declared guilty of corruption without any formal process of evaluating the evidence.

Plus of course the number of times editors, against whom there is no evidence, have been declared corrupt by association.