Chances on a Directory Approval at DMOZ

I would say the categories for directories are probably very difficult to get into. It is not so hard to get into other categories. I've had over a dozen sites listed in DMOZ in the past.

 

I agree. And we list some highly selective directories. For example Chiff aims to select for good content, design, navigation, and absence of pop-up ads. That is a good example of a directory that offers something unique. The sites listed under Family Friendly and Non-Commercial are selective in ways which may appeal to a particular audience.

 

I would agree with you on these points. Chiff is nice, and the subcats of Family Friendly and Non-Commercial are nice (Volunteer-Edited as well). But on the main category page most of what is listed is crap. Chiff, GoGuides, Gimpsy, and UncoverTheNet are certainly worthy sites.

But what about all the stuff no one has ever heard of, and appears to be for good reason. Take a look at some of the other stuff listed:

http://www.andilinks.com/
http://blakkat.com/
http://www.e-lynks.com/
http://hoppa.com/
http://www.hereontheweb.com/
http://www.imarvel.com/
http://rex.skyline.net/

 

I wouldn't advise it. There is little to do in (for example) the Non Commercial category except clear out spam. Very few directories exist which fit there and editors have been keen to list them. In short it is the kind of category to avoid as a first choice.

 

PortProphecy - yes that's legacy stuff I think.

 

Genie, I've successfully applied for categories by using examples of sites I'd clean out and telling why.

 

It's a bit different when it's a current editor applying for another category and a prospective editor applying for their first.

 

I usually do both, give a couple of site listings and problems that need to be addressed in the cat.

 

Well then, sounds like you should ignore me and listen to everyone else. I'm more of a worker bee.

So, if a new editor were to start out in a small regional category would he then be able to use quality control suggestions to apply for his next category? Or would greenbusting be a better way to transition into directories? They do need a lot of help over there.

 

dunno lol. But i greenbusted after my first cat because I applied for (full perms) spammy area of the directory with about 200 unreviewed. I would always ask for full perms and let the meta determine if it should only be greenbust.

 

I used greenbusting to apply for a category with 2000+ unreviewed; typical 3 site application to apply for much smaller categories; and QC + 3 sites for a category related to one that I was "fixing". It all depends on the category - if there is a large pool, I would definitely recommend greenbusting.

 

So back to the original question, What should I do?

The directory I am looking to submit is Bay Engine (see sig) that is a completely custom design directory that has only 2 ads on the main page.

I have already put a ton of time into customizing it to make it unique and am soon converting it over to a paid directory.

Other than the it not being saturated with 1000's of links (If that is the main reason sites are listed), what is the reason it would be rejected? (If that is the main reason sites are listed)

 

No content = not listable

What is the content? I dont see any listings in the directory.

 

There is some content, but too many categories are empty - just poking around I hit about 70% empty categories.

The first one I checked had 11 sites (you must like pets ) - then the next eight or so were empty - then a few more had one or two sites per category - then more empty categories.

Could you remove the empty categories and build up the others?

 

CompostAnnie I like your signature...

And it was enough to prompt me to re-"think" what I wanted to post in this thread.

Dmoz is a pretty big project. I imagine managing it is quite a daunting task.

 

There are well over 200+ Listings in over 400+ Categories.

The links are spread out pretty well, some categories having more than others. It will populate over time, I am in no rush to have 1 million sites, as it takes away from just listing sites for pure PR.

A website owner will get more exposure if the categories have less listings, meaning only quality sites are listed.

So 2 Questions:

Quality over Quantity or Quantity over Quality?

100,000 Listings (Most sites included) or 1,000 Quality Listings?

When I submit to directories, I favor directories with less listings that are paid, knowing I will get more exposure in the directory. Why list a site in a directory with over 100+ sites in the category?

 

Quality over quantity, with a caveat of no empty categories. (if I find a directory and it has numerous empty categories, I probably won't come back to it again).

2nd Question - it depends

 

For a general directory 200+ listings is tiny. 100,000 listings would make it more likely that a searcher would find one relevant site. Though with the Internet the size it is now, even 100,000 is a tiny fraction of the good sites available.

Think about it. These days every country/state and university has a website, every zoo, every museum and art gallery, most cathedrals, churches, schools and local government. The ODP has 4,880 sites listed under museums alone (and that's just the English-language sites). There are 4,870 listings under Anglican churches (again just the English sites).

Now let's say I'm looking for Bristol Zoo. In that case a site for San Francisco Zoo is no good to me. So really if you list zoos at all, it has to be all of them. Same goes for all the other types of site I mentioned.

A selective directory can work well if it restricts its scope to academic resources, or to a particular niche, like http://www.beritsbest.com/ or http://www.commoncontent.org/ .

 

PortProphecy: OK I've done a bit of weeding. Thanks for the nudge.

I agree with you on most of the sites you listed, but I'm leaving andilinks.com and e-lynks.com as examples of simple types of directory without site descriptions, which can cram a lot of links onto a page. That cuts down the number of clicks for the user. Some people may find that handy. We wouldn't want to list a lot like that though. Good descriptions are part of what makes a good directory.

hoppa.com has plenty of content and unique navigation. Well worth listing.

 

Yea, I was torn between mentioning that site or not. I did notice the unique navigation. I just thought that it wasn't very user-friendly navigation.

Hey, nudging is what I do best. It seems everytime I go to DMOZ to check something out, it's alway one of those controvesial categories being discussed here. I had never really looked at the Directories category in DMOZ before. I'm sure many, many have visited that cat though in hopes of finding a nice list of quality directories to submit their sites. I have to think most were as disappointed with the listings as I was. Great that your doing a bit of housecleaning. I'm sure you take great pride in the work you do.