Buying your way into DMOZ?

If it was rejected there would be a note attached - so all you need to know is the url.

 

None of those 4 sites meets the dmoz listing criteria. If they have been submitted, they should have been rejected (and they probably have been rejected). There would be no purpose in checking their submission status.

 

Except you'd have four fewer sites cluttering up the queue, wouldn't you?

 

He didn't give the categories so looking for it would be a huge waste of time, and that's assuming he's talking about the sites in his signature. He never said which sites or which categories.

 

It may have been rejected within a few days - DMOZ doesn't tell people when their sites have been rejected to discourage people resubmitting unsuitable sites. Note that this does not preclude editors letting a webmaster know of a technicality preventing their site from being listed at their discretion.

It is 5 months ago but at the time there were well over a million submitted sites, many if not most of them unlistable waiting for review. In categories with highly unproductive submission review pools (high spam content) sites will quite possibly wait forever just for a review and rejection - editors are off in more productive areas.

 

When someone repeatedly submits an unsuitable site over and over it can be advantageous not to reject it - a month or two later it will be back. Leave it there and they just keep overwriting their earlier submission forever and a day.

 

But if they knew why it was rejected, and "IF" it was rejected (which is the one thing very few people ever seem to find out in a timely basis), perhaps the site owner would be more aware of what was needed to have the site considered in the future.

I really believe many re-submit sites based on the simple fact that....

a) they never received a response/rejection - so they re-submit
b) its been so long with no response of rejection/acceptance, etc., that they just decide to re-submit
c) its been so long witn no response of rejection/acceptance, etc., that they forgot they even submitted it and re-submit it (thinking they are only now just submitting it for the first time)
d) they figure if they annoy the piss out of someone it will be cheaper than paying (joking ---- shhhh) for the listing.
e) they are just messing with the editors for the hell of it
f) unlike those of us with normal fetishes, their fetish is to continually re-submit a duplicate and or rejected listing to DMOZ. I think it is called "ODD" (obsessive domzive disorder) or something like that.. This is really Minstrel's area.

Ultimately without a timely response to a submission, it is really hard to expect anyone to be both patient and compliant.

 

The world is coming to end. Mia makes sense.

 

One advantage of RZ of old, when they used to do status checks, was the ability for editors to be helpful and indicate technical faults in sites so the webmaster could correct them. Reserved for non-spammers who formed the minority of RZ status check requesters. Some editors will still do this by email. The site has merit but fails on an easily correctible point. Obviously RZ status checks have long gone, and the risks of emailing submitters discourages all but the bravest of editors doing the feedback privately.

One solution might be to generate a ticklist on review that could be sent automatically to a webmaster of a correctible site. That is a technical solution that if editors favoured would be unlikely to be high up the list of priorities. But I think it is worth considering. Except that it would hint that DMOZ is providing some form of webmaster service and that is something many editors would be against encouraging.

And editors don't really care since a resubmission overwrites an existing one. If the editor reviews in date received order then all the resubmitter is doing is continually sending their site to the end of the line. The way you phrase your comment indicates that you have failed to get the concept of DMOZ - you are the supplier of material making a speculative bid for inclusion, not a customer asking for a service.

Some insurance company sends me a mailshot offering me accident insurance because their research indicates it is the perfect product for me. I don't even have to look at it, let alone respond, let alone respond in their timescale. So they ring me and harangue me, demanding I read and respond to their product offer. If I don't they insult me. I've actually had sales calls like that and it isn't a very effective technique.

But whose fault is it that people get the wrong impression of what they are doing when submitting a suggestion? Somehow believing they are customers and not suppliers. At least some of the blame is DMOZ's for not explaining it clearly enough on the submission form. That is something I would like to see changed as a priority as I believe it would counter many complaints and misunderstandings.

 

It's that last statement that seems to be the cause for all that is problematic with DMOZ from a "webmasters" perspective. Nothing is ever going to get done if every suggestion or idea is shot down because "many editors would..."

No, what it indicates is some insight into the way many people who attempt to get listed in DMOZ think. Sometimes you have to put on another mans shoes to see it from their perspective. All things considered, I think it is a valid argument.

Now, I know that re-submitting sends you to the end of the line, thus perpetuating your own infinite loop to no where. However, most people that submit/re-submit, have no idea. That's the real point, ie., they have no idea that they are their own undoing, so to speak.

How on earth can you possibly compare unsolicited bulk mail to a service that encourages people to submit their site? People submitting to DMOZ are not "haranguing" you, or pimping their wears. I'm not sure this is the correct analogy.

I'm not blaming, complaining or misunderstanding. I simply wanted to convey my take on what the average everyday DMOZ submitter might be thinking. You have to realize that we live in a NOW world now. As in, all things should be obtained instantly. Online purchase? NOW.... Pay at the pump - give me my gas NOW. Sign up for whatever - better be live NOW. So whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 years, people are going to be impatient. That's just human nature.

All I can offer is a suggestion that a more communicative process need be established to break down these barriers of "blaming, complaining and misunderstanding."

 

I am not a webmaster or a dmoz editor so I am limited just to what I know. I prefer that Mr. Brizzie answer it as he is an expert in that field. (So sorry to refer to you as Ms. Brizzie) Looking at the qouted above words. If a submitter would submit once with your examples as given that would be fine. But if they submit it multiple times or more the examples you gave would at the same time multiply equally. Means I would not purchase for the same product 3X. My Gas will overflow while paying more than 3 times of the amount of my tanks maximum capacity. I wouldn't do that if it was me.

That's the problem with human nature, there is no diligent side. I always say this to my wife; If you want to go to work and there is traffic to a CITY, as always, wake up early and try to beat it otherwise don't go get yourself be late and produce an excuse for there is non.
It's responsiblity and everybody has to fall in line without bumping anybody.

Some say that Dmoz listing is just a backlink. So why bother to submit if that is just a back link and worry about it too much.

Yes, I agree with some of the Dmoz editors and non-editors here that there are improvements to be made. Both concerned have good arguments. Maybe it will be much better if you guys will work together.

 

Good post, good points, Mia.

Buratssky, when you've been around a bit longer, you may be less optimistic about the real desire for change among those DMOZ editors with the authority to effect change. As with many organizations, especially non-profit organizations, most of the energy goes into climbing the status ladder, kicking off those who might overtake you or threaten your position, and maintaining the status quo. Those who are actually interested in change are few and far between - they do exist but there aren't many of them.

 

Well said buratssky.

 

Are you an editor or have you been an editor? It seems you know DMOZ very well.
You for got to mention that those few will be removed as editors as soon as they try to change anything.

 

I read some of your posts Mr. Minstrel and frankly I do admire them.

As an outside point of view, Mia has invited some to view it perspectively. I think the most probable cause are Submitters submitting without having knowledge. In any case they should be responsible to read the guidelines and follow them. One of more reasons maybe is that the information and content do not justify the usability for end users, the website really Sucks. I have seen some of the complainants complain about their website, they really do suck. Nevertheless, a prepared courtesy mail stating that your site has not been accepted and 3 million improvements are needed, with don't resubmit it within a time frame would be extremely helpful to the submitters. (Please don't write that their site Sucks)

I agree with you on this. The conservatives will be left behind, that is a fact.Ten years ago my father was still using using a typewriter to type most of his work reports but now the typewriter is already in the basement covered with cob webs, without an argument only praises for modern technology that has made it easy for him to achieve a promotion he desired.

 

OK. But if the "rules" confuse even the editors, should you be surprised that they confuse non-editors? If you want to talk about responsibility, what about the responsibility of DMOZ to establish and publish rules that their own editors can understand before criticizing non-editors for not understanding them?

Start with the concept of "submit your site". Editors in various places, including here, keep saying that they are not a service and that submitting a site is only a "suggestion". How difficult is it to do a sitewide search-and-replace so that it actually says "suggest a site" instead of "submit a site"?

 

I've been an advocate for change on many issues, sometimes as initiator, sometimes as supporter. Not reknown for being on the side of the status quo and usually on the losing side of an argument but not always. Change is continuous within DMOZ but it is generally progressive and slow so hardly noticeable for the most part. The slow pace of change is frustrating sometimes but that is the nature of a beast that works on consensus. And I have a problem with an erosion of consensus in favour of Admin priorities - a balance that everyone is content with is not that easy to achieve. But, and this is the lie in your statement, no editor has ever, to my knowledge, been removed for advocating change no matter how controversial. In fact, the pains in the butt amongst editors usually get promoted. The "awkward squad" amongst editors are almost exclusively editalls not regular editors.

 

I totally agree, as do many serving editors.

 

This is a good point. Although there isn't an ideal solution, I think we have a pretty decent way of dealing with the problem.

Editors start out in a small area and must learn thoroughly before they're given access to larger areas. That way our editing permission reaches only as far as our understanding of the different areas of the directory.

Submissions are never deleted for being submitted to the wrong category or for lacking a guideline compliant title or description. This means that while a perfect submission is helpful to editors and likely speeds up the review of any given site, it's not absolutely required. We move sites to the proper category and rewrite titles and descriptions all the time to get sites listed.

 

I would be. If there is a sign in a public place that states clearly "Men" or "Women" then I assume that everyone should know which and where to go if they would stand doing it or sit.

I recently got another credit card. It is always to my personal belief that before I apply and use the card I make sure and understand the Disclosure written. I will use the card and I will be responsible for it.

As in my view of modern technology improvements, there is always a room for it, the possibility are endless unless advancement is less of a concern.