1 Strike and You're Out?

About six weeks ago, I noticed a DMOZ editor crawling my site: http://www.jcurranphotography.com. I submitted the site about six month previous. I continue to check to see if I'm indexed, but nothing. Does this mean that DMOZ has passed on the submission forever? How long should I wait before trying to submit the site again?

 

If your site didn't show up within a couple weeks of the DMOZ editor hit, then you either didn't get approved or it got moved to another category.

 

6 years.

Eh, I really don't have the answer to that but I know you aren't supposed to resubmit. I also know you aren't supposed to count on ever getting listed.

 

I searched all of DMOZ, so I guess they declined my listing. The very first site I ever built (www.thegrumpyoldmen.com) got listed immediately, but that was six years ago. Is it more difficult now? Thanks SO much for your input!

 

It doesn't mean it was declined. Editors sometimes take a look at a site without making an immediate decision. They may have been checking to see if it was submitted to the appropriate category (a large percentage are not) or simply didn't have the time to do a complete review so it is still pending. It takes a fair amount of time to properly review a site according to editor guidelines.

If the editor thought there was a better category, it would have been moved and the process starts all over again. If it had been approved, it would show almost immediately.

Yes, it is much harder to get into DMOZ now. There are too few editors to review submissions, submissions have seen a huge increase with adsense, and you also need to have a site that offers something that isn't already in the category, or at least does it better. This creates a "bar" that is constantly being raised. The idea behind it is that DMOZ doesn't want 10 sites in a category that offer the same basic content, so it can become a situation of the first come, first accepted, others are out of luck. I always suggest trying to submit a site that compares to the best sites in the category rather than just being better than some, because those lower quality sites might have been added years ago.

It can take years before an editor even looks at your submission, depending on the editor or lack of editors.

It's also possible that someone included your site in an editor application and they weren't even looking at your application for submission.

There is really nothing you can do but wait. Resubmitting only updates your submission date, which can move you to the back of the list for review.

 

Thank you for that really informative reply. It brings to mind some interesting questions regarding the criteria for evaluation, especially for a site like mine in which the quality of the content is based on an idividual's aesthetic taste. Given that most nature photographs would be unique, what would then tip the balance? Presentation, ease of navigation, impeccable coding, frequency of updates, etc.?

 

To be honest, a lot of it rests with the individual editor of the category because there is a lot of subjectivety in the decison process. There isn't an easy check list that if you pass, you're in. There are things you can do to immediately rule you out, but that's about it. DMOZ isn't a single entity, it's a group of individuals who volunteer to edit categories. Personal taste and preferences are bound to come into play. If you were to ask 100 random people to describe a particular site, you are going to get a wide range of opinions. Even if you ignore the possiblity that you have a bad apple editing your category (like one who only wants their own sites listed) a lot still just depends on the individual. I edit a category that I don't have any sites in. I want to approve sites, yet over 90% are rejected or forwarded to another category. There are listings that I have approved which were very close calls - and to be honest, on another day they might have been rejected. As a web designer, I'm sure I am influenced somewhat by the asthetic presentation of the site. Other editors would make a decsion based only on content and not be bothered by a site running flashing gifs, loud music, and (50) h1 tags on a page where the scrolling never ends.

 

Quick scan of the site and IMO it is an excellent addition, no reason I could see for rejection. To which category did you submit the site?

If you submitted to a Regional branch category the absence of an address on the site might make it difficult to place correctly. If you haven't submitted to Regional you could add your address and submit to your local town category (as a second listing).

Really? You are likely to get a warning if you get caught rejecting a site on aesthetics. Unless you are talking about design so bad it renders the site unusable.

 

As an editor you must decide to list or not list a site only on the content. The look and feel of a site may not be of influence unless they hinder you to view the content. If you are realy editing sites as decribed by you here you should go to the internal forum and ask for help as you are not following the guidelines properly.

 

Thanks brizzie! Everybody likes to hear that, especially a self-taught
novice Here's the category to which I've submitted:
/Shopping/Visual_Arts/Photography/Exhibits/Realistic/Nature/
Mjewel, thanks again for the honest and informative reply. Could you point me to a site that's somewhat similar that you've designed?

 

You need to read what I wrote. I didn't say anything about rejecting a site based on aesthetics. There are a lot of sites that are very close calls - could either be rejected or accepted. A nicely designed site might be enough to tip the scales, its not a conscious decision. I had a site the other day where the entire text was inside an h1 tag and took about 20 full pages to display. It looks like it was designed 10 years ago by a 6 year old. I rejected it because the content was marginable, but few people would want to take the time to read the poor content with that "design" anyway. Part of DMOZ's problem is that they have editors who drank the kool aid and couldn't think for themselves if they wanted too. They can't possibly accept the fact that DMOZ has some serious problems that need to be fixed. I wonder how someone like yourself deals with contradictions in the DMOZ guidelines (affiilate sites for example)? I have no plans to ask for any help, thank you very much.

 

I am not a professional web designer and have never done work for anyone else. I used to have a medium size specialty chain that I ran- several of the employees left to help run a company called williams-sonoma. Their website is strikingly similar to an ecommerce site I designed. For the record, I'm not talking about professionally designed websites, but sites that present content in a fashion that is at least somewhat easy to read and navigate- sites that anyone who took a minimal amount of time could produce. Again, I have never rejected a site based on design. There a more than a few butt-ugly sites I have accepted because their content was good. There have also been many professionally done site without content that were rejected. I'm saying a clean design isn't going to hurt your chances, but certainly isn't a requirement.

http://budugllydesign.com/archivebud/bud9609/bud.html?

 

My question may have been slightly misconstrued. Rather than remarking about the aesthetics of the site as a whole, I was referring to the intrinsic value of the photographs themselves. Even someone specifically trained in photography, or art history, etc. might have a differing opinion from someone similarly trained. This is a very personal decision, and I don't envy the editors.

 

Looks like a good choice of category too. Though Shopping sites can take longer than other types of site on average. One comment though - the absence of that address would make me concerned about where I am sending my money. It would make me wary of buying, and therefore wary of listing. Not to say I would reject it, I wouldn't have, but what I sometimes used to do is skim the sites waiting for review and prioritise those for immediate review and listing, and put aside those I wanted to think about, do more checks to make sure the site is legitimate.

In an editor's life, putting a site to one side to sleep on might mean months before returning to it. Your address on the site plus a privacy statement maybe, renaming Pricing to Delivery or Ordering, and a Returns policy is always useful on an online shopping site. On original content the site is superb IMO, but on the technicalities for a Shopping listing there are some minor adjustments you could make that would make it a good bet for list at first glance, no brainer add. It isn't that such things are mandatory for a listing - Shopping is products to sell, prices attached, and a means of purchasing without visiting a physical store. But their presence makes it far easier to judge the site as legitimate.

 

I love the photos and if I had the wall space... But even if I hated them that would be no reason to reject the site.

You need to be more careful of what you write - if two people with editing experience read it one way, what chance the rest will read it as you intended.

No arguments there though.

 

Thanks so much for the incredibly good advice! I'm off to add the address. Could I trouble you for an exemplar of an appropriate privacy statement?

 

Find a shopping site where you personally agree with the privacy statement - then rewrite it in your own words - don't get caught violating copyright.

 

Thank you! If it weren't for the selfless advice of people like yourself, I'd be nowhere!

 

I just wanted to add one more thing - a general point using this site as an example. The site meets every content-related criteria for a DMOZ listing - it is the sort of site editors edit for. And why is that? Because you can't get more original in terms of content than something you have created yourself and are marketing yourself - it is you. How many sites sell inkjet cartridges or folding ladders or Caribbean cruises. DMOZ doesn't have to list them, they don't add to the richness of human life, you want a cheap ladder Google for it and you'll find tens of thousands of sellers with the same ladder. But there is only one John Curran, photographer, and only one site selling his totally unique products and nothing else. In a search engine the site would get lost amongst the many semi- or remotely relevant sites sharing the same key words etc. And that is where a good directory comes into its own. It is what DMOZ was invented for. It is what DMOZ does best.

 

I hate it when I see a site I love...

Sorry, one more suggestion - I have Windows wallpaper on my computer that I got from an online gallery - it has their name on it much like the copyright notice on your photos. Have you thought about making the photos available as free wallpaper downloads? Take a look at http://www.redhillgallery.com.au/free.htm - it probably won't affect any DMOZ listing but it might help in general promotion of your work.