dmoz.org guidlines

Hello I submit my website in dmoz.org directory 6 months before but still my website not added in this directory.
any one got listing with dmoz.org then let me know i want to the process

 

6 months is not very long for Dmoz right now, it can take up to a year or longer to get listed.

 

I am coming up on a year. I checked, and I'm still on the list. I'm not sure, but I don't think we can check any more.

In any case, don't resubmit because that puts you back at the end of the line.

(If I'm not in within ten years, I might resubmit again. )

 

I'm coming up on a year as well... I'm still not listed either, I don't think it's worth submitting to it anymore. Yea I want to get listed but you never know when it will happen or if it will, and from things I read, I don't think you can check your status. All I can say is good luck.

 

It is about a year for me too. Definitely *do not* submit again. As others have said, this puts you back at the end of the list (so to speak).

You used to be able to check your status every six months through the RZ forum. That has been recently discontinued.

The current action plan for DMOZ is build a quality site with *unique content* submit once, then forget it. One day it may be listed.

Many are unhappy with this approach, but none of us has a choice.

/*tom*/

 

I submitted my site and got in in 2 months. Make sure you study the style of the editor and submit a description that follows his way of doing things.

 

Some editors respond more quickly than others, too. It's just a group of human volulnteers with lots of other fish to fry doing the job for nothing.

 

I'm an editor of a not so big category but from what i see re-submitting doesn't put your submission back, it just makes a duplicate submission...

 

Oh, Oh! Duck!

Now everyone is going to want you to check out specific submissions. Well, not everyone. I promise I won't, and neither should anyone else unless people actually want you to quit.

 

There have been conflicting statements about this from various DMOZ editors, but several editors have stated that resubmissions will put the site back to "the bottom of the queue"...

 

I agree with you Minstrel (have heard the same), but I would sure hope that that wouldn't be the case.

You could easily use such "evil tactics" against a competitor who wasn't already listed in DMOZ...submit their site away, until finally it will probably get banned for abuse, or even go back to the back of the queue – and as such they will never be listed, even though in this case they haven’t done anything wrong.

Surely the DMOZ system is smart enough to just DELETE the duplicate submissions automatically and thus not be harmful to the "innocent" (in this case) website owner nor harmful to the volunteer editor's health.

 

When a site is submitted thew date is recorded with it. So when someone resubmits a site the new date is recorded with it. The old system used to just keep piling up all submissions in the queue, then we would have to sort through and manually delete the duplicates. Now the new system just overwrites the submission with the newest submitted info. So when a site is resubmitted after 6 months there will be only one listing in the queue waiting for review but it will have the new date, as being the most recent submission.

This is not any kind ploy editors dreamed up to make competitors sit in queue forever. This was a great system upgrade to increase effiency (yes it made things more effiecient, even if you don't believe it.)

1. One benefit was the reduced backlog numbers from duplicate entries.
2. Another benefit was that if a webmaster submitted a site a year ago and it was not listed yet, and they decided to change the title or suggested description of their site after a year, we editors see the newest info.

The submission date is not a killer all the time anyway. Some editors use different methods to sort the queue list when they edit, so sometimes date does not factor of when the site is/will be reviewed. Although I personally try to get the oldest sites reviewed first, but I do sort the list in different ways sometimes for a change of pace.

Later,
Rob

 

And that is TRUELY PATHETIC!!! It should take no longer than 48 hours. Of course this is a debate that will go on until the end of time. The DMOZ threads are boring at best. Always the same complaint. Where's my listing? Why's it taking so long? It's been 6 months.

I'm listed in DMOZ, and have had no trouble getting listed, but I'm still complaining about it, so that has to tell you something. It does not take 6 months to review a site for inclusion in a directory. If it does, then it means the person/s responsible for a given category either do not give a crap, are lazy, or just do not want to list your site.

BTW, it takes even longer to become an editor.

 

If they have too many fish on the fryer, then they should NOT be an editor. Seriously, if people are going to volunteer their time to edit a category, then they should put forth the effort to actually do their job. Voluntary or not, they should be bustin' some ass. How hard can it be?

 

Agreed, mia... or if it's too much work for one editor in that category, then get more editors for that category. Either way, the sad sack "we're just volunteers" tale of woe doesn't buy a damn thing in my eyes...

 

we are just volunteers, so submit your site and forget about it, don't ask, don't move, don't breath, pray every day, hope for the best... bla bla bla...

Just the same old BS. Poor editors, they are just volunteers...

 

Are those raised hands I see volunteering? Between all the eager beavers here things at DMOZ could be cleaned up by lunch.

 

Submit and forgot about it. Otherwise you will get ulcers. Just concentrate on improving your site and the rest of your linking campaign.

 

I applied back in March to edit a category that is sadly in need of attention and is something I have quite a bit of expertese in, and time to devot to. I have complained twice on the forums over in DMOZian land, and have both times been told, you are still under review.

I give up. Why I even put forth the effort to help, I will never know.

 

I am just a grunt in a small 10 site category. It takes me 20-30 minutes per site to review the site, write up the title and description, re-read the rules, re-read my title and description, search the site for content and re-read the rules. Then I put the site in pending. The next day I can re-read my title and description, re-read the rules and probably approve it. That is what, 30-45 minutes per site. The "pro's" are better at it than I and they can probably do a site in 5-10 minutes. That is what, a half dozen to a dozen sites per hour? Ok, the popular categories have a bunch of easy ones. Ones that do not qualify for the directory ... mostly. They look like affiliate sites. They smell like affiliate sites, but it will take 45 minutes to an hour to prove it. So, do you "convict" the site (discard) it without spending the 45 minutes? Or do you leave it pending in hopes that it will look better next time you look at it. Very few will spend the 45 minutes confirming that indeed the site is an affiliate site and delete it. Instead they are, to use your phrase "bustin' some ass" to list 6 or 7 sites that are deserving.

I hate to defend a place who's moto is "don't ask the status" and who have spokespeople like hutch, but their rules really are that strict. You MUST visit the site, the whole site or at least a sizable portion of it. And, sites that hit you with pop-ups, pop-unders, flash animation and are pages full of ads are no fun to slog through just to see if they have real content. I too volunteer my time and that is just plain not fun. I get joy out of finding good sites either on my own or by submission. I don't get joy out of fighting popups and spyware and hundreds of cookies from every ad tracker out there just to review a site.

All of the editors really are telling you the truth when they say "make it easy for me to say yes". Submit a complant title and a compliant description on a completed site with real content. Ads are not supposed to matter as long as the site offers content without it. Truth is it is probably NOT the ads that are the problem but the sparse looking pages when you blank them all out.