When you submitted the application you should have got an automated response to which you had to reply (in common with many other internet systems, this is a simple tool to detect spammers). If that did not happen, your application would never even have reached a human reviewer. Please try again. But provided you did perform that step, your application then went through to where it would be reviewed by one or more volunteer meta-editors or catmods. As a result of that review, you would receive feedback, whether or not you were successful. If you did not receive any feedback, there are a couple of possibilities: 1. The reply was trapped by your spam filters. Solution: check your filters. 2. Your application has not yet been reviewed. Solution: if more than 14 days have passed since your application, you are welcome to ask about it in this Resource Zone thread.
I do submit it in Dmoz, and found Dmoz editor at each 4-6 months on my website but he/she never approved my website although i've placed my website under best suitable business category as well as best suitable geographical areas. You can't do more than this. Still i spent 5 minutes of my working time for submitting my website in Dmoz. It will be my luck if i find good website moderator in Dmoz.
Excellent advice! DMOZ is not a listing service, and volunteer editors are able and encouraged to use any resource they like in finding worthwhile sites. The sites suggested by other people are nothing more than one of those resources.
i've been in SEO since 1996 and was an editor at dmoz in the early days -- getting into dmoz started getting difficult as it became better known that this helped with Google rankings -- over the years it's become ever harder to get submissions accepted into competitive commercial categories -- it is now a long time (years) since i've been successful <rant> there are still dedicated trustworthy dmoz editors struggling to cope, but so many SEO sites have given advice re the need to become a dmoz editor in order to get one's site into dmoz that it would be inconceivable if this was not happening on a wider scale than is admitted -- the advantage of possibly being able to control, even to a limited extent, the rankings of one's competitors in Google search results is just too tempting there is a total lack of transparency, and a defiant attitude amongst dmoz editors that they have complete freedom to pick and choose which sites to include as they wish, and are neither answerable nor responsible to anyone but themselves -- this naturally fuels suspicion that abuse is happening on a wide scale -- they are a victim of their own success -- their insistence that they are not there for the benefit of site owners and SEO consultants is ingenuous -- who else uses them? their search traffic would be in danger of drying up without visitors who are only there to check up on the (lack of) progress of their submissions -- dmoz staff claim it is just a hobby with a small number of amateur editors organising their own selections of favourite sites, basically a set of personal bookmarks -- ok, cool -- but the lack of successful submissions of quality sites to many commercial categories means that appearing in dmoz should no longer be thought of as especially significant if Google is still giving added weight to sites appearing in dmoz then they are being scammed and they must surely be aware of this -- Google has had things pretty much its own way in the search engine field for a long time, and deservedly so, but if low quality sites are discovered appearing above high quality sites in search engine results and this correlates with the low quality sites being in dmoz, then people will start mistrusting Google's search results -- i suspect Google are astute enough to realise that this is something they can't afford to risk... (unlike dmoz, who've looked increasingly doomed since the departure of co-founder Rich Skrenta a couple of years ago) -- i've seen solutions proposed, eg putting dmoz on a more professional footing with permanently employed editors, possible financial support from Google and/or payment for submissions, with refund + explanations if a site is not acepted within a defined period -- but to my mind a better solution is for Google to state unambiguously that a site appearing in dmoz has not and will not have any effect on its position in Google search engine results -- if they were to do this, then i would even consider reapplying to become an editor at dmoz again, but right now i don't want to be associated with it my own list of search engines and directories has been online for more than 10 years, and is there to help people manually submit their own sites -- dmoz is no longer described as an essential (nor even an important) directory to submit to, and its current description says "commercial submissions rarely accepted - losing credibility" -- but there again i've always had the attitude that if the most relevant site isn't at the top of the search engine results, then that is a problem for the search engine and not for the site lol </rant>
It's not a defiant attitude. It's simply the way the directory is built, that's all. There are public guidelines showing the kind of sites that editors look for: http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html . As I say, we find those sites in all sorts of places, not just the pool of suggestions made by other people. We know that is not what some webmasters want to hear, but it's just the way the directory works. There are plenty of other directories which offer a listing service. DMOZ happens to be different.
the defiance is not in the attitude of editors re how they do their editing, but in their refusal to accept that there is a problem with the way dmoz is perceived by an increasing number of its users unless dmoz takes on board the essence of the criticisms being made against it, then it is unlikely to halt the slide in its credibility it's an issue of trust and transparency -- eg it would help to give people manually submitting sites the option of being emailed to let them know the progress of their site submission, either telling them their site has been rejected, or after a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year etc saying that their site has not yet been reviewed -- and the average length of time submitted sites have had to wait before appearing in a particular category could be displayed on that category page unfortunately dmoz seems to regards such suggestions as pandering to web site owners and submitters, whereas web site owners and submitters see such suggestions as ways of curtailing possible abuse by dmoz editors
I edit in DMOZ as a hobby. I edit in DMOZ because I want to help in categorising the web, if surfers want to use our service. I feel no obligation to webmasters, just as I don't feel any responsibilty for your stamp collection. Have you seen the heat generated on here when we refuse an application and put on generic comments, we have a factor of 100 websites or more submitted compared to editor applications. Can you begin to imagine what heat/ work that would generate. This is still after all my hobby and I spend as much time as I want to / can on it. We keep saying that we are not a listing service, so why should we behave like one and allow the submissions queue to dominate our time, our resources and appear as though that were the only/main source of our sites, which we repeatedly say it isn't. There are commercial directories if you want, our good friend robjones is closely associated with The Best of The Web. Pay there and you get listed, but wait a minute is not one of the attractions of DMOZ that it isn't a paid directory. That tends to mean that we are seen as pretty independent because if you pay enough in TBOTW you do get listed. Also many webmasters want a listing because it is free. What then would be gained by commercialising it? Many of the editors including me would walk and paid directories do exist. Perhaps what you should be doing is not aiming any of this at us, asking us to change, but asking Google to change it's use, but they don't seem to want to use a paid directory as their backbone. I wonder why not? The results in Google in my mind are now compromised anyway, since they stopped using ODP information as first choice. When Google used ODP listings as first choice one used to get a reasonably well described site so you knew if you wanted to visit. Now I bring up dead sites and half sentences that are more like gobledeguck and I have no idea if they have any reference to what i want. If I bring up sites with ODP data it's usually one of our clones. Have you also read the comments on here that say our listings bring no traffic, have you not seen we say that is good, it means we can get on with our hobby of categorising and describing web sites for those who want that service without being lambasted by people calling us corrupt and demanding that we change. If there is a problem it's with Google go and see if they will listen to you.
Not at all. Many of us know that this is a problem, but it's not our problem. The problem lies solely with the people who continue to wish/demand that DMOZ is something other than what it is. We can't do anything at all about other people's wishful thinking, so it is not a problem for us. Editors accept what DMOZ is, and we are happy to spend some of our hobby time contributing to it. If you choose not to, that's fine too.
I'v been searching in for any way to submit in dmoz and no way out any body tell us the way to do that
Sure, just read and follow these instructions: "How to suggest a site to the Open Directory". You are welcome to suggest any site that meets the criteria for listing, but DMOZ is not a listing service, so there are no guarantees or time frames involved for when your suggestion will be reviewed by a volunteer.