Good examples of DMOZ quality for us to follow?

I was hoping to start up a new site and have it listed in dmoz some day, my site is going to be on desktop publishing, so I went to dmoz to do some research to see some examples of what dmoz is looking for in what they want in a site to be able to list it.

so I found this dmoz listed site in the category 'desktop publishing', and I was thinking it didn't look too difficult to try to use for some hints

this is the site that is dmoz listed: http://www.business-card-specialists.com/

do you agree it is a good one to follow for guidelines on what a typical site that dmoz is looking for?

any replies from dmoz editors would be great, as I really want to do everything right from the start so I can achieve my goal of being in dmoz

 

I just looked it up too, and that site is only a year and a half old, so that is really encouraging!! Maybe I can be in dmoz in a year too if I start my site today

 

Site age isn't one of their listing criteria... but nonetheless IMO that point is now moot, as you have proven incontrovertably that there are some other imperfections within their directory. This of course discredits their entire database for all time. I for one appreciate you starting two threads to inform us of this heretofore unknown travesty. We are all better off for your efforts.

Regards

 

I've got 8 websites, all with unique content and all (what I'd consider) to be in the top of their field. So far, I've submitted 3 to Dmoz and every one has been rejected. One thing i did note was that one category in particular was being run by a contact of a competitior in that field (basically lets call it conflict of interest). Of course, the competitors website was listed. Still, those 8 sites are at the top of every search engine for relevant keywords, so lets just say from my point of view DMOZ isn't really relevant if using good hard work. It's like any business on the face of this planet..... it's not what you know, it's who you know. Now, saying that, I did manage to get a link back from WIKI!!! until someone else decided that my friend hadn't done a very good job......

Change, revise, new content, update, link, link, link. Search engines like that!

 

I've seen this many times. What you might want to consider is attempting to do what your competition has done, but in another category that maybe will not directly conflict with them. Eg. You want to be in Real Estate category but its impossible, so you target your geographical location, and nobody there is watching it, so attempt to become an editor for it. Whatever you do, don't mention that you own websites in that category, they will reject you just as well.

Perhaps you can contact someone else at the dmoz and let them know about that editor. Can't hurt... you anyways.

 

Telling them you own a website will not get you rejected as an editor. Many, if not most editors, own sites. Simply be open and honest about such things and they should accept you.

If you don't tell them, and they find out, you run the risk of getting removed as an editor AND getting your sites banned.

 

It just feels like an elitist black hole to me. I submitted my site a couple of months ago, not having read anybody's else's experience with DMOZ.

I understand why they might not offer individual feedback on progress, or status of submission.

However, why can't they offer something like "average time to approval" for each category ? Or, at the very least, why not at least notify people if the site is rejected ? They wouldn't have to say why...just that it was.

 

i am looking for this

 

if you tell them, then they remove both you and your website

well you have to be careful like I was with those 246 websites I've added all them owned by me and I can't wait for that deal with cnn.com to go through since I'll own more links then Skrenta

 

Interesting. Why would you need 8 websites, if they're all legit? You got 7 mirrors? You really need 8 sites to get your information out? I'd reject 7 of them myself.

How do you know any of them have been rejected? We don't inform you of that.

How do you know the editor is your competitor? Maybe we're just onto your 7 mirrors, which is a no-no. We frown on people who use trickery to get listed 8 times in order to get an advantage over other people.

Your placement on search engines means nothing, it's not something we know or care about. We're only interested in any unique content you might have, nothing else. Whether you think you've got unique content, in your own opinion, doesn't mean an editor will think the content is unique, compared to the content that's already available on the currently listed sites, and that's what matters. Your opinion really doesn't matter, you are not building the category, so you have no say in the matter.

 

One of the problems with DMOZ is that editors have no real grasp of the real world.

he web has moved beyond simply home pages at Geocities and has progressed into having multiple websites for each area of interest.

I have several pages myself, all with different themes.

An ADF protogrove page, dedicated to my work within the Ár nDraíocht Féin.
Another site that is dedicated to my personal work
A forum for occult discussion
a site dedicated to my moving off the grid
and another page for my girlfriend.

All but one of them would be closely related under the same broad top category of the ODP, but all different enough to be placed under a seperate heading.

According to your logic of not listing sites, why not ask that DMOZ get itself removed from the directory because they are owned by AOL which is also listed

And what about your other posts that say you'd list any site with unique content? Even if they all were about the same thing, you are rejecting SEVEN sites which could help the END USER.

So much for even you being helpful.

It's no wonder there are so many complaints about sites not getting listed... if it were up to editors like you the net would be an nightmare to navigate and be filled with popups from Geocities *sigh*

 

Geocity sites are perfectly acceptible if they have the unique content we look for, we don't judge site design.

It, of course, depends on what each sites Topic is about, and every site is judged on its own merits, that's not a real problem. But, when a company creates the same site, under different urls, then that's a problem, and that is a very common circumstance. You'll notice I was talking about mirrors and I said so, so stop taking my post out of context and putting a different spin on it.

 

please, please, please, reread my entire post. You COMPLETELY missed the point.

Did the person you were talking about actually say his sites were mirrors? No, I do not think so, in fact, (s)he said that all of them had unique content... that means there are 7 sites out there that would not be listed according to you because there is another site that is nothing like the one listed.

They said UNIQUE content, which is what the directory is about, right? Well, re-read the entire thread because without doing so you are digging yourself into a hole because it's clear you are posting for the sake of posting rather then actually reading and replying to what was actually said.

This is the first line that you quoted: I've got 8 websites, all with unique content and all (what I'd consider) to be in the top of their field.

So my post stands, and yours just looks confusing...

 

Lets see I run gaming/historical portal which could easily be split into two or more websites but I'm just lazy to do it. Then I run photographic association website which organizes photo fair which should also have separate website but I'm again lazy, then there is family website still under construction, personal website only In Croatian, my free host for Mount&Blade plus now company website.

So that makes 6 plus another 2 possible websites each completely unique!

And then there is friends personal page which I take care off and another website under construction so that would make it 10! And I could probably dig up few more like cnn.com.

 

Well, the logic does kind of stand within the ODP, they do offer a kids section three clicks away from their adult only section (which needs no age verification to check out).

Maybe they do want all the sites to be as one, kind of like a strange new world order for the net?

 

Your right I should add porn to all my websites, I bet that would get all of them listed ASP!

But I have to be careful not to use same material or they will discover that I already have over a hundreds websites with thousands of links listed in adult.