Has anyone been successful in submitting website to DMOZ recently?

You can check for yourself if it is likely to be or have been declined .

Other than those from spammers, we mainly only decline to list websites if they are the sort of website that we don't list. These are detailed both in our submission guidelines (which you've already acknowledged that you've read and agreed) and in our editor guidelines.

Listing suggestions to the wrong category or with unacceptable titles or descriptions are corrected, not declined.

Generally, there is little that can be done to redeem an unlistable website unless it was heavily under construction at the time - in which case it shouldn't have been suggested anyway.

 

Thats rather shaky advice there isn't it Jim? I mean you DID forget to mention the most important thing when pointing to the guidelines didn't you?

 

Got my site listed just a few days ago

The editor emailed me directly

 

I doubt very much that jimnoble "forgot" anything. After all, he and other patient souls have been explaining the same thing to impatient webmasters for years. Over and over again, in fact, which is nothing short of heroic, in my view.
So I guess he can be allowed the occasional variation in his response.

But in fact the public guidelines to which he linked do stress the need for unique content:

 

Q already knows that and he also knows that I know that he knows that. He was just teasing, not contributing .

 

I still don't know the reason why my blog could not make it to the list as it has good content and could also be considered as a mining site for new links.

 

3 years ago it was easy for me. Now I tried multiple times but never got included in the DMOZ directory.

 

They forgot to mention the most important requirement for listing, the owner of the site should not be some one that we don't like.
You fail on that point, they don't like you.

 

Is that a criteria regardless of site that has content ? That should not be the case or is it ?

 

I'm just restating what other editors have said, and other editors HAVE pointed out that pointing to the guidelines are SHAKY unless you also point out unique content. So go ahead and try throwing it back on me. It's not my fault that some editors say the guidelines are good and others do not...

So yes, say I'm wrong, but know too, had another editor said what I just said, you'd not bother pointing out anything was wrong.

I'm just following Nebby's examples

I had an entire thread dedicated to the guidelines being shaky, and of all the editors that posted in it, not one would come in and say that Nebby was wrong, but here we are again with other editors saying I am wrong. Funny that I can say the same thing an editor says and I am wrong, yet somehow a fellow editor saying the same thing can somehow be correct

 

Submitting your website to DMOZ isn't complicated but the approval process is lenghty. But the wait is worthwhile.

 

You know about the list of their "enemies" in DMOZ that should not be listed, don't you?

 

Hmmm. Just confused as I have a site listed in there on a different category with a different genre and the blog I was talking about is way more informative than those listed.

 

Wish i had seen this before I made a thread in the Blogging area.
I submitted a blog two years ago and it still has not been approved...and then I submitted anothe rone two months ago and nothing.

And both were/are pretty good blogs

 

Whats DMOZ, lol?

 

The rulers of the Internet

 

In fact it would probably be a lot more helpful to read the ODP public documents again, rather than to rely too much on a thread with a misleading title.

You have suggested your sites for a volunteer editor to review at some stage, and when that happens they will use the guidelines which are available for everyone to read (http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html) to decide whether one or both of those sites is suitable for listing in the directory.
On the other hand, an editor might find your blogs on the internet anyway, while looking for good sites to add. The pool of suggestions is by no means the only place volunteers look when they choose to work on building up a category, and no editor is obliged to look at suggested sites at all.

In several years of editing I guess I added about 30,000 sites to the ODP, but I doubt more than a couple of thousand of those had been suggested by other people.

 

DMOZ = Dead Mute Orphan Zombie



lol

 

I dunno G... that can't be a universal rule based on their habit of feeding the hand that bites them where Q is concerned. Personally I'd laugh if they'd show the kinda balls Google has and just say flat out... "make a habit of screwing with us and we'll blacklist your happy butt, period". You'd see a less silly threads like those DP is known for. Dissent is understandable, but if Dmoz grew a pair... those that have sites in there but rail at them daily just to boost their post count would probably find a new hobby.

FWIW I doubt it'll happen. There's a contingent within the hierarchy that always took odd pride in ignoring any advice I gave regardless of the topic. Pity tho, the politically correct "We're only concerned with content, not the webmaster" is applied in rather spotty fashion, and usually where it makes the least sense.

Ivan OTOH is in there despite his proclaimed intent to mess with Dmoz , but his sites IMO really ARE content rich compared to their competition. I had his in my history cats and they were excellent work. Granted the directory could somehow survive without them, but at least there's some justification for leaving his there. In the case of Qs little witchy sites it's just an abject failure to employ common sense. Common sense dictates that when a method repeatedly fails, you try a new tack. Repeating the same course that didn't work but expecting different results is just not bright.

Granted I don't have a dog in that fight anymore, but watching them act like pansies is embarrassing. If they ever figure out the obvious and act on it I'll stand up and cheer for 'em. Dealing from a position of weakness when it isn't necessary is counterproductive, and if they'd go the route I've suggested... forums like this might actually be turned to working Q&A use instead of just being flamewar haunts for social cripples.

[No charge for the advice guys... not like it'll get used anyway.]

 

Rob Jones for President.