Is it really too much to ask for an email from DMOZ

There is a lot of DMOZ bashing that goes on here, whether it be warranted or not is not the point of this post, my question is purely:

Why cant DMOZ at least send out an "your submission has been received" email, followed by a "your submission has been accepted/rejected" email.

Surely this one small change would alleviate 90% of webmasters irritations with the ODP, and seeing as practically every other directory out there does this, why cant it be incorporated?

Im not ODP bashing here, I have a few sites listed, and a few waiting to be listed, I dont complain about the wait, but some kind of notice would go a long way to improving "customer" relations

MOG

 

We do acknowledge that a submission has been received. As has been said here only a couple of days ago how many do you need.

Secondly I say again that rejects are because the site has not met up to guidelines, its spam its an affiliate its a mirror, its not unique. Do you really want us to waste precious resources telling people that? And dealing with the issues that would arise, "No its not" "Oh yes it is" pantomime season would be upon us all the time. Because I don't want us to waste them, we have better things to focus on. 90% of the time, in my experience, sites simply don't get reviewed for a long time because we don't have the resources and because it is not our primary focus to simply review sites. It is to build a directory and if an editor feels that the quality generally of sites submitted is not what s/he is looking for in that category then they will go and find the ones they want. Sorry, we are not a listing service, we are not focused on webmasters, indeed there are editors who would want to stop public submissions believing that they can do better without them.

Sorry too, our "customers" are surfers not submitters. We allow submissions and as I said some editors wonder why.

 

Anoynmously: I think the real question is, as the Dmoz send a 'submission received' email, why don't they send a 'submission activated/rejected' email? Every other directory that sends out submission confirmation emails also send activation/rejection emails - surely this would stop repeated submissions by webmasters and site owners and therefore cut out your work load and keep both editors, webmasters and surfers all happy in one boat? Instead, it seems the Dmoz want that boat to sink, which really is a shame. Although such an idea may not be in your personal interest, perhaps you would kindly pass on this idea to your...well, whoever tells you what to do

 

thanks for your comments spidey, that is precisely what I am getting at, and with reference to anons post, I am absolutelye avoiding getting into a pantomime-esque DMOZ bashing, I am just musing that 99.9% of these threads would cease if DMOZ were to move things along a bit from 1996 and start providing people with some information.

I dont want to start some protracted discussion here about DMOZ being "for the people, not the webmasters" (as I think that this is a heap of baloney anyhow) - as that IS NOT the point Im trying to make,

my comment is just:

"If DMOZ sent out a bit more information, then they wouldnt create all this bad feeling with webmasters waiting 2 years never know if they got accepted or not."

It doesnt take much to add a confirmation/rejection email, so why not just do it and improve your service by about a million percent.

AGAIN: please dont come back to me with the "we are not here for webmasters" as without webmasters you wouldnt have any sites to list.

 

OK, here's the question that is brought up in debates internally amongst editors: If you DID get a message saying your site was rejected, what would you do?

Acceptance notification is an easy thing to set up - you just see it appear in the category - I believe Google and others have tools that can show you that happening.

 

If I personally got an e-mail saying my site had been rejected, I would re-read the submission guidelines (which I would fully expect to be included in the e-mail), note anything my site does not conform to, then wait until I have another site owner with at least 1 site listed in the directory to check over my site, then if all was ok, I would then resubmit. That would be the logical thing to do.

 

I agree with DMOZ here, as alucard stated, what would you do? You would probably send them an email demanding why, increasing ther workload, what you have got to remember is DMOZ is a very large directory with god knows how many submissions a day, and I would say the majority are probably rejected.

Every webmaster should be monitoring incoming links anyway so you will notice when your site has been accepted.

Just make sure you read ther TOS thoroughly and keep to ther guide lines is all you can do.

Point is I don't want a bloated DMOZ directory, and it's not just the new submissions that keep them busy it's also the existing submissions, no one wants a directory of dropped domains.

 

OK, then here is my advice. before you submit the site the first time, read the guidelines, and get another site owner to check it. To me, these are all good things that you should do, whether you get rejected or not.

 

Yes, I did do that, hence why the only site I did submit is currently in the directory. Point being, no two editors will accept the same site. I could set up a site, submit it, get it accepted. Shut the site down. Re-open the site under a different url, same content, exact same design and features. It'll get rejected. Why? Not because the sites are the same, because the old site is long gone. It's because editors themselves don't stick strictly to the guidelines. Seriously, I've seen a site claiming to be in my regional town category, even though they aren't even in the same district. Now, correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't that prove a point?

 

haha...yeah sure buddy...it would take all of 5 minutes to change some code that when people hit the "reject" button an automated email is sent out...lots of "precious" resource right there. That's the whole problem with ODP...they have this idea that webmaster are wasting their time and resources when in reality it's the reverse.

At first this ticked me off but then I thought about it..and I agree. Kill the submission process and then webmasters will stop giving a crap about ODP altogether. That would certainly save your "precious resources".

 

There is some variance with editors, especially with experienced and inexperienced editors. I have thrown some sites out that were far from what the directory wants or desires and on checking discover that it is an editor who does not have the experience to be able to see the issues, but I was absolutely like that and I still accept some sites that should not be there. But that is about editors learning and about the Directory being human edited. But having said that the variance on a unique rich content site would be very small.

Your last point about sites being changed does happen, but we do try and monitor that in various ways, but in the end if someone is unscrupulous and wants to turn a good site into a bad site it may take a while for us to find that out. Unless we have vastly greater resources some things sometimes slip through the net.

1. It would take resources and we want other things.
2. It would create enormous questions. Remember that most of the rejections are to people who set out to fiddle the directory with spam, etc etc. These are not honest decent webmasters who have one nice site that they want to get seen. They are people who will do anything to get their sites listed and multiple listings. Remember too that the plea on here from metas about asking to become and editor often contains words like "Be honest" does that not tell you a lot about many of the rejections they make.
3. If there were no webmasters we would not need to be in business there would be no internet to index and catalogue, but seeing that there is we aim at indexing and cataloguing it so that people can find the information they want. That means we are of service to the webmaster, by accident, because we help people see the sites they want to see, but please allow us to have a directory the way we want it. If you want a different one feel free to make your own and enlist volunteers, you can make up the rules you want to have then.

 

Anon said :

Rightly so.
There are truly newer directories which have site rejection emails , site accepted emails . However this does not make it a rule ... only a popular feature.

 

I am truly shocked at the vehemence with which DMOZ's position is being defended here.... have I woken up in some parallel universe today where the right thing to do suddenly is un-important?

Regarding the argument above as to what would you do if you got rejected, well thats a simple on to solve. Send the rejection notice from a no-reply address with common reasons for non inclusion, and make it clear that DMOZ will not entertain discussion on a site by site basis. - Come on, this argument is really just scrabbling for an excuse people, you know it.... I know it.... enough with the bull!

if this were the case truly I would suggest a complete closure of the submission form itself. by your statement you are claiming the viewpoint that you dont do anything for webmasters, and if they benefit it is through an indirect desire to help the innocent surfers, well if thats the case, why not just remove the submit form entirely?

I have been on the internet for 12 years now, which is longer than most, and I have for a great deal of time worked on internet related projects, since the ODP was started infact, and I have never once used it as a reputable listing of decent websites, and I would hazard a guess that very few other people have done either - but thats a different discussion and off thread, so lets not go down that road!!

 

your comments are etched here and will be seen by several hundreds of webmasters like me .
Same would go for your probable blogpost ( i have not read it , i apologise) ... whether google is justified is killing of link sales.
That is the situation everywhere ... is Google required to hear and change its stance based on what you say ? same way the ODP is not required to change its policy which has benefited the directory and its volunteers over the years.
My thoughts on "why not do away with the submit form totally? "
- Is because , often editors do not have the time to scourge the net for all the categories he is allowed to edit in. The submissions provides him more choice of sites , thus minimizing his volunteer time , and allows him spend more time in betterment of his quality of describing the sites , locate sites which have turned defunct etc. Please note : it is only there so that he has a choice ... he is not obligated to use that choice.

As regards how many people will use it ... you can simply find it using something like google trends or alexa to find out a comparison .

 

Well, maybe we have different ideas as to what the "right thing to do" is. I understand that webmasters want this feature. it has been discussed before internally, but it's just not something that the ODP wants to do. And I am trying to give you some of the logic from "the other side" that's all....

no, that's exactly NOT my point - of course what you say could be done, but the point I am trying to make is to get an idea of what USE you receiving such an email would be... what would you do when you got one?

If the answer is resubmit, then we're not interested - we rejected it once, and without changes it more than likely won't get accepted again.

If the answer is make your site better, then resubmit, well, why not just make your site better anyway? Quality of site shouldn't be dependent on potential placement in an obscure directory - make the best site you can on a particular subject.

if you do not have the type of content that the ODP lists, well, you could know that from either reading the guidelines or getting someone else's opinion, regardless of whether you get rejected or not.

So I'm struggling to see what use a rejection email would be, in terms of actionable items....

if someone can come up with a compelling argument for doing it, then that will be noted and a new discussion begun, believe me. I am not known within the ODP for keeping my mouth shut if I feel like I may have a decent argument.

Believe me that has been suggested on multiple occasions and there are still proponents of it within the ODP. I'd say the decision to keep it was a close one, and the reason is that there are some cats (probably none of interest to most of the people on DP) that really rely on the public to give us suggestions of new material that could be added.

Deal!

 

What is the logic of sending out rejection letters to potential editors? If they have what it takes, they get accepted the first time. if they do not have what it takes then why bother letting them know anything at all?

If the point is to let them know why so they can improve, then re-apply, so that the editor base can increase, and hence the quality of the directory will increase, then wouldn't that same logic apply to sites?

The ODP strives to list the best of the best. That is all good and swell. They are also there for their end user, the surfer. But wouldn't that include offering them the best of the best, by means of increasing the number of potential sites?

If someone has an affiliate site that has some good unique content, but is still an affiliate site, then there is nothing that can be done to get that site listed... but I'm sure there are many affiliate site webmasters trying to get in, time & time again. I'm also sure that letting them know the reason they are not getting listed may stop them from trying with their main site, and possibly all of their other affiliate sites.

If I had a site that I submitted, and it was not listed in 5 years I'd certainly question why. Especially if I actually had unique content... what if MY site has not been listed because MY site was getting scrapped (copied) but the sites that copied mine all made it in? Is it truly in the best interest of the end user to put in the copies of the original?

With the wait times associated with the ODP, I personally think it's a good idea, even if it's nothing more then a link to the guidelines so submitters can see for themselves why. It would cut down on re-submissions (though likely not all) and while it may take a bit more resources server side, such a default/basic rejection letter certainly would not increase any precious editor time.

Not getting the rejection letter would also let submitters know that they are still likely in queue, and that too could also cut down on re-submissions of rejected sites (though again, likely not all).

 

and WHY havent you read it yet ? LOL!


I am neither for nor against the possibility of google hindering link sales in my blog, its just my personal musings as to whats going on in the world of SEO. I would however heartily recommend that you did subscribe to my blog

Yep, thats not only a distinct probability but also a fair statement

I am trying to avoid the "sides" mentality that seems to break down all of these discussions, I dont feel I am on the "side" of the webmasters vs. DMOZ as we are all fellow online professionals. I dont hold any grudge against ODP, I appreciate its aim and place on the net, I do personally feel that it might have antiquated regulations and views, but thats just my personal viewpoint and doesnt detract from its place as the top of the hill as far as directories go.

In terms of actionable items I agree with your views, there is very little that can be done, but in the case that many (many) webmasters will find themselves is:
1) they have submitted an honest to god, good, content rich, correct niche site, into the relevant area, and have only good intentions,
2) they then wait for two years, hearing nothing, and dont know if its still in some queue or if its been rejected.

at least if they knew it wasnt good enough it would remove that frustration of not knowing, and that to me is the core problem that people have with the ODP.

If I were an editor (and I have applied a few times , again not with anything other than good intentions, for niches that whilest I am very knowledgeable about but have no bearing on my job, SEO, or so on, ie I have applied for my local town, and I dont have ANY local internet interests )

In my humble opinion sending out a rejection/acceptance email to stop this discussion, and every one of the other 7,359,232 discussions like it a year on webmasters forums should be enough of a compelling argument. It would in one fell swoop re-invigorate the DMOZ name, and give webmasters some kind of indication that there are really people involved in the ODP that care! (im not saying you dont care mate, Im just levying a wide ranging assumption about most editors)

Im not surprised about the voices clamoring for this to be dropped, as it seems to have little value. I do appreciate that the internet is a big place, but in reality nobody is going to submit a site to the ODP because they liked it and thought it would be of benefit to the directory. I would imagine that 99.999% of all ODP submissions EVER have been done by the webmaster for the site in question.

If the reality of the directory is such that trusted people should mod each area that they have control over, perhaps this should be done.


Hey, I dont know, Im not an editor

 

Hi there

I personally dont think it would be too much to ask from a customer focus point of view and pure curtosy, unfortunatly dmoz doesnt have to actually please anyone only itself, and that is a problem.

I hardly think anyone uses dmoz anyone to actually find sites, its just turned into a webmaster listing excersize, there is very much a them and us feel about it all, and that is wrong, this is created by both sides webmasters and dmoz themselves, do i get the feeling anyone at dmoz cares, of course not, we are just seen as winging webmasters because we cant get our site into their directory.

The reason for this is pure frustration, from seeing a site in the category of ur site, thats complete rubbish and the helplesness of being able to do anything about it !

So it would be nice to get a bit of somthing back from dmoz, but i dont think it will ever happen.

Woc

 

The argument to turn off was pinpointed after the crash when some editors did not want the submissions turned on, we found that we could actually go out and find the sites for areas that were weak in the directory, not being driven by the demands of dealing with submissions alongside trying to keep on top of the 404's. In many ways it was far more satisfying editing.

Firstly I don't believe that when someone has waited for 6 months we would not continue to get the "Have you got my site, is it lost" sort of posts on here.
Secondly when we send out reject notes that simply point to the guidelines ,IMO, there would be an exponential explosion of the "DMOZ editors are corrupt, they did not list my site and it is perfectly good site", because you see it now when sites are not listed, it is because its a competitor who is the editor. We would be, IMO, more on the butt end of corruption charges than now.
Thirdly,

If it really is a site that conforms to guidelines, and they will have to read them for a change, then it will be accepted and if it has not been accepted its in a Q.
A new editor asked about what percentage of sites he should be expecting to reject and was shocked to be told less than 5% because he had managed about 50% in his first few edits. He was told to check guidelines because it was likely he was operating too strictly. (Remember we do have to train people and there will be some mistakes of inclusions and exclisions along the way). I would be shocked if I rejected 5%. I rejected one yesterday, the first in my last batch of editing, it was added to a regional locality and had no base and no indication of a locality on the site and seemed everything on the page was linked to other sites.
fourthly

How on earth do the write websites when clearly they cannot read the guidelines? Put it another way. Why do we need to point out to every affiliated site webmaster that some of the sites they are submitting are affiliates when if they read the guidelines they could find that out for themselves and we would have been saved all those emails?
Fifthly
Q, if you can't see that spending a little time with a person who might, with some guidance on their rejection, become an editor clocking 50-100 sites a day and getting one site listed then I don't think I could persuade you of the sillyness of your arguement. But having said that, we have people coming on here saying that we have not given them enough information to know where they have gone wrong, so do we really do what you accuse us of? I also think that someone applying to be an editing volunteer deserves a reply and is in a different league to webmasters submitting their site when this is only a suggestion. Applying for a post as editing and offering a site are not comparable.

Edit to add
This post made whilst i was typing!

Now the trouble is that all webmasters think their site is the best thing since sliced bread and the ones we have are rubbish.

 

In many cases it's the same person with the same sites they could not get in otherwise. Is there really a difference?

If a potential editor can not follow the guidelines, then why not hold off for someone that can... that's what you are doing with sites.

I mean, your argument against one can fully apply to the other. Look at the part I bolded. You gave the potential editor more then enough information to clearly list three potential sites to be listed... why take it that extra step to let them know their short comings?