Hello, I submitted one of my websites (Active Farming ) to dmoz some time ago. I'm not exactly sure when it was but I would guess it was at least a year ago. As far as I can tell, it isn't in the dmoz directory. I believe the website is quality enough to be listed in the directory but, I don't want to get in trouble for submitting too many times. I believe I only submitted it once before. Is there any way to check on the submission? I don't know if it was rejected for some reason or is still waiting to be reviewed. Any advice would be helpful.
It will not count against you if you submit one more time to the correct category ensuring to follow all the guidelines with regard to title and description. At worst it will overwrite the first submission if it is still waiting for review, at best, if the submission has somehow been lost, you are giving it another chance.
It's debatable, most DMOZ edtitors claim that resubmitting at all will get your site classed as spam. The sad thing is it can take up to 18 months to get accepted. You can try going to the DMOZ forum and asking where your site is in the queue. http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/
It isn't debateable at all. Submitting again to the same category will overwrite the original submission if it is still waiting. An editor will not even know. Any editor who classes a second submission as spam requires re-education and can be reported using the Abuse report system. If you scattergun submissions all over the place then it might be considered spam. Where you will get shouted at. RZ does not do status checks any more and hasn't done for some time.
Its an opinion that many share, and many don't. Each to their own. If it doesn't work for you then fair enough - there are many things DMOZ doesn't do as well as others and many things it doesn't even attempt to do and if you want it to do one of those things then to you it will be a waste of time and space. Just don't use it, easy.
I don't I havn't bothered submitted to DMOZ for about 2-3 years as it's such a complete hassle. It's a shame as it bills itself as a great resource of all of the most valuable sites on the net, where is reality for some categores it's a place for the moderator to put his and his friends sites for a high PR link. The beauacracy and lack of clarity and feedback in the system is incredible which leads to the crazy amout of time it takes for a review. The only problem is the high opion that Google places on it, and IMO this won't last and then it's days will be numbered.
MattUK, Fortunately, the thing about Dmoz is that it doesn't depend on Google for anything. So, if Google decided today to stop using Dmoz data, then Dmoz would keep doing what it did before Google decided to use its data - still review and add sites to the directory. The thing that would significantly change would probably be the number of spam suggestions. But, that would benefit the editors who edit in high spam categories. Don't forget that a large number of sites aren't suggested to the directory, but are instead found by editors. Reviewing sites in a category's suggestion pool is just one of the options available to editors looking for sites to add. And, if I'm not mistaken, but wasn't Dmoz around before Google?
Some categories are not well maintained - lack of interest amongst editors is the cause, and as a volunteer project editor interest determines the level of activity. As to editor abuse there are processes for this to be reported, and it does work where abuse is proven. There is bureaucracy as with any large organisation, bureaucracy is not always a bad thing, it ensures things run as uniformly and efficiently as circumstances allow. Lack of clarity is a problem I agree, the guidelines and external communications could be greatly improved. Feedback is deliberately not part of the system and it is because DMOZ does not offer a listing service for webmasters, has never intended to, and never does intend to. It is a private, non-professional, volunteer-driven, almost academic project that invites contributions from non-participants on a no obligation basis. Be nice if the submission process said that clearly but as I said the clarity needs some attention. Review times - since there is no listing service, review times are not an issue for DMOZ, it gets at least half its listings from a variety of sources outside those suggested by their owners. You are as likely to be listed because an editor spotted your URL in a newspaper ad as from a submission. If anything the use of submissions as sources of material is likely to decline as a proportion since the submission process is abused by spammers and the decent sites get buried under the crap. So no DMOZ editor gives a toss about review times, they are irrelevant to the project objectives. DMOZ didn't ask Google to factor its work into the algorythm and it truly has a very marginal impact as independent people around here will tell you. DMOZ editors don't care about the Google PR effect anyway and if it goes away altogether will be grateful that webmasters will hopefully go away and start doing their web marketing properly themselves instead of expecting unpaid volunteers to give them something for nothing, or else they are going to sue, be offensive, accuse them of corruption, la la la. Unfortunately, Google is now a part owner of DMOZ not just a data partner so the prospects of it dumping DMOZ are somewhat diminished - why would you buy something then blow the cash by not using it. Time will tell but I can't see Google being the cause of DMOZ's demise.
Spammers are most likely to benefit the most from feedback, so, sorry, but feedback isn't an option right now. As far as the amount of time it takes for review maybe your anger is misplaced, you should be angry at the spammers, dealing with them takes a lot of time that could be spent reviewing or looking for quality sites to add. I agree with the lack of clarity regarding some aspects of Dmoz. And, BTW, my sites enjoy high PR without a Dmoz listing. [Adding] Another unfortunate aspect of an organization like Dmoz is that it gets editor applications from unscrupulous people whose main objective is to apply for editorship, list their site, then go on their merry way. Unscrupulous people can be found in any large entity, so Dmoz is no exception. I'm not a meta, so I don't review editor applications, but I'm sure a few bad apples slip by. If you suspect an editor is abusing his/her position, then please report them using the abuse report form so they can be investigated and, if abuse if found, removed along with their website(s).
Do you have any logic or argument for what you have posted? I know this is the "official" BS from DMOZ to explain DMOZ failures as organization but have you ever thought if this nonsense that you are repeating is logical?
HAHAHAH Gworld talking about logic - now that's funny!!!!! That's equivalent to you talking about integrity, lol! Anyway, I've created a new tool that translates Gworld's BS for what it really is - BS! Hold on a second while it translates Gworld's post [Translation in progress...] :::::::Transmitting::::::::: "Trolling, trolling, trolling" [Translation complete] There you have it folks. That's exactly what Gworld's post translates too. Too bad Gworld, because had you been any other reputable poster on this board I would have taken your post seriously and answered you genuinely. But, I guess you know where you stand with me, huh? You're about as serious as a clown.
And how did you become a reputable poster in less than a month and 20 posts that repeats DMOZ canned response? Are you just another reincarnation of pagode, aguarius, cbp, birdie,..........? Trying to make a desperate defense of DMOZ and then disappear after that.
I didn't see anything inherently wrong in enigma's posts gworld - sometimes the official answers are the right ones, they are not automatically wrong because editors say them. What specifically do you disagree with? And why?
brizzie, should your emphasis be on "inherently" and "official", I agree that those answers are not automatically wrong. But I also think that especially at DP it can be quiet boring reading those "canned" answers over and over again, mostly from people that don't have nothing else to contribute.
I didn't mean to open a can of worms here... My personal opinion is that if someone doesn't like dmoz then they should create their own directory and try to do better. The fact the dmoz has done what it has with the amount of success it has is amazing to me. Well I just resubmitted my website to dmoz since it has been a while since my last request. I'll let you all know what happens. Michael
brizzie, please explain how this sentence make any sense. Is there anything except wild speculation and commonly hold belief system in DMOZ to support this assumption. I can reason why providing a feedback system improves DMOZ image and lower the number of so called spam submissions but can the supporters of this canned response provide us with any proof, except that we should believe in this on faith?
Canned responses are given because people ask canned questions and have canned complaints. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.