My 2 months old site got listed in DMOZ!

Hello,

Today morning when i was checking my backlinks in my webmasters dashboard,i was surprised to see a link from DMOZ...

When i checked that link,i found my site got listed in DOMZ....

My site is just 2 months old...

But another site of mine which is almost 5 months old haven't got listed yet...

Can anyone explain me how my new site got accepted?

Cheers,
Sandeep

 

Congratulation!!!

Can you give your URL? That is tamilfriends.in ?

 

yes...
and here is where its listed..
http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/India/Tamil_Nadu/Society_and_Culture/Communities/

 

An editor either found it on his own out on the web, or he looked at the site suggestions, found it to be helpful in building that category, and listed it.

I have listed sites that were only suggested two days prior, and others that had been there for 3 years. As we've said before, editors don't offer a listing service, we build categories. Apparently, your site had the unique content we were looking for in that particular category, and the editor added it.

Congratulations and thank you for suggesting it.

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/India/Tamil_Nadu/Society_and_Culture/Communities/desc.html

This category is for websites of communities based on a common origin, kinship, religion, language, caste, or based on a combination of these.

 

This one was a 7 day elapsed time from suggestion (to the correct category) to listing. As we keep saying, wait times are pretty random .

 

Interesting that in the DMOZ submission guidelines it says:

Yet the 'About', 'Terms' and 'Privacy' pages of that site all show:

 

and yet the ODP itself is in a constant state of being under construction...

And have you checked the email pages for editors lately? Those are all broken.. maybe the ODP needs to remove DMOZ.org from the directory


The guidelines also say that deep links should be "the exception rather than the rule" and the ODP claims it's a HUMAN edited directory... yet it has thousands of automatically listed affiliated pages that are little more then duplicate content.... so so much for the guidelines being followed by the ODP itself... how can one honestly expect anyone else to follow them?

 

you had the luck to find a nice editor congrats!

 

I haven't looked at the site you're refering to, but editors can use editor discretion in a case like that. Though a site that is still under construction or has broken links isn't a good candidate for listing, if the content that is there and working outweighs what isn't complete, and will add value to a category, it can be listed.

I think most of us prefer to keep that type of site in unreviewed and put it on our watch list, and just wait for it to be completed, but a newer editor might just decide to list it.

 

You guys just have all the excuses. Twist and revise the rules as you go.

 

We don't have rules, we have Guidelines to work within. That means human editors can use common sense and editor discretion to make certain decisions. The system was deliberately designed that way to give editors a little flexibility.

A site that's still under construction can either be deleted, saved and watched, or listed because of the content that is there.

The same is true of a site with a lot of ads on it. The editor can weigh the number of ads against the amount of unique content on the site, and make a decision about whether it's worth listing.

In an automated system, with hard and fast rules, both would just be deleted.

 

If the guidelines say something like, 'don't submit a site that is still under construction', what has that got to do with an editor deciding to list a site that still has some parts 'under construction'. Editors don't submit sites.

I don't understand what you are saying. Or are you just twisting things to suit your purposes?

 

those are guidelines, you know like in church, so that anyone can be branded a heretic by inquisition when it is need

a give metas flexibility to remove any editor claiming violation of any guidelines since they can be interpreted any way they like

 

The guidelines don't say 'something like' they say exactly:

This specifically indicates that sites with 'under construction' notices are not suitable candidates for the directory. So you're saying different editorial standards are applied to editor-submitted sites and user-submitted sites.

 

When I think of the DMOZ I tend to feel the urge to fart. And to think Google, who whines about having unique content and all that bullshit, actually scrapes the DMOZ directory and calls it the Google Directory makes me want to vomit.

 

Mommy must not be home, or she ran out of soap for your mouth.

 

some of my competitors have their sites listed and i've been waiting about 1 1/2 years with still no luck

 

Dmoz has many editors and maybe your website editor was honest.

 

Just because your competitors are listed, doesn't mean you should be. We don't know who those are, we're only interested in the unique content that may or may not be on a site, that will benefit the category as a whole.

If your site has the same content that another site in that category has, you'll never be listed, we don't need you. Our current blog explains that:
http://blog.dmoz.org/

But more likely, there just aren't enough editors in that area to review all the site suggestions, or the editors are finding new sites to list from other resources, like out on the net.

Editors are not required to review sites that are suggested by the public, it's up to the editor who's doing the work.

 

The DMOZ works in mysterious ways!