Aint that the truth I came across this in my morning surf today - classic! http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com
This is something an editor at WPW said several times in the past couple of years. More recently, in one of the DMOZ threads here at D-P, another editor denied it. Which is it?
Since you doubt my first statement, there's no point in my saying it again . The machinery was changed some time ago (a year mebbe? I disremember). Before then, it wasn't unusual to find a dozen copies of the same URL in the unreviewed pool. Many of us used to sort the pile in URL order to make it easier to find and destroy the extras. That step is no longer necessary.
I'm not doubting you, Jim. In fact, the statement was made several times by CBP and I had no reason to doubt him either. That's why I was surprised when an editor here recently denied it.
The same URL to the same category will in most case replace the previous one. The same URL to different but related categories will not replace. Similar URL's to the same category will not replace [as far as I know]. E.g. submissions of pages within the site will not replace the main URL. Also if a site comes in and an editor does something with it - without yet publishing it, and it gets re-submiited the new one will not replace the previous one - since it's now "work in progress" This is perhaps what leads to the confusion. Sometimes you see "each submission replaces the previous" and sometimes you see "editors have to spend time deleting the duplicates" - which appear to be contradictory statements So, for example, I get a lot of multiple submissions from one person, who every time sends in a different page of the site. I have to manully delete each one. I also see sites that I had noticed come in the previous week drop to the bottom of the date ordered list - indicating they must have submitted again and overwritten the previous.
That's entirely correct. Both of those actions are forbidden in the ODP Submission Guidelines and are abuse. It never ocurred to me that anybody here would ever do a thing like that .
I wasn't talking about my own experience. It wasn't even a reply to a question from me but to another member. I was referring to the contradiction in information from DMOZ editors. The fact that there are such contradictions suggests to me that at least some of the editors themselves are confused by DMOZ regulations and procedures, which perhaps should make it less surprising that webmasters and non-editors are also confused.
Very true - that's why there are the internal editor fora, in order to try to have a forum for editors to ask questions, and external fora like this one, where some editors will at least try to explain some of the inner goings-on. Anyone who claims that the ODP is perfect and has no issues is, imo, delusional. Anyone who claims the exact opposite is, imo, equally as delusional. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. There are some very good, responsible editors, and there are some very bad ones. There are some very good, responsible web professionals, and there are some very bad ones. The ratios of either are never something that anyone can prove as fact, so it is a source of speculation at best. I still maintain that, while the ODP is far from perfect, as directories go, it's the best out there right now at doing what it is intended to do. But that is just my opinion. There is room for improvement, but those improvements are in the realms of catching "dead" or "bait-and-switch" sites, and improving editor productivity, and have little or nothing to do with site submission suggestions.
A reason for the rejection of a website would help most decent webmasters. Let's face it, a spammer won't change their tactics or website, no matter what. Telling them what's wrong with a website more than likely won't cause them to fix it, if they even bother to read it. However, for those webmasters who are willing to alter/improve a website, this could be invaluable. For instance, I made an enquiry in someones thread at Resource Zone, and got back something that I consider to be helpful; namely for the Directories category, directories with under 50,000 entries (I think) won't be added. Now, that's useful. I know not to bother submitting until a directory is a reasonable size. Something along those lines in a rejection letter would be very helpful. It won't stop spammers, but beyond banning their IPs, nothing will
Assuming that it's fully functional (and why suggest one that isn't?) the usual reason for rejection is lack of sufficient useful and unique content. It's not such a hard number because it's partially about saturation level . A property rental directory with world wide scope would need a great deal of content (50K may well be about right), else it's of little use to the surfer. A French directory of 100 magicians would likely be welcomed. A Long Island B&B directory with a tenth (say) of the listings that we already have won't enhance our directory. It's common sense really - which is why we use humans .
This was quoted for the general directory category, where listings would need to be greater than for a niche directory.
You are rarely going to find any hard-and-fast numbers for things like this from the ODP. Another example of that is the eternal question "how much affiliate content is acceptable?" The reason for this is that when you have hard-and-fast rules, you are maybe forced to list sites which are obviously not one you would otherwise list, and may exclude sites which might be worthwhile. Either that or you allow exceptions to the "rule" - once you do that you may as well not have any rules. So this is why it is left to editor judgement. Liable to bias? Yes - as with any editor - by their very definition editors cut things out according to their judgment. Some see that as a strength, others as a drawback to the system. As with any newspaper, the ODP has a style guide - these are published. [Thanks to the people wh have sent me positive reputation points with comments - much appreciated! And a big to whoever left a negative score without a name or a comment - classy!]
What I am getting at is some response as to why a site was rejected would be helpful. Whilst I appreciate that it is not an exact science, a comment along the lines of, say, not enough listings (for a directory), too few games (or original games) for a games site etc. would be useful
Apologies in advance if I am repeating old advice, but what difference does it (or rather should it) make to you and your webmastering activities? If you have more content for the site (listings, games, whatever) add it to the site - you are doing the surfer a favour. If you don't have more content, then you have nothing more to add. All I am trying to say is that if you are truly in business of providing a service to your consumer (the web surfer) then you should be looking to pack it with as much valuable, unique content as possible, not just enough to squeak by some editor's idea of what "enough" is.
Basically, if you want to resubmit, it would give you an idea as to when you should do so. That would (hopefully) cut down on the repeat submissions, and some webmasters would only resubmit when the site meets the approximate guidelines.
Except for one thing - If you sent an email declining the listing, and explaining why, some sites would be improved and perhaps be worthy of entry. Second, the URL could be automatically flagged from that point, and perhaps be reviewed by a 'resubmission editor' and not have to bother the catagory editors with it.
But the DMOZ guys are saying that while it may help 2 sincere webdevs, 98 spammers would go 'fix' what has been identified and resubmit. This would continue endlessly. Still, someone would have to review it, thereby taking time from other much needed chores. I think the DMOZ mantra has become "unique content". If you offer it, one day you will be found and listed.
I don't think that's true. Two examples: http://www.rootes-chrysler.co.uk/ - 319 pages of largely unique Rootes Group material. http://www.toyoland.com/ - admittedly smaller but still unique Note that neither is affiliate-prone or spammy.