Site not being added to DMOZ

My site, www.hawkherald.com, has been submitted to DMOZ a couple times over the past few months and is still not listed in the directory. My category, News: Newspapers: Student: High School: United States, is missing my state, Minnesota, so I think this may be part of the reason my site is not being added to the index. I just keep submitting it in the top directory, United States.

Is there any other reason my site isn't being added in DMOZ? My site has a lot of content -- especially for the category I'm submitting it to.

 

http://dmoz.org/News/Newspapers/Student/High_School/United_States/Minnesota/ It looks like you are listed.

 

Awesome! Thank you to whoever read this and added the site!

 

<sarcastic>Maybe we all should submit to an empty category, then we might get listed then</sarcastic>

 

I submitted www.phplinkdirectory.com several months ago, and it was never added.
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Scripts/Link_Management/

 

I don't think DMOZ likes you, David.

 

Oh, ok now I get it.
DMOZ adds sites based on whether they like you or not.
That clears up a lot of things doesn't it.

 

2 months and 11 days is not a long time to wait. How about volunteering to edit this category?

 

lol, why were you removed?

 

I would love to know.
As it stands now, they won't give an official answer.

My unofficial answer is that I spoke out against some of their policies. Then they removed me, probably on a technicality that lots of current editors have broken.

 

Just wanted to note this post was never answered, so it seems by default I may have given the correct answer?

 

From your avatar, I can see that you are very familiar with DMOZ culture.

 

Correct, I am more into great movies like the Godfather, not pornographic crap that litters DMOZ to point of utter corruption.

Thanks for helping me clarify the level of culture and class for which DMOZ is known.

 

Any answer other than to agree with you will be met with a blast of BS from the usual crew, so what's the point?

 

That's weak, even for you, sid. He has said several times at DP that he wasn't told why he was removed. Other removed editors have said the same. I have yet to see anyone deny that this is SOP for DMOZ.

dduval has also said several times here that in his opinion he was removed for daring to speak out against DMOZ policy. I haven't seen anyone deny that either, or offer any other credible reason for his removal.

Put up or shut up.

 

I'm not a meta, so I don't know why he was removed.

I looked through his posts on the ODP forums and didn't see anything "interesting" at all.

Where did this speaking out "against some of their policies" occur?

All I have to go on, from past experience, is that 99% of the time when people start going on about being removed and having no idea why, you can go through their edit logs and easily find a pattern of abuse. I haven't looked at dvduval's edit logs, so maybe he is in the 1% where the reason for removal is not immediately obvious. I'm willing to play the odds though.

 

i submitted a portal www.rajasthan-travel-tour.com in http://dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/India/Rajasthan/Travel_and_Tourism/

It never got added. But what surprising is that Yahoo accepeted it that too free listing. So i just donnt know what is the criteria to get listed in dmoz.

 

FWIW official DMOZ policy is not to inform removed editors of the reason for their removal. Official policy is not to inform other editors below meta of the reason for a removal. A meta who told would no doubt not be a meta the next day. I only recall a single instance of a successful appeal and reinstatement. If something can be resolved without removal, e.g. poor editing or a minor breach of guidelines then a warning is issued first. Removal without a warning is usually for breaches that cannot be remedied any other way, e.g. an editor proven corrupt. Removal for editors below editall can only be effected by unanimous consensus of metas so the level of evidence has to be high.

Why is it secret? To avoid giving clues to abusive editors as to how they were caught so they can try again and be more careful next time. Note to red reppers - don't shoot the messenger, I am not even an editor at the present time. It is true that innocent editors can possibly be removed unfairly and, since they are innocent, they would have no clue as to why and therefore be unable to defend themselves. They can appeal to an Admin. It is also true that many people claim to be innocent and have touted this around forums when the chain of evidence internally is so clear a child could work it out.

 

If your site meets the criteria for listing then it will be listed one day. But targets for the time it takes to review a site is not a recognised DMOZ concept. All you can do is wait and get on with other things. In all likelihood it is waiting for a volunteer to take a look at it when they have a spare moment to do so.