I have seen a site with keywords spammed using hidden texts.. But its a shock for me to see the very same site listed in DMOZ http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=219788
DMOZ are unconcerned with what the average webmaster considers as spam. Hidden text, keyword stuffing, cloaking, etc. are not a barrier to inclusion in the directory. If the site has unique content, the directory could care less about the search engine optimization tactics/methods used. Maybe if the site was responsible for something malicious such as a trojan or virus...
Indeed. As far as I can tell, many (most) editors would not even know what hidden text is or how to spot it.
I submitted my leading directory yesterday! Hope it gets approved soon! Lets start the count down now.
Good luck with your submission. I hate to say it, but I think you're going to be disappointed. Directories with empty categories were usually not accepted in the past due to "lack of content"
I don't think it works that way. I think it more likely someone will take a quick look and just delete it. I realize that my small directories are not DMOZ but frankly that's what I do with under construction sites. Finish the darn thing first - THEN submit it.
Looks like a guaranteed reject to me. No question in my mind that it has insufficient content to even be a contender. Global generic directories stand no chance of being added unless they are very well populated. At best an editor might mine some of your links to add to the relevant DMOZ category. Don't hold your breath whilst counting down and if were you I would start in the trillions. I think it is likely a passing editor has already done that!
Unless I'm mistaken, DMOZ does not like cloaking. Sorry Maldives, I agree with the others who say your site will not be listed. It's hard (darn near impossible) to get a general web directory listed. You'd need LOTS of GOOD listings for that to happen. My husband is building a small directory much like yours and lots of others. He has several hundred listings and I like it, but I can guarantee you it will NEVER be listed at DMOZ...and he's sleeping with an editall. You're better off swapping links with other sites or making submissions to other small directories.
I'm so sorry to hear this, Annie. If you feel like some online support could be of benefit, please feel free to visit us at http://forum.psychlinks.ca.
Every single comment I read from someone talking about DMOZ is that it's corrupt and sucks, but it's important only because Google considers it important. Every response that I read from someone representing DMOZ is one of an "we're all-knowing gods" nature. I read elsewhere, by one of these all-knowing gods, "For other categories it is 99.99% crap and most editors don't look at suggestions in those categories at all. Why waste our time looking at 1000 sites to find one listable one if we have many other sources to find usefull and listable sites." Then when you see stuff like this being included, it just makes you wish DMOZ would die.
Maybe you aren't reading enough posts by the more open minded editors? Well that's a pretty arrogant thing to say. I find a lot of sites to list on my own just like any other editor, but the majority of my listings come from reviewing the submissions. I've listed over 40,000 sites and I don't agree with the "99.99% crap" statistic. We're all individuals, please don't paint us all with the same brush if some of us say silly things. Pretty please.
I'm not sure that we share the same definition of "cloaking" - I'm under the impression that you might be referring to "url cloaking" or displaying content from one site in a full frame on a different url? I was referring to serving different content to search engine spiders and human visitors. I doubt the average editor would have an indication of someone doing so?
Ah, I see. Yes, you are correct CReed. We SO don't care about the other kind of cloaking that it didn't even cross my mind!