Suppose I have 50 sites to be submitted to DMOZ for consideration, how I can perform the same? If I submit all at once, will it not be treated as spam? Or how many I can submit per day? Any idea? Thanks in advance.
Some say inclusion is faster to not bother submitting at all, as they submission system is only a "suggestion" by the submitter and is in no way shape or form something that editors will bother looking at let alone get around review. So if you submit any of them it's best to make sure that all of sites conform to the guidelines of submission, to both the main guidelines as well as to the individual category descriptions. Also make sure that all the sites have unique content, as that is the ONLY guideline that is not shaky according to some editors. *pokes nebby* Either way best of luck, and keep in mind, that once you do submit, just move on to promoting your sites by other means, as once you've submitted, that is all there is for the submitter to do.
I got dozens of websites to submit (none of them mine or have anything to do with me) but since that captcha is annoying and difficult to read for people with bad eyesight like me plus there is no way of knowing what kind of problem have DMOZ editors discovered with perfectly listable websites X and decided to delete it or if it is still waiting in unreviewed.
It's not your eyesight, CAPTCHA is a pain for those of us with good eyesight too. CAPTCHA won't garner a lot of support (as it currently exists) from most editors either. For some reason the version is bug ridden, many editors aren't happy with it either.
If all the sites are individual and not linked in anyway, if they all have unique and useful content, if they are going to be spread across different categories, if they follow the ODP guidelines, then no reason for not submitting them all on same day. The sites will join the various category queues and the editors will get to them when they get to them. Don't criticise the editors too much, they are volunteers with a vision of making the Internet a better place. Maybe if they got paid for doing what they do there would probably be more of them and no sites in 'un-reviewed'.
This already gets boring of a constant spamming and hiding of identities. Nevertheless another Royal Subject. Yeah right. And the earth is round. Sure. Dig a little deep. If some get away with payments undetected in the ODP, Wikipedia is the next big thing. Not only a link but the whole article itself since there is no one that overlooks. Planting the seeds ahead and a full harvest later.
that you are considering in submitting in the ODP is a good thought in itself . There will be many distractions , who are at best disgruntled and restless , nothing more. One should be submitting a site with an open mind , knowing what they are submitting it for . Once done , move ahead . So many better things to do for your site
If they got paid for doing it they would be Yahoo. Its a hobby to most editors, its something we enjoy doing or we wouldn't do it. Doing it for pay would make it a job not a hobby, not something I would be interested in doing. There is plenty of room in the world for everyone to do what they want and there are plenty of choices for everyone to choose which ones suit them individually. There is no such thing as too many 'unrevieweds', there is such a thing as a plethora of resource opportunities waiting to be tried.
A job to some editors and admins. You said it shadow I just re-phrased and made it clear. I know that. Nice to see some real editors like you. That's right. We'll be here for checks and balances.
Clear to you, but of course out of context from me. hobby to most edtiors = some editors see it as a time passer rather than a hobby they care about. Some editors do join for self interested reasons, those editors are usually shown the door rather quickly. Sometimes they go longer before being detected, but once found they are dealt with swiftly. Again, if you have evidence of abuse by an editor (including an admin) file the report. If its on a regular editor action will be taken in accordance with the evidence provided and discovered. If its an admin, that would be a staff issue but at least it would show the meta community what it is that has riled you up so much over. If an admin is truly being abusive, which I sincerely doubt, the abuse report would have to be investigated by staff but would still be visible to the Meta community. If you have evidence that proves abuse outlined, and staff chooses to ignore it then I suspect there would be a mass exodus from the meta community as most of us take that very seriously from any editor at any level. I don't however believe that its the case, but I welcome being proven wrong.
C'mon shadow. You know well that filing an abuse report is for the foot soldiers only. Everyone in the community knows what's happening inside that an Admin or Meta is untouchable. Purely smokescreen. There are some psycho's on the loose that were the reason of good editors being let go. Admit it that there is not much anyone can do about her(an example). We don't want a can of worms to be opened wouldn't we. Nobody just want to spit it out for some reason but hey most know.
It should be fairly common knowledge that the topix links were a staff decision years and years ago. In most cases they are junk, and had you still been an editor you could easily check my record out on them to see I have deleted a great many of them. Its not a personal project of mine though, its not worth it to me to waste my time on them normally. If deleting them was a crime, I would not be here. Period. This is old news and no proof of abuse. Same old, you know there is evidence so I am not gonna be bothered to display any. Thats ok, no sweat off my back but meta's have been removed for abuse and its happened in the not so distant past so its not a historical act. Meta's cannot act upon abuse reports against other meta's or admins, but they will see the evidence provided in the abuse report, should one ever be filed. One event that you disagree with does not make the whole group corrupt. No I don't expect it to have any impact on those pushing that agenda. However it must be said so that innocent readers can reach their own conclusions. I know of no abuse being committed currently by any Meta or Admin, if I did it would be reported without a second thought.
What more proof do you need? How can I be accused of self interest by editors when there are bigger fish that are still within the directory? Funny, I listed one site and was called on favoritism. Ivan was called on favoritism. CompostAnnie was called on favoritism... but having 10k plus listings automatically listed is not a matter of favoritism...even when the site, at the time, was owned by an editor? Sorry, if that is not favoritism, then there is no favoritism, there is no self interest, and it's perfectly fine to list ones own site or even sites. It's pretty crappy that any member of the team can get canned for listing other peoples sites when the 'staff' deems it fit to add in non-human edits that are considered "crappy" and not call it "self interest". Your post speaks a lot about the integrity and moral standing of the ranking members of the ODP.
Same old here too. No need to enlighten people because they know. If you haven't notice yet the Republicans still supports Bush, Nazis for Hitler and Rome hails Ceazar. Theres no abuse.
Nyahahaha. Is that all you can say. At least I don't pretend someone I am not, a reverend and a troll.
They do say that when you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it. Thus far, that's about all he's done on this forum.