There seems to be a lot of focus on this forum on sites that are pure unadulterated crap, not all of them, but judging by signatures of posters, people are creating sites with the intention of making money from the site without actually offering *surfers* anything in return apart from affiliate links. Editors hate those sites and run a mile from reviewing them. Maybe it would be useful if editors and former editors said what they are actually looking for in a site to make it an instant add, no questions. For me it was a site that kept my interest. Not for the 5 minute review process but for 20 minutes, an hour, two hours. Clicking every link and reading every word. Such sites exist, and if they capture the editor's imagination in that way then they will certainly list it. Think of the sort of sites you add to your browser favorites because you really want to revisit it. The navigation should be complete and simple to use - not because crap navigation disqualifies a site but because an editor can quickly see all the unique content. Some sites have been rejected in the past because the owner buried their unique content deep in the site with the top layers being plagiarised or full of advertising - the editor never got that far, their impression was formed on the index page and a couple of prominent links and it was deemed unlistable. Directories - I wanted to see loads of entries, with some care taken to ensure they are legitimate, work, and are relevant to the subject matter. And to prevent me just mining the links and discarding the directory, lots of extra content too - background, photos, etc. Ads - discretely on the page and not interfering with the ability to see unique content. Clearly secondary to the site purpose rather than the site being designed as an ad income generator. Too many adverts in your face and I might well have skipped the site (not necessarily rejecting), just left it and moved on. Shopping - unique products, not something being sold by 10,000 others. Evidence of someone real behind it, an address, a phone number, plenty of product choice or something extremely unusual. Quick Loading - if anything was designed to make me hit the back button on my browser or close it completely it would have been someone who thought it would be a good idea to force me to go through a 30 second or more Flash advert. Not interested, I only wanted the actual content. In a category full of spam the webmaster who has taken the time to title and describe their site entirely in accordance with the guidelines will stand out like a sore thumb and many editors will go straight to it, ignoring all the keyword stuffed descriptions in the way. That isn't to say that absence of the above results in rejection of a site, it doesn't. But with long waits for review a site that has clearly had a lot of personal attention given to it to make it stand out and makes it very easy for an editor to review is going to increase your chances no end. It is no guarantee of a quick listing but console yourself with the fact that a site that holds the interest of an editor will do the same for a potential customer, and that is going to help you without DMOZ.
Agreed! I usually leave those unreviewed and move on to the next one. Sometimes the designer is kind enough to provide a way to click past the flash; if they do that, I will review the site.
Oh, I hated flash intros, but I think what I hated most was waiting for a site to load only to find out the hold up was the loud annoying music that suddenly blasted me out of my seat.
I hated Flash sites as an editor, but I hate them just as much as a surfer. I cannot stand to be subjected, even for two seconds, to flying logos, pulsating thumbnails, and menu bars going around the window like a choo choo train. Funny thing is, as an editor, I forced myself to sit and wait for the page elements to settle, spring or glide into proper position. I felt it was my duty to be objective, and I shouldn't be penalizing Flash sites. Now that I am no longer an editor, I see Flash, and I am gone.
DMOZ seems even more hit and miss than it used to be. Its always a bonus but is no longer my first port of call
There are, I believe, many editors who will not install Flash onto their computers and will not therefore review such sites at all. These days I very rarely accept cookies unless I trust the site beforehand. I have noticed a few sites that will not work at all with cookies disabled. Had I still been an editor then there would be a few sites left unreviewed for that reason. My Google toolbar blocks popups too so any content on those is likely to be discounted as well.
Ooh, I got a red rep "clueless - cheerleader" for this thread. (sorry, just wet myself). Someone run tell an Admin, they might invite me back as a meta... To the clueless red repper ... the point of this thread is to give webmasters some ideas as to how editors think when it comes to reviewing sites. What makes them instantly list a site, and what makes them skip it and move on. For those who want a listing in DMOZ that is quite useful intelligence. For the morons who come and complain about their affiliate plagiarised 5 minutes of effort jobbies not being listed it is also useful intelligence.
What brizzie said. I'm thankful for an obvious "skip intro" on a flash site - why do I want to watch someone's idea of a "great" video (unless it's of a great looking horse jumping a difficult course - which it typically isn't )? I still remember one site that was so cool I read every single word - it was about an Andalusian horse breeder in Europe and the owner and his wife and their life. It was so full of details about the breed and colors and everything else that I emailed my mentor to share it with her. If every website captured my attention (and admiration) like this one, I would enjoy editing even more. I started this reply about three hours ago - then left for an appointment and came back - hopefully it'll post.
The out and out best site I ever came across was about fostering orphan marsupials, put up by a lovely lady volunteer on a free host site. Nothing fancy only excellent writing that kept me enthralled for hours. I even shed a tear at one story, but then I had probably just eaten the poor mite's mother (Skippy meat is lovely). A website that can do that deserves a listing. If you count the unrecorded edits then maybe I looked at 50,000+ websites in my time as an editor and that is the only one I can remember vividly like it was yesterday.
Any old page with 20 (in some case less) old naked pictures and many affiliate links. Those pages get listed fast, don't they?
Not according to you! According to you the webmaster has to be part of the inner circle doesn't she (or he)? So that wouldn't be a good idea for other webmasters wanting to get a listing.
The world is coming to the end when you start to claim that DMOZ editors are corrupt. Do you mean that those pages don't get listed fast because adult editors work extra hard on listings?
You obviously haven't noticed that the number of those sites listed has diminished by a third recently. But absolutely, the Adult branch has a long and dishonorable history of corruption, and as an editor you can see the numbers of removed Adult editors as undeniable evidence of that. When that branch diminishes by a further two thirds I'll be happy. But that is off topic isn't it. Those are not good listings.
Just wanted to add a couple more points to the list. 1. No matter how great your website is, you're wasting a lot of time if you don't submit it to the right category. I get a lot of submissions in my queue from non-English sites (these go in World). If you manufacture products, don't submit to Dealers-Retailers -- submit to Manufacturers. When I finally get around to reviewing your site, I just have to send it off to some other editor in some other category, and then you'll have to wait longer while that editor gets around to reviewing it. 2. More does not equal better. If you can concisely summarize what your website is about, it will be easier for me to read when I'm scanning a list of 150 submissions. A huge block of text crammed with keywords is not easy to read. I'm just going to edit out all that extraneous junk anyway. And by the way, exclamation points are entirely unecessary.
Description = what you do in one sentence (unless obvious from the category name) + what is on your site in one sentence (what are your page titles). So: Manufacturer of green widgets. Includes product information, customer testimonials, brochure download, and contact form. Easy.
Excellent example brizzie of a good description. I know I have seen a website somewhere that gave some more good examples by an editor but can't quite recall at the moment what site or which editor. If I think of it, I will post it here.
Look at the description example of this EX-DMOZ EDITOR Spirit Unlimited - Cheerleading and dance company providing competitions and instructional camps. Just guess who that person is.
As another example created for corruption: Sandiganbayan - Court specially created to eliminate graft and corruption practices or public offenders in the branches of government. Category
Popotalk - you weren't responsible for "Local swim club provides atmosphere of relaxation for the whole family" were you? I trust not - that's an example of a bad description! Spirit Unlimited - Cheerleading and dance company providing competitions and instructional camps. is only half the description. The rest is: Includes photos, information on coaches, FAQs, and employment opportunities.