I have submitted my website some 3 months back and it is still not listed in the ODP?
Should I submit it again or do I have to wait?

nau

>>How long does it take to get listed in Dmoz?

How long is a piece of string?

>>wait

Yes, if you havent seen the editors.dmoz.org referer in your logs, and your certain of the category, wait.

Nick

Dear Nick

Thanks but wat do you mean by 'the editors.dmoz.org referer in your logs'?

Well, you have a log right? like 'statistics' for your site?

If not, ask your host.

You can see who's been to your site by looking at your log file. If you see a line like the above, your site has been looked at by an editor, if it's not listed, it may have been moved, or considered not good enough to list.

You need to look at your logs b4 submitting again..

Nick

It is my understanding that if you are waiting in a queue for review and you submit again, you are moved to the end of the queue or the back of the line.

best thing to do is to submit and then forget about it. If you must check, wait at least 6 months and then start a threat at Resource Zone (http://resource-zone.com/) in the Site Submission Status inquiring about your submission. Editors are pretty quick to tell you something like, "It is still awaiting review," but at least you know.

I have had submissions that have been sitting going on three years now. I certainly would not hold your breath waiting.

It is my understanding that if you are waiting in a queue for review and you submit again, you are moved to the end of the queue or the back of the line.
First off, it's a pile not a queue. Editors work through the pile in any order they wish. For example, I cherry pick the ones that appear to have guidelines compliant descriptions first.

You're quite correct that resubmissions overwrite any earlier ones. If an editor is processing the pile in submission date order then, from the webmaster's point of view, resubmission was counter productive.

As to the original How long does it take to get listed in Dmoz? question, we don't know. A few submissions are processed in minutes. A few wait for a couple of years. Most are somewhere in between. It all depends upon when a volunteer volunteers to work in that area.

Thanks for that info jimnoble.

BTW while I have some submissions that have been waiting to be reviewed for going on three years, I have seen others reviewed as quick as a month or two. Depends on how active the editor is. remember they are all volunteers and are not obligated in any way to list your sites.

Last update: 6:41 PT, Saturday, April 3, 2004 - edit (http://www.dmoz.com/Recreation/Directories/)

And people wonder why it takes so long...

Hey Nau,

I have an answer to your question! When your 86th birthday comes around you will then be in DMOZ. It's that easy!

Sorry I couldn't resist, I'm amazed at how horrible that directory is. If anyone ran a business like that they would be out of business.

I've been trying to get in for 5 years.....woohoo.....still not in....woohoo....

>If anyone ran a business like that they would be out of business.
>I've been trying to get in for 5 years

In that case, perhaps you should ask for a refund.

>In that case, perhaps you should ask for a refund.

I think thats more for AOL subscribers/advertisers/stockholders to do, they are paying for "The Definitive Catalog of the Web". Some would suggest they are being short changed.

My view, I think that any organisation owes a duty of care to people/companies whose lives it impacts on.

I think that if everybody did what they said they were going to do the world would be a much better place.

"Just as the Oxford English Dictionary became the definitive word on words through the efforts of a volunteers, the Open Directory follows in its footsteps to become the definitive catalog of the Web."

The glove is thrown.

>My view, I think that any organisation owes a duty of care to people/companies whose lives it impacts on.
Couldn't of said it better myself! http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/images/icons/icon4.gif

>>How long does it take to get listed in Dmoz?
How long is a piece of string?
Is the correct answer :)

My view, I think that any organisation owes a duty of care to people/companies whose lives it impacts on.
I agree 100%. That is why people that submit to any of my several DMOZ cats, who post salesey, marketing lumps of doggie do-do really P me off!!

"Just as the Oxford English Dictionary became the definitive word on words through the efforts of a volunteers, the Open Directory follows in its footsteps to become the definitive catalog of the Web."
And here is where it gets interesting. A dictionary is lucky: each word gets in once. The only confusion surrounds slang. Bling bling is probably about due to get in, but what about older slang, like tubular?

A directory is way more subjective and confusing. Where do businesses that sell a product belong? In a location, or in a product cat? A directory starts and finishes as a semantic mess.

The word "catalog" implies, at least to me, that what is in their was worthy of cataloging. So many submitted sites are, quite frankly, rubbish sites submitted by people that "heard being listed in DMOZ was important to do well on Google." How many ways are their to say "I like Britney Spears", and why do we need 3,000 fan sites in DMOZ?

Just as department stores don't carry every item ever invented, neither should DMOZ list every site ever submitted. Your site may be about a topic that they have a category for, but the DMOZ cat may not need you, especially if you add absolutely nothing unique or original.

My $0.02.

A directory is way more subjective and confusing. Where do businesses that sell a product belong? In a location, or in a product cat? A directory starts and finishes as a semantic mess.

There should already be a system in place for dealing with these issues. It's not like this problem just surfaced last year. Pick one, pick both - do whatever. Make the decision.

How many ways are their to say "I like Britney Spears", and why do we need 3,000 fan sites in DMOZ?

Agree fully. You need 10 sites for Britney - pick the best ones. Get rid of the crappy ones that were accepted before Britney was popular. Set a limit (not necessarily 10) and stick to it.

Just as department stores don't carry every item ever invented, neither should DMOZ list every site ever submitted. Your site may be about a topic that they have a category for, but the DMOZ cat may not need you, especially if you add absolutely nothing unique or original.

Again, I agree. But I don't think that is the total issue here. I KNOW I have a unique site. I KNOW there are other sites that are also unique and original. Why should I suffer because there are too many Britney sites? Editors know what they are editing before they review - why review another Britney site, if 3,000 sites is enough?

Personally, I think the issue here is why are there categories that have not been edited in months (I posted one from April somewhere in this thread) and nothing is being done about it? Sure, I bet the poor ******* that gets that category that hasn't been edited since April is going to be swamped. Now the excuse is "There's not enough volunteers for the work". Start where the problem starts - when the "volunteers" are not doing a decent job, then replace them. We all know people sign up to be an editor just to get thier site into DMOZ. Maybe what happened here in this instance, maybe not. But don't sit there with your butt on your hands saying "It's too many Britney sites" - I do not accept that for an answer. Replace poor volunteers, skip over the spam sites, and get on to the good material we have worked so hard to create.

MHO

I KNOW I have a unique site. I KNOW there are other sites that are also unique and original.
So why not become an editor? Many people knock DMOZ as if it has to be better. If you think you could help, help.

Personally, I think the issue here is why are there categories that have not been edited in months...and nothing is being done about it? ...
Start where the problem starts - when the "volunteers" are not doing a decent job, then replace them....Replace poor volunteers, skip over the spam sites, and get on to the good material we have worked so hard to create.
The problem, IMHO, starts with people's expectations of DMOZ. It is a directory that aims to be the best and most comprehensive. It could be argued that, even given all its flaws, it still lives up to that goal.

The example given is exactly my point about expectations: this category was "Last update: 6:41 PT, Saturday, April 3, 2004" (http://www.dmoz.com/Recreation/Directories/) because it is a meta category, with no actual listings. http://www.dmoz.com/Recreation/Antiques/Directories/ and http://www.dmoz.com/Recreation/Humor/Directories/, both of which are symlinked from the cat posted, were both edited in August.

So, IMHO, the problem is expectation. You have posted a cat that needs no editting, pretty much ever, and have deduced from the fact it hasn't been editted in months that DMOZ is slow. This shows a misguided understanding and expectation of the role and process of a directory.

I understand peoples frustration with te way submittedf sites often wait in queues for years, but in most cases, I truly do not think users suffer. Most new categories and issues get updated pretty frequently, and only overdone categories tend to stagnate.

Perhaps if people better understood DMOZ then there would be less complaints. If anyone has an idea on how to acheive that, I am all ears :)

So why not become an editor? Many people knock DMOZ as if it has to be better. If you think you could help, help.

Because I am that kinda guy that will be an "Editor-for-a-day" so I can get my site listed, and that's about all you'd get outta me. You don't want me.


The problem, IMHO, starts with people's expectations of DMOZ. It is a directory that aims to be the best and most comprehensive. It could be argued that, even given all its flaws, it still lives up to that goal.


DMOZ is, in fact, the best directory there is, IMHO. Evidence? Look at the frustrated people who want to get their website into DMOZ. There are other directories where my site hasn't met thier criteria - think I was upset? Nope.


So, IMHO, the problem is expectation.

You are right. I expected to get my website into DMOZ within six months. It's not a spam site, not a Britney site, and DMOZ has nothing similar in content (granted I am slightly biased here). Buy my expectations are changing, that is for sure.

when the "volunteers" are not doing a decent job, then replace them I think you're talking about editors who don't do as much work as you'd like them to. Could you explain how an editor who doesn't appear to do much is somehow worse than no editor at all?

(Editors who do no work at all are timed out. Editors who are caught abusing the directory receive a visit from our fleet of black helicopters.)

then replace themWith whom? Applicants who can put together a credible application and chew gum at the same time are accepted. Existing category editors have no part in the decision which is made by the meta editors.

You're quite correct that resubmissions overwrite any earlier ones.
Really!? Doesn't that open a door for a saboteur? Consider this scenario: Let's say my competitor has a website, and I want to sabotage his attempts to get a DMOZ listing. All I have to do is wait until sometime after he submits his genuine description, and then submit his website myself, but badly, with misspellings, all-caps, promotional text, and other violations. My 'spam' submission will overwrite his real one, and best of all, he'll never know why he was rejected! This is amazing stuff.

Has this potential abuse ever occurred to anyone over at DMOZ, and if so, how is it prevented?

There are several flaws in your diabolical scheme Moriarty, but the main ones are these.

We don't decline to list websites merely because they've been submitted with poor titles and descriptions.
If we did, we'd list very few indeed[1]. Instead, if the website has useful and unique content that will add value to the directory, we cluck a little and then rewrite the description so that it conforms with our guidelines.

If your competitor's website isn't already in the pending pile, you'll have done him a favour :D .

[1] I suppose that in some 25,000 odd edits, I've been able to accept around 20-30 submitted descriptions without change

We don't decline to list websites merely because they've been submitted with poor titles and descriptions.


Well why the hell not? If that idiot can't spell his own website correctly, why do the work for him? Reject it, and get onto the good stuff - again, IMO.

I just think the whole process needs to be streamlined for better productivity.

Yeah, but Jim, supposing I submit a spam submission for mycompetitor.com every week, thereby continually pushing him to the bottom of the pile. Or why stop there? I could write a cron job that submits it thrice daily, to multiple inappropriate categories even.

I think you're saying that it wouldn't be a problem, because a DMOZ editor could have a peek at the bottom of the pile, visit the site, write an appropriate title and description, move it to the proper category, and purge all the spam submissions. Well, yeah, no doubt that he could. So my nefarious scheme isn't foolproof. But it would tend to harm, rather than help, my competitor, would it not?

Just to clarify, I of course would never contemplate really doing this. But I am wondering if this kind of abuse ever happens at DMOZ, and what is done to detect and prevent it. Has there ever been a thread about it in the ODP forum?

what is done to detect and prevent it
You won't be surprised if I decline to answer that will you :) ?

>Applicants who can put together a credible application and chew gum at the same time are accepted.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure.

>Existing category editors have no part in the decision which is made by the meta editors.

Me I'd be thinking of changing the system, I don't think it is working. Pulling exsisting cat editors into the process would be a a good move imho, they know their area, let them see the potential [if you added an "about me" section to the app] that a meta maybe couldn't. They can then knock off the rough edges [micro] while the metas concentrate on the macro stuff.

>With whom?

Most organisations faced with a shortage of staff at least consider a recruitment drive, maybe DMOZ should. Ask and you shall recieve.

>You won't be surprised if I decline to answer that will you

I'm not, I know the answer, so do you. Not good enough is it?

[ODP] don't decline to list websites merely because they've been submitted with poor titles and descriptions.

Well why the hell not? If that idiot can't spell his own website correctly, why do the work for him?

Because ODP editors are paid ;) to assess web sites, not applications. A bad application may delay processing, as would a submission to the wrong category :rolleyes: but if the site is good, and appropriate for the category, it should (and will) get listed.

Well why the hell not? If that idiot can't spell his own website correctly, why do the work for him? Reject it, and get onto the good stuff - again, IMO.


Not everyone who submits a site is associated with the site. If i find a good site that’s not already listed i will submit it.

If i see a badly written description it can be annoying, especially if i’m stuck for time., but if the site is quality then it gets added. I often make minor changes to even good submissions so the category keeps to a certain style.

I think its important to remember this from the submission guidelines
“Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed.”

IMO, anyone whos livelihood depends ODP submissions should probably consider a different career or at least learn some more effective promotional techniques.

“Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed.”

As far as I'm concerned this is like ruling with an IRON FIST. YOU determine what and if someone should make it. Sorry but this pompous an attitude is a cancer on DMOZ.

I only hope to see this directory become non-existent in the future. You don't serve the web community you serve yourselves with whatever moves you at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned this is like ruling with an IRON FIST. YOU determine what and if someone should make it. Sorry but this pompous an attitude is a cancer on DMOZ.

I only hope to see this directory become non-existent in the future. You don't serve the web community you serve yourselves with whatever moves you at the moment.
Iron fist? :D What's the alternative to editors deciding what’s best? Do you recommend editors simply add every site submitted, regardless of uniqueness and quality or just automate the whole process.

I think if your going to index the web then you need to index the web. Not pick and choose. I can go through DMOZ and pick apart many of the sites that presently exist and point out why they shouldn't be there. There's too much room for personal interpretation in the DMOZ rules.

I think if your going to index the web then you need to index the web. Not pick and choose. I can go through DMOZ and pick apart many of the sites that presently exist and point out why they shouldn't be there. There's too much room for personal interpretation in the DMOZ rules.The Open Directory has never stated a wish to "index the web" 0- that's what Search Engines do, and you'd need a robot to cover it all.

The whole point about having a human directory is the ability to "pick and choose". Of course the standard vaies from editor to editor; they're human, and the editors' guidelines are no more than that.

But if you think about it, the variation of standards within ODP is really pretty small in the Scheme Of Things; yes, if you look hard enough, you'll find some glaing examples - but in general, it's pretty tight.

And as any One Person will be inconsistent from day to day, keeping a good few thousand with the current level of consistency is pretty much an achievement.

But I know you won't agree. So don't worry about it; you don't need to listed in ODP, no-one does; and you certainly don't need to use ODP (few do). So if it upsets you; look elsewhere; there's plenty of other directories out there, and many have looser rules than ODP.

But ODP makes no secret of it's rules and policies; your concerns about Iron Fist suggests it's wrong to have rules, then you criticise them for too much interpretation? So what is the problem?

Back to the title of the post - I just had a friend's blog who took 48 hours to get listed at DMOZ. It seems ridiculous, but he submitted it on Tues. and I just saw it in their list. Incredible.

I'm an editor at DMOZ and I don't think I've ever gotten someone in within 48 hours (of course, my cats only get a new submission every week or two).

Vrey strange though, I know there must be thousands of blogs in line to be listed, I wonder why he was favored?

If it was a topical blog, it must have had plenty of content and seemed very appropriate for the category and had a title and description that didn't need a lot of rewriting.

Seriously, waiting to get into DMOZ is like waiting for a Google PR update. THe only difference being getting into DMOZ will "probably help your site a little more". Speaking as one of those people who did not submit yet another Brittney site, and still awaiting the listing to appear in DMOZ - I have taken the same approach as the G PR update - just don't worry about it. Your online business can and will suceed without being listed in DMOZ. We are averaging roughly 300 unique hits a day - without being in DMOZ (and a G PR of zero).

>>How long does it take to get listed in Dmoz?

Actually if you are willing to put in a little extra time, getting in listed in "some" dmoz categories can be really fast. Just sign up to be an editor of a not so highly edited category, and you can control how quickly links go up or down in that category, because you create them.

Adam

Just sign up to be an editor of a not so highly edited category, and you can control how quickly links go up or down in that category, because you create them.
Adam
With all due respect......It sounds like a major abuse of power and a directory to me. That shouldn't be allowed.

With all due respect......It sounds like a major abuse of power and a directory to me. That shouldn't be allowed.

To become an editor for a specific area you have to be knowledgeable about the area. I am not suggesting that the only reason you would become an editor is to get listed, but since you are probably an expert in your industry, who better to become an editor for the category. It's a time commitment.

Adam

99% of all complaints relating to Dmoz are from people who have submitted their site for seo purposes, to get their site listed into the Google directory, maybe pick up some extra backlinks from a few Dmoz clones out there and to get a few links from trustworthy sites.

Dmoz are not interested in anyway with your rankings – they want to build a reputable directory of sites. While there is this difference there will always be the complaint threads, I think that there will always be this problem until they start to except paid for listings (I know its been said thousands of times before).

Just my two cents.

Oh yeah, the other 1% are disgruntled X editors ;)