We tried to get listed into DMOZ for 2 year with no success. Our site has a PR of 5 and is ranked under 100.000 in Alex.
Anyone has any ideas??

Our site :
http://www.promgirl.net

We no longer give status reports, so I won't discuss your particular website.

I will point out something that you might not be aware of though. Every time a website is resubmitted to a category, it overwrites any previous submission to the same category. This can be counter productive if a passing editor works the pool of submissions in date order but doesn't have the opportunity to complete the job.

There should never be a need to suggest a website more than once. Accidents and errors can happen though, so a second submission some time later can act as a safety net. More than that is pointless.

I suggest that you concentrate on other means of promoting your website and forget about ODP. If your site is listable, it will be listed in time.

sorsonel, many people have been reporting about the same problems as you with ODP for a long time. It just seems that ODP is a dying fish, if you ask me. On top of that the value of being listed in ODP these days is "questionable".

ODP tells you to waite, "it will be listed in time..." I guess you feel the same way I do: They had 2 years now - how much time do they need?!? If it takes ODP more than 2 years to list a simple website then it has no value to me - and I guess the same goes for many others. Forget about ODP and move on to something better ...

You're both right and I did move to other issues with respect to promoting the site. However, I want to point out that for a commercial site, competitors listed in DMOZ have an unfair advantage because the listing is picked up automatically by hundreds if not thousands of directories. Therefore, or you make DMOZ noncommercial only, or you include all commercial site and you charge them $20 revision fees to cover all expenses to hire dedicated reviewers.

The best thing to do is submit and move on. ODP listing is not the end all for rankings. Eventually they will get to it and you will see some referrals in the server logs - then rejoice. It just is not worth worrying about for 2 years.

Therefore, or you make DMOZ noncommercial only, or you include all commercial site and you charge them $20 revision fees to cover all expenses to hire dedicated reviewers.

sorsonel, you may wish that but don't hold your breath - I am åretty sure that won't happen ...


competitors listed in DMOZ have an unfair advantage because the listing is picked up automatically by hundreds if not thousands of directories

Take a closer look at this thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?threadid=6642) - as it turns out all these clones may not have much value anymore ...

Can I ask what you base this on:
It just seems that ODP is a dying fish

DMOZ lists over 4.6 million sites - no other directory comes remotely close to that.
DMOZ lists between 1000-2000 sites a day - no other directory comes remotely close to that.

How does that equate to a "dying fish" - I thinks its an awesome achievement - no one has come close to matcing it!

If it takes ODP more than 2 years to list a simple website then it has no value to me
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that DMOZ is some sort of listing service?

None of the things you mention (PR, Aelxa, etc) are relevant when considering a site for inclusion and you did not provide any details about the submission itself.

Did you submit to a category that has an editor? When I got my category (early this year) it had about 220 requests in the queue, some dating from 2002. It takes along time to work through these when you are a part-time volunteer who does not get in there regularly. There is nothing that can be done about it since there are more categories than editors.

Was your description concise and hype free? If not, the editor must go to your site, figure out what you're all about and then write it for you. Or, the editor can put you on hold, move on to submissions that are easier to process and come back to your site later. Believe me, with all the hype on Websites it is not easy to distill the main points into one sentence. It is more productive to leave such sites in the queue and move on to others that can be processed quickly.

Did you submit to the right category? If you are in the wrong category then you will most likely be transferred by the editor to his/her best guess of where you belong. There you will wait until that editor gets to you. If you get transferred to a category with no editor then it could be a while before someone works the submissions in that category. It might seem self evident to you that you are in the correct place but editors make trasfers all the time because of this.

As for your site, I don't see anything about it that would cause it to be rejected (although prom dresses are not my area). The three factors above can slow down the process and as jimnoble said, you might have inadvertantly extended the delay by resubmitting.

However, I want to point out that for a commercial site, competitors listed in DMOZ have an unfair advantage because the listing is picked up automatically by hundreds if not thousands of directories. Therefore, or you make DMOZ noncommercial only, or you include all commercial site and you charge them $20 revision fees to cover all expenses to hire dedicated reviewers.
I (almost) don't know where to start with this comment :)

Firstly, why should DMOZ goal be to create a fair playing field for commercial sites? Since when has that been their charter?

Secondly, why should the delays be reason to charge? Why, again, should DMOZ care?

I think DMOZ don't do as good a job as they could, but really, your concerns are not DMOZ's cocerns, and to dictate how they do and do not do whatever they do or do not do is unfair.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that DMOZ is some sort of listing service?


I know perfectly well what dMoz is. A directory. And if it takes a directory over 2 years to list new sites it surely have some serious problems. On top of that we have sites that should be listed, but never gets in, editors that apprently are more focused on their own sites than the quality of dMoz not to speak of the reduced value of actually being in the index if you finaly makes it. You have probable seen all the discussions and reports over the past couple of years. dMoz used to be a key element in solid SEO - it's not anymore.

if it takes a directory over 2 years to list new sites
"list new sites" --> you are mistaken in your belief about DMOZ being a listing service!!!

I think with the current rate of backlog, the responsible thing for the ODP to do, would be to turn off the submit feature. In fact, given the history of the ODP, eliminating the suggest a site feature “forever” may be a good thing. This would allow them to put their house in order, and allow editors to fully concentrate on the quality of the listings, and eliminate many time consuming spam issues.

If dMoz is not a directory that list websites then I don't know what it is. And as such, if dMoz can't handle that I don't find it very usefull - as a webmaster or a user. I really don't understand how anyone could argue that a web-directory has nothing to do with listing websites. That is exactly what it does - and when it dosn't it's dead, in my mind.

Remind you, as one of the very few in here I actually did use to manage one major directory - the biggest in Scandinavia. So I do in fact know quite a bit about how to manage such and what exactly the internal and external metrics are for it's survival.

I think Mikkel, what cbp is saying is all about semantices. DMOZ don't take "submissions", they allow you to make no guarantees, no steak knife thrown in, "suggestions" that they are then free to ignore or not.

DMOZ is not ".. a listing service!!!", i.e. a directory designed to review and list sites, but a directory in which editors choose the "best" sites. They select these sites via a combination of public "suggestions" and their own travels around the web,a nd the suggestion "pool" is in no way the preferred method of listing sites, and no site in teh "pool" should be or need be reviewed ever, or in any order.

Further, DMOZ's current paradigm is that they have no responsibility to the "suggester". They take suggestions, and do as they please. It is like China's new Communism; a re-interpretation of goals and beliefs, in part, to fit the way things are with past goals, and also to absolve oneself of resonsibility.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO (although I am sure my blunt tone will cause consternation), and we all have to simply accept the reality that DMOZ is what it is right now (a place with bazillions of listings waiting approval that is philosophically unaligned to helping webmasters) and simply move on.

>you are mistaken in your belief about DMOZ being a listing service!!!

And I quote;

"We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement."

http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement.
Obviously, the bolded bit is a pretty good way out ;)

I believe there is a difference between a "listing service" and a "listing". "Service" specifically implies that you are doing this at the request or order of someone else.

I think it would be better to think of DMOZ as if it was the "links" page on someones website, rather than a directory in the traditional sense.

They put what they want there, because it's their site and their reputation, and although you can offer suggestions, they can add or ignore as they see fit - kind of like how I run my own website, but on a much larger scale.

As a matter of fact, I'm a LOT more picky about who I link to on my site than DMOZ is...

Ian

Think of it as a library. The librarians, not the authors, decide what to put on the shelves. If an author dumps a box of books at the front door it doesn't mean that they get put on the shelves, but if they're good books the librarians might consider displaying them :)

Yes, and the problem is if it takes the libraries over 2 years to include the good books that people are seeking. It makes it a bad library for many.

Yes, and the problem is if it takes the libraries over 2 years to include the good books that people are seeking. It makes it a bad library for many.

Well said Mikkel.

You can only take any analogy so far and then it doesn't work :)

The difference being that a librarian may be responsible for the whole library, whereas each ODP editor is only responsible for the sections where they have an interest.

Personally (and this is only anecdotal) I find that most of the people who are looking for information about why their site hasn't been listed are involved in some type of commercial endeavour, and a good chunk of the ODP editors are editing in non-commercial categories. Hence, those people looking to get listed are going to wait for a while. People just aren't interested in editing in commercial areas. It's not as much fun. (I know that someone is going to jump all over that comment - "Fun! Fun! Why are you people having fun?! I have a family to feed and you people can't list my site because it isn't fun! Sheesh! You ODP editors are lazy!")

There are certainly a lot of editors in commercial type categories, but I suspect that if someone actually looked at the numbers, that the majority of the editors are in somewhat non-commercial categories. When I look at new editor applications they do come from various types of people, but a lot of them are in categories like Recreation, Regional, Art, or Society. Many more these days are in World categories, which is nice to see. People sign up because the category is connected to their hobby, or they want to add sites for the town where they live. I think people would be surprised to see how few people actually sign up because they are commercial web site owners who are trying to get a site listed. That doesn't happen as much as people think. Web site owners are probably too busy (or should be) working on their business to become editors.

It's interesting that you hardly ever see people asking why their hobbyist knitting sites or personal homepages haven't been listed yet :)

I often find that the arguments and ODP flame threads tend to get started because people are coming at the issues from very, very different perspectives. One group is looking at the ODP in comparison to the other directories, and those people have an expectation of getting something in a certain amount of time. I can understand that, but that's not how it works. The other group comes to it from the point of view of someone who is in it because it's an interesting hobby. Those people are just trying to build a directory by adding sites that they find from numerous sources, with the suggested site pool being just one of those sources. It's not the way some people would like the ODP to work, but as has been said many times before, people are very welcome to go out and build their own directory.

Don't take my comments as the final say on all things ODP. I'm just one editor and I'm not the ODP spokesperson. This is just my point of view.

Yes, I know where you are coming from,

However, how do you keep things up to date, fresh, relevant and forward thinking when there are sites that have been listed for years, and haven't been updated since 1999, yet dmoz cannot perhaps due to volunteer constrictions, list new and more relevant sites for up to 2 years after submission in a particular category ?

I guess its the same, analogy wise, as having the 'Rough Guide to the Internet 1999' still included there, because it is a good guide and no-one can say it wasn't helpful within it's context , yet not getting round to listing the 'Rough Guide to the Internet 2005' until 2007 ?

However you look at it, it's not really beneficial to the end user. Neither will be relevant.

I'm just one editor and I'm not the ODP spokesperson.
Well mate, you @$%#@$# well should be!! Every time you post something, the two camps come loser together. You never apologise or make excuses, and always present the ODP position in a thoughtful and compelling manner. I wish I could say the same for some others, who seem to like throwing petrol and anything else flamable they can find onto the flames...

I often find that the arguments and ODP flame threads tend to get started because people are coming at the issues from very, very different perspectives
I agree, but unfortunately, that doesn't absolve DMOZ of responsibility in those threads. Stick with me. If people "... started from a different point of view" to Quote Zimmerman, the only solution is to put oneself in the other's shoes to understand their position.

Assumming that the DMOZ flames cause consternation in some insiders (and the evidence is strong it does), then the best way to make that go away is to understand the mythical "webmaster position", and see what can be done to help bring them in line with DMOZ goals and priorities, and what changes can be made to address this issue. That isn't pandering to webmasters, but rather is making for a better DMOZ product and smoother operation.

To me, that starts with avoiding the semantic rubbish like "not a listing service" and actually conversing with webmasters in their language or not at all.

IMHO, one can't, in any endeavour in life, persuade anyone else by obfuscating what they mean behind semantically opposed language and clique jargon.

My $0.02.

Well mate, you @$%#@$# well should be!! Every time you post something, the two camps come loser together. You never apologise or make excuses, and always present the ODP position in a thoughtful and compelling manner. I wish I could say the same for some others, who seem to like throwing petrol and anything else flamable they can find onto the flames...
Believe me, I get criticized for my style. I tend to be of the "innocent until proved guilty" camp, whereas some people tend to be of the "guilty by association" camp. That's the way of the world.

... the only solution is to put oneself in the other's shoes to understand their position.
I wear those shoes every day. I'm a web developer who works for a large marketing agency. I understand where web site owners are coming from, but I come from a different school of thought where we build a good quality product and advertise it properly. I can't imagine any of our clients waiting for an ODP listing, or even a good PR in Google to sell their product. I understand that many people do rely on those things, but should they be?

Assumming that the DMOZ flames cause consternation in some insiders (and the evidence is strong it does), then the best way to make that go away is to understand the mythical "webmaster position", and see what can be done to help bring them in line with DMOZ goals and priorities, and what changes can be made to address this issue. That isn't pandering to webmasters, but rather is making for a better DMOZ product and smoother operation.
I understand your point, but do you really think that after all this time that we've been having these discussions that the ODP is really going to change that much? And why would the ODP want to understand the webmaster position? What's in it for the ODP? I don't want that to sound harsh, but it's true. The ODP is not sitting around waiting for web site owners to submit their web sites to the directory. If they have a good product and/or a good web site, some editor is going to hear about it and add it to the directory. If the ODP was working the way it should, the general population would be hearing about these web sites and they would be suggesting them to the ODP.

That's not to say that input from the web development community isn't important, it's just that we never seem to be able to see it from the other's perspective. We always end up in these same negative discussions. :)

I honestly think that if enough people were truly upset with he status quo of the ODP that someone would have come along by now and built a better directory. It's funny that in our "build it bigger, build it better" culture no one has come along and taken up that challenge. I would think that if someone built a better directory, Google would snap up the data in an instant.

To me, that starts with avoiding the semantic rubbish like "not a listing service" and actually conversing with webmasters in their language or not at all.
But how do we convince web masters that the ODP is not a listing service? I can understand why people view the ODP the same as Yahoo! or any other directory, but I really don't think it is. Maybe it once was, and maybe it should be again, but until things change I really don't think that in it's current configuration it's a listing service. To me it's just a big community of people who want to build a directory of data to give out to anyone who wants to use it. Maybe we need to change the documentation to state that more clearly.

However, how do you keep things up to date, fresh, relevant and forward thinking when there are sites that have been listed for years, and haven't been updated since 1999, yet dmoz cannot perhaps due to volunteer constrictions, list new and more relevant sites for up to 2 years after submission in a particular category ?
Have you volunteered some time to update those out of date categories? Remember that in the long run, the ODP is a bunch of people, not a big mindless machine. Those categories won't be updated if no one is interested in the topic. "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" :)

And why would the ODP want to understand the webmaster position? What's in it for the ODP?
Better PR, less complaints (not none but less), smaller pools (see, I used your word and not queues?) and a host of other benefits.

Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about changing anything except the attitude. Webmasters as enemies, which is the impression many editors create, is surely a worse repsonse than trying to understand another's position and see what can be done to meet them, if not half way, then at least in a palce both understand and can respect.

But how do we convince web masters that the ODP is not a listing service?
As I said, you start by not using that term :) The first step any marketer undertakes is to speak in the language of the people being spoken too. They are not cell phones in Australia, they are mobiles or mobile phones.

It may just seem like a "say po-tay-toe I say po-tar-toe" stuff, but it makes a huge difference.

Sure, you can argue webmasters may not be customers, that the ODP may not even have any, but if you want to convince webmasters of something,heck, of anything, speak their language. Don't use a term like "listing service" that means one thing to webmasters and something different to the ODP. I don't even understand the context in which that term is used, nor have i seen a definition in this context.

And that is the problem, a one word / phrase / term argument, e.g. "DMOZ is not a listing service" means nothing unless that one phrase is understood to mean the same thing by all parties.

So rather than assumming that phrase has some sort of mystical power to end an argument, or indeed to help in anyway, perhaps we can consider another way to make the same point that makes sense to all sides.

Maybe we need to change the documentation to state that more clearly.
Probably is more apt, I would say ;) The Internet has changed A LOT since that stuff was written. Heck, Portals came, went, and came again since that stuff was written. I don't think a relook at some of that stuff is outrageously controversial. May even be worth having a section to point webmasters too that speaks their language ;)

May even be worth having a section to point webmasters too that speaks their language ;)
I would donate my time to write it :)

I'm not sure that communication between the two groups is every going to be simple.

I find that web site owners are looking for the ODP to be something that it's not. People are looking for a way to submit web sites and have them listed in a certain amount of time, with titles and descriptions that they supply. This probably isn't going to happen. That's not what the ODP is all about. How best should this be communicated? Doesn't the Suggest a URL page already say this? How could it be said better so that people will understand it?

Personally, I would put big red text at the top of the Suggest a URL page that says "Thank you for helping us build the directory. Enter your suggestion below and someone will look at it, and maybe add it to the directory if it fits our guidelines. We make no guarantees as to if or when it will be added. We will probably re-write the title and description, but go ahead and fill them so that we have an idea of what we're looking at." And after you hit the submit button we would come back with some more red text that says "Thanks again. Now go and get on with your life. If you are the owner of the web site that you just suggested, continue to market your web site, but don't make an ODP listing part of your marketing plan. Have a good day."

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Do you think that would work? :)

I'm probably not the best person to discuss these issues. I have my own opinions as to how I think the ODP works, and those might not be how it really does work. I don't want to lead anyone on into thinking that I have any say in the matter. I'm usually not even that interested in getting into these discussions, because they tend to go badly, and I don't have the patience or the energy. My usually answer is always going to be that the ODP isn't a listing service, and if you're not happy with the way it works, you're free to build a better directory :)

"I'm not sure that communication between the two groups is every going to be simple.

I find that web site owners are looking for the ODP to be something that it's not."

You're a directory luv, you ask people to take the time to submit sites to it, you can't deal with the amount of submissions you get, and in a lot of areas, cannot list them in a timely manner based on what anyone expects in the year 2005.

You are a directory, it's time you made up your mind if :

1) it's better to get rid of the 'submit a site' button. It's just asking for allcomers to submit any old tat. If you ask for anyone to submit a site, then you're going to get 'anyone' submitting what they consider to be 'a website'. ($1 hosting, ad-words and such)

2) Perhaps you need to recruit lots and lots more editors and FAST to deal with the amount of submissions, and the backlog the 'submit a site' button makes for you.

3) Reign in certain editors who get too involved in the politics, whose names are widely known and are giving Dmoz a bad name and jumping on any forum out there, far too defensively despite the intentions of the person posting a question.

Then maybe you can get on with building Dmoz ?

I seem to be going between threads alternately bashing the ODP in one and defending them in another, but frankly that's probably more of a statement about the ODP than me ;)

This one is more on the defending side. Or perhaps clarifying would be more appropriate.

Let me ask 3 questions:

1) Can you have more than one great site that offers essentially the same information or experience?

2) If you can, at what point does adding another great site that contains the same information and experience stop offering the visitor useful help? 10? 100? 1000? At what point does the visitor stop checking each site in the list, regardless of the quality of the sites?

3) Once that number of sites about the topic are in a directory, what possible use is it to add more? Wouldn't it be better to spend time and energy filling up areas where there is a dirth of sites?

I think the problem is that there is a misconception that ODP is a listing service, but I'll go against the traditional flow on the rest of the claim.

I think the problem is not that the webmasters think of it as a listing service, but that the search engines do - at least, in practice. If ODP was treated like any other directory by search engines then none of these discussions would be happening.

The question you should be asking is "why is Google treating the ODP as a listing service"? The webmasters are guilty only of understanding this. The reason most of these discussions are not going anywhere is because people are complaining to the wrong party.

If tomorrow Google started treating *my* directory as the uber-source, then (after I redesigned the submission system to take care of my early retirement ;) ) I'd be forwarding complaints about people not getting their listings directly to the company responsible for their unreasonable expectations in the first place - Google.

Ian

How best should this be communicated?
Quite frankly, that post is an excellent start! As I said, you do a very good job Donald. Many others do not.

The "best" way to communicate one's position is to speak to the other person in their langauge. Many people who jump in about the ODP try to defend the indefensible, and use langauge that obfuscates. Stop the defensive annoyance, and try understanding where the frustration comes from, and you are three quarters there.

I'm not sure that communication between the two groups is every going to be simple.
Personally, I remain unconvinced there are two groups, but for the sake of argument will accept this line of reasoning.

You are right, that the ODP and link builders (probably a better term) will always be a tricky one. But the battle in the world, wider than just this topic, is not how to convince the extremists, but how to influence the moderate fence sitters. For every aquestionoftime with a DMOZ gripe, there are many who aren't as extreme who are increasingly moving to teh DMOZ hating camp.

The ODP is, almost universally on forums, a place that has seen a large number of people drift from understanding DMOZ position to annoyed. Reeling those people back is the best way forward IMHO.

How to do that is a tough question but really, the current approach isn't working great.

My $0.02.

we have had fairly good success getting web sites (about 30 or so, could be more) listed into the regions of Australia over the past 3-6 or so months.

nice to see that the editors are active in that region again, as there was a bit of down-time for quite a while there. :)

probably think they get sick of submissions that are coming in from dave@ & jimmy@ heh! even though all our sites are quality SME's.

i think it's probably just a matter of where ya submitting if your going to get listed anytime soon, as granted in some particular areas we have been waiting on websites for quite a while also.

i should hope over 5 years of quality submissions that we have built up a good rapport with some of the editors in this region though.

:)

Just a thought, but apparently that category has been edited recently according to the date at the bottom. However - imho it's possible that whoever edits may not have had the time to double-check whois information or may have assumed that the site is already in there because there's another site -

www.promgirl.com - not net - which also has another site, same niche

that does have a listing, so the site title would look exactly the same, just as though the site was already listed - even though it's a different one with different whois info.

re: turn off submissions.

It's been decided that that won't happen except in a few select areas of the directory where nothing would be listed anyhow. The rest of the time, it's been decided that editors are not going to be cuffed to the submission queues, given freedom only if the queues are empty.

"re: turn off submissions.

It's been decided that that won't happen except in a few select areas of the directory"

Decided by 'whom exactly', I'd love to know... (I'm all ears as to who exactly makes these decisions, do tell ?)

<snip>

Your characterization of my posts (that is, if I'm reading you correctly) seems pretty far off.

As for who decides, do you have any idea how ODP is set up? I sense that you haven't done enough homework to be treated as any sort of expert in here about DMOZ matters.

Focusing on the original topic and the dilemma of the person who started this thread, isn't it possible that it can be a problem that there may be sites submitted that have the same site name as another already in the category, and that it could cause some confusion?

1) it's better to get rid of the 'submit a site' button. It's just asking for allcomers to submit any old tat. If you ask for anyone to submit a site, then you're going to get 'anyone' submitting what they consider to be 'a website'. ($1 hosting, ad-words and such)
Not 100% true. I know it's a matter of semantics, and I know we've had this discussion before, but the ODP isn't actually asking people to submit sites. The ODP is giving people the opportunity to suggest web sites to help us build the directory. I know that there's a fine line there, but I think that's part of the problem with why there are misunderstandings about the nature of the ODP. We all perceive these things in different ways.

2) Perhaps you need to recruit lots and lots more editors and FAST to deal with the amount of submissions, and the backlog the 'submit a site' button makes for you.
I've posted stats before in other forums, but I'll mention again that we have no lack of new editors. I know that we have months where we have 50-100 new editors. Getting people to edit is not an issue for us. We have lots of people who want to edit.

It seems to me that the problems arise when the editors don't edit in the categories that you would like them to edit in. Nothing we can do about that my friend. People edit where they want to edit and that's the way the system works. It's a very free flowing, organic structure where people do the work in the areas where they have an interest. Again, this is where people misunderstand what the ODP is all about. If we were a directory like the others we would be assigning work to the editors (and we would probably be paying them), but that's just not what the ODP is about. People volunteer to help build their little piece of the directory. We appreciate all the help we can get. Eventually someone is going to volunteer to edit that little corner of the directory that you want them to edit, but it might not happen in the time frame that you would like. Go to Yahoo! for that service :)

3) Reign in certain editors who get too involved in the politics, whose names are widely known and are giving Dmoz a bad name and jumping on any forum out there, far too defensively despite the intentions of the person posting a question.
I understand your frustration with that situation. It's no secret within the community that I have been frustrated with the communication style of some editors, but it's beyond my control as I'm just one small cog in the wheel. I don't think that we want to mandate how people communicate in outside forums. That would be pretty hard to enforce. And where do you draw the line? What I might see as rude and/or arrogant, someone else perceives as honest and straight-forward. People have different communication styles. Sometimes you have to step back and re-read those posts a couple of times to see that there is actually very useful information underneath. People often take posts too personally. On the other hand, editors often forget that not everyone speaks colloquial English and has a good grasp of the concept of sarcasm. That's an issue that drives me crazy no matter what type of on-line forum you are in :)

Then maybe you can get on with building Dmoz
We never stop. It's an ongoing process. Thousands of sites are added to the ODP every day.

Focusing on the original topic and the dilemma of the person who started this thread...
I actually had to go back and see what this thread was supposed to be about :)

Isn't Promgirl already listed as promgirl.com? Promgirl.com and Promgirl.net are the same company aren't they? I just assumed that they were the same company since they have very similar phone numbers. Maybe not. If not, then I could see another editor making the same assumption and maybe not listing it. A Google search on the phone number actually turns up quite a few similar sites with the same numbers. Hmmm - interesting. This is why I tend to stay away from Shopping categories - too complicated for my little brain.

...isn't it possible that it can be a problem that there may be sites submitted that have the same site name as another already in the category, and that it could cause some confusion?
This could definitely be a problem. I've mistakenly listed a company twice in the same category - the title was the same, but with a slightly different URL - I didn't notice it at the time because I didn't look through the category before I listed it. I eventually caught it, but it certainly happens. Hopefully, if I miss something like this, one of the other editors will spot it and fix it for me. Or in a perfect world a non-editor will submit an update notification to let us know that there is a duplicate listing in the category :)

I actually had to go back and see what this thread was supposed to be aboutLOL... that is par for the course, happens all the time. :)

Isn't Promgirl already listed as promgirl.com?Donald, promgirl.com is listed as Prom Girl as the title - but the whois isn't the same as the promgirl.net site. When I saw that I figured just maybe there could have been confusion over it. especially it isn't a huge category and was just recently edited. And for the merchant it could be a confusing branding issue as well.

I also went hunting because I thought I saw that the other site had some footer links to a second similar site when I first went poking around that were gone when I looked again. I wanted to hunt around a little more about the other one. Don't know if I was seeing things - maybe I dreamed it, it is possible. ;)

Also getting back to the original poster, she/he could lose a LOT of type-in traffic to the .com - in his/her place I'd think about making a bit of a change for clearer branding to avoid that.

I'm not the ODP spokesperson. This is just my point of view.
I can appreciate that as well as your even handed and helpful comments. But who IS the spokesperson. Who is at the top of the ODP these days? Who is the editor in chief?

Why would the ODP want to understand the webmaster position? What's in it for the ODP? I don't want that to sound harsh, but it's true.
You'd want to understand because it's your job. It was why you were born.

The ODP owes its existence to the fact that webmasters wanted to get listed in Yahoo, but Yahoo took forever to do things. Like sometimes up to two years. This entire thread shows that big fat wheel spinning around. Blogs are the new home pages, search engines like Google are becoming portals, so it's a further confirmation that it's 1998 again. And I suspect the now that the ODP has firmly taken over the non-responsive role that Yahoo had, someone else will come along with a new plan to categorize web sites.

Commercial sites, sites with a webmaster's interest -- these don't deserve to be ignored but by that virtue. Plenty of these are good sites. Webmasters can be faulted for not knowing how to submit properly. Webmasters certainly can get frustrated and express themselves badly, as if it's all about "their" interest rather than the web's interest that they are listed. And I know opening a conversation with someone you've rejected is generally a losing battle.

Solution? Either complete reform the existing system or at least get rid of the submit button. Honestly, just dump it as was suggested above. Forget the big red text message. Dump the submit button and just say, "We'll list you if we list you" and leave it at that.

If we were a directory like the others we would be assigning work to the editors (and we would probably be paying them), but that's just not what the ODP is about. People volunteer to help build their little piece of the directory. We appreciate all the help we can get. Eventually someone is going to volunteer to edit that little corner of the directory that you want them to edit, but it might not happen in the time frame that you would like. Go to Yahoo! for that service
Like what others? There are no significant others. You're it. Yahoo barely has a visible directory these days. Certainly no one else is significant to any size or reach in the way the OPD is, much less paying others.

As for editors not edit but what they want, hire some more editors and make them work these unattended areas as a way to earn their way into more attractive sections. The OPD is nearly 10 years old! If these areas haven't been attended to yet, why would you think some miracle is going to cause people to come along in the next year and pick them up.

Honestly, the circle turning business is driving me nuts. Here's a thought. Snap used to have editors, back when it was a directory, back in the grand age of directories in 1999. For unattended areas, anyone was able to submit. But editor reviewed stuff came first. If things are being ignored, perhaps open them up.

I suspect the reality is that the OPD needs to massively condense or just is dying ember of the days when directories mattered more. Let me tell you, when you've got webmasters telling webmasters to move on and not to bother, that's a sure sign that the resource itself isn't seen as valuable. You never hear people complaining they aren't doing well in Lycos, a former giant of search. Doesn't matter, any more. People still worry about the OPD, but a lot more people are happy to tell them to get on with other things, myself included.

So sorsonel, as others have said, move on. No, it's probably not fair that you don't get listed while other sites that are probably equal to you are. But as the Yahoo editor in chief once said to me, after you've listed 50 florists, you really don't need another 1. These other companies either got in first or were favored by the graces some how. You can beat your head against the wall, but the reality is that not being in the directory is hardly the handicap it once was, and the value will likely continue to diminish.

And donaldb, sorry if my tone sounds harsh. I honestly do respect the work you and plenty of the other loyal, hardworking and dedicated OPDers do. But the institution itself needs to change. I find myself most frustrated by the fact that I feel like there are all these editors doing work that's going to waste. Google effectively dropped the ODP ages ago. Your own parent gave the OPD another body blow with the recent redesign of AOL.com.

Look at the home page where the AOL Directory is featured. It's not the AOL version of the AOL-owned ODP. And the OPD category links that used to show up in keyword search results, at the bottom of the page, I think those died of in the latest revisions.

Overall, I suspect Wikipedia has overtaken the role that the ODP once filled, as a community-based resource. It has its own problems, of course.

I just assumed that they were the same company since they have very similar phone numbers.
The numbers both end in 7766, the only similarity I see, and no doubt because those letters spell "PROM" on the telephone. I didn't see anything else to make me think these sites are connected.

Here is the category the Prom Girl site is listed in, and that's the site title

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Clothing/Formal_Wear/Women%27s/

It's the .com not the .net (and they do have another site selling prom dresses, called simplydresses.com which is not listed). Of course there would be confusion between the two - they have the same site name.

Danny, it's more like 7 years old.


the reality is that the OPD needs to massively condense

I agree with this. Shedding many of the categories that almost nobody wants to edit + too many site owners _demand_ to be put in would do a world of good. It won't happen, of course, but it would be good if it did.

Couldn't agree more with kctipton on this one.

Danny, I often wonder why someone hasn't already taken up the charge and built a newer, bigger and better directory. If the ODP is not meeting the expectations of the web masters why hasn't some open source type community of web site owners picked up the ball and run with it? It seems like it would be the most logical thing that could happen, and yet for some reason it hasn't, why? I know a few people have tried over the years, but those attempts have never really amounted to much. It's a strange situation. Danny, you have the connections and know the right people with the resources, why don't you do it? :)

As far as there being a spokesperson for the ODP, has there ever really been one? We did have one fulltime Editor-In-Chief, who is still in that role on a part-time basis, but that person was never really a public spokesperson. We have a team of Admins now who have taken over some of that functionality, but again, I don't think that it is their role to be the spokesperson. Do we really need one person? Why does the ODP get singled out about this? Does Google have one person who is the authority on all things Google? Sure there is someone who pops in and out of the forums and makes comments, but I don't think that he is an official spokesperson. Does Yahoo! have a spokesperson? Doesn't the available ODP documentation cover all of the questions that people might have about the ODP? Don't people get their questions answered on our forum?

I hate getting into big philosophical discussions about the ODP. I just like being an editor :)

I often wonder why someone hasn't already taken up the charge and built a newer, bigger and better directoryThis is a totally personal view, and I'll probably get some flack for it, but....

The days of big directories have gone. Their usefulness as an alternative to search engines deteriorated since the quality of the engines' results improved. Niche directories apart, I never hear anybody suggest getting listed in any directory for the pupose of being found by people these days. All anybody ever talks about is getting listed for the links.

There were only ever 2 big directories - Yahoo! and DMOZ. Yahoo! have just about abandoned theirs, and Google have relegated their DMOZ clone to an inner page along with many other choices. On the whole, people don't want to use directories because they can now find what they want from the engines much better than they could in previous times.

The influence of large directories has waned, and I don't see any reason for anybody to build another one.

On the whole, people don't want to use directories because they can now find what they want from the engines much better than they could in previous times.Not always so, Phil. I tried for many weeks to find some critically important information at search engines, digging pages deep, and couldn't. I happened upon a category in ODP and there was the very information I needed, right there in the first site listed.

With a quality directory, information categories stay informational (hopefully), as opposed to the search engines where there's a blend of information and commercial sites. Commercial sites are SEO'd and promoted - information sites may or may not be, probably not.

Plus, people looking for information about something they know little about more than likely don't know the search terms needed - they may be looking for what it is that the problem is - the words that properly "describe" it. Finding an applicable site in a directory gives them the words they need that properly describe the situation, without which they can't find the right sites at the engines. And then if and when they do have the search terms, chances are they'll be running into mostly commercial sites at the engines that have been promoted. Fine when looking for products, not fine when needing information that can't be found.

Unless a directory is strictly for shopping or business to business it serves far more of a purpose, and there's no better way to find certain things, if only because of the categorization where you can drill down from the generalities to the specifics.

Added:

The Category (http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cardiovascular_Disorders/Vascular_Disorders/Thrombosis/)

Start with a search and see if it'll ever get to the information

Google search (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-11%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=feet+swelling+and+cramping)

That's a life saved because an editor maintains a category. And also posts at forums, I might add - that's how I happened to have found the category.

I did say "on the whole", Marcia. I know there are times when large directories can be useful, but, generally speaking, they are no longer the alternative to search engines that they once were, imo, and I see no reason for anyone to build another.

Phil, if they eliminated all commercial sites all the whining, bashing and trolling would be over.

I intend to submit an application for a category as soon as I can get my application edited down from 5 pages on why I want to volunteer. I've finally found a suitable category - a "bare" information category where there are no commercial sites and where there are no webmasters and no SEOs submitting. I wouldn't take one of those on a bet at this point in time.

generally speaking, they are no longer the alternative to search engines that they once were, imoNo longer the alternative for commercial sites to be listed and found to help them make money, but when was that ever stated as the intended purpose?

And which editor ever stated that they volunteered to spend their time building the directory so that webmasters could get their sites listed, have their search engine rankings improved and make money from their sites?

Addendum:
Even in some commercial categories there are great sites to find that can't be found at the engines because either they're not optimized or they're not search engine friendly. Some apparel categories are full of them - not to be found in the engines. So there's a function the engines aren't capable of that a human is because they can visually inspect a site. If people don' t look or know about it, that's their loss - there's never been an advertising budget allocated for ODP, at least that we know about. ;)

5 pages???? LOL! I thought you wouldn't be an editor.

If they did that, the bickering would certainly be over - I agree, but then they'd be a sort of an 'information' niche directory and not a general purpose one. But they ain't gonna do that.

I'm not really saying anything here, Marcia, except that I don't see any reason for anybody to start another big directory. It was a response to donaldb's comment. The only reason most people want to be listed in DMOZ is for the links - not because it, or its clones, are a well used, traffic producing, alternative to search engines, as large directories used to be. I'm sure that the Yahoo! directory only produces a small fraction of the traffic it once did, and they did used to produce traffic. Imo, those days are over.

I'm not suggesting that DMOZ should call it a day. As you said, there are some people who sometimes use it, but there's no reason to start up another one.

5 pages????It gets a few paragraphs longer every time I read one of the threads in an ODP forum. :p

hehe... But they only give you a textarea :)

Try submitting to foook.com it will make you feel better.

I've not been listed in DMOZ in four years. I just don't have the passion to complain about what is not working with DMOZ anymore. I would smile if my site is still around after DMOZ is gone.

I've not been listed in DMOZ in four years.

Foook is a new type of search engine, born 1st August 2005 - maybe that's why it has not been listed in four years

foook.com is not my site, I posted my site their the other day and it was indexed instantly, And when I searched for it I came up first :) however their are only 13 sites with my main keyword on foook and 286,000,000 on google.

My whois information for my site is from Dec, 2000, I have had simular information on the internet (hypermart free hosting account) since 1998 ... I can understand DMOZ not wanting to add web sites from for free providers to their directory. But it seems like any directory these days that wants to make a go of it should list all content sites in alexa's top 100,000

Arggh - sorry - I misunderstood.

Of course fook.com has no PR, as is true of many directories that you can get lsited in instantly so I'm not sure how usefull it is to be listed in it. Also Google may be downgrading many directories as being just a source of backlinks without value.