Three days ago - maybe 2 - I submitted a site to DMOZ. I submitted it to a category that has no editor specific to the category, and the information at the foot of the page said that the category was last updated last January. So it would be reasonable to expect a short delay of about a year or three - yes?

Today somebody came to the site from the unreviewed list. The person only looked at 3 pages, and I've no idea if the site will be listed or not, but at least it got some sort of review in 2 or 3 days, and in a category that doesn't have a specific editor, and that hasn't been updated since last January. That's not bad at all.

I'm not holding my breath because just looking at 3 pages in the type of site that it is doesn't seem very promising, but it may be ok.

If you can do it, you can often find out if and when an editor looks at the site from your logfiles, although some editors don't click the links in the DMOZ site, so it's not a foolproof way of knowing the status of a submission.

If you can do it, you can often find out if and when an editor looks at the site from your logfiles, although some editors don't click the links in the DMOZ site, so it's not a foolproof way of knowing the status of a submission.

I realized this for the first time about a month ago. I had submitted a newer site of mine. 2 days later I noticed some dmoz related activity in the logs - 4 of the pages of the site had been looked at. I went and checked the catagory in dmoz and was surprised to see my site had already been listed.

The update thing at the bottom of the page said it had last been updated 8 months prior so I honestly wasn't expecting to be listed at all.

You did better than me, GFC. I've forgotten how long it takes for accepted sites to be visible in the public listings, but I know they aren't visible immediately. I think enough time has gone by assume that the site was rejected. It couldn't really have been moved to a different category because it was submitted to the right one. At least it got a review visit in very quick time.

I had to smile when I saw the visit though, because the person did exactly what I thought was the most likely thing that s/he'd do - made a bee line for where the affiliate stuff would be - and I mean a bee line. The shortest route took 3 clicks and s/he didn't deviate. But there isn't any affiliate stuff, or any other money-making stuff in the site. In fact, as far as I've been able to ascertain, the site is almost unique in its field in that respect.

I told Marcia privately that the review was poor. The site shouldn't be listed after looking at only those 3 pages, because nobody could get an idea of the whole site and what it's about like that. And, for the same reason, it shouldn't be rejected.

Anyway, no complaints - just observations and a bit of chit-chat. Whether it's listed or not really doesn't matter.

You can't be sure it was rejected Phil. That might just have been a quick look to check basics.

Sometimes an editor will run through submissions to clear out the obviously unlistable, then return later to review the remainder. Sometimes an editor will take a quick look, decide that review will take more time than they have at present and leave it for another day. Sometimes an editor will spot a problem with a site (e.g. missing text, broken links) and leave it in unreviewed for a while to see if the problem gets corrected.

In short just watching your logs and the category doesn't tell the whole story, though it can be useful, as for GuyFromChicago.

Yes, I suppose it could have been something like that. I did smile at the route s/he took though - exactly what I'd thought was likely :)

There's an update on this...

Somebody came from DMOZ a few hours ago and looked at 10 pages. It's too soon to know the result in the public listings, and it may not even have been a proper review because the 10 pages weren't exactly a comprehensive look around the site. Like the first visit, the latest visit was very focused, and in exactly the same area - another beeline straight for that area. But there's an interesting thing about it.

The first visit came from:- editors.dmoz.org/editors/editcat-unrev.cgi?cat=........&chainsaw=1

and the new visit was from:- editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev.cgi?site=[number]&cat=........&chainsaw=1

They are different script URLs, and the second one has a 5 figure site number. As a guess, I'd say the second URL looks more like an actual review than the first one. But I wonder what the first one was about. Maybe it was a quick scan as was suggested, but by whom? Why the different URL? I'm thinking along the lines of the first visit being by a greenbuster, or someone other than the category's editor. Does anyone have any information about the URLs? It may be a way of interpreting what happens in a log file.

added
I just had a thought. Because of the type of site that it is, the first visit might have been to check if it had any affiliate stuff in it, and it might have been put on hold to see if any would be added. The new visit, almost exactly 3 months later, might have been to check that out. Even so, I'm very curious about those URLs.

I just had a thought. Because of the type of site that it is, the first visit might have been to check if it had any affiliate stuff in it, and it might have been put on hold to see if any would be added. The new visit, almost exactly 3 months later, might have been to check that out. Even so, I'm very curious about those URLs.Phil, there are sites listed in ODP that have affiliate links. In fact, some of them look like they were created as content sites in order to be a vehicle for affiliate links.

I could show you the specific category - no biggie, imho. It's good, original content. But they do have several sites under the same ownership listed in the same category that are cross-linked (technically, it's a well done network of sites) and there's no doubt in my mind that the orignal intent was to convey authority status and PR on their pure affiliate-based sites.

I can think of instances where affiliate links are value-added features and can be considered useful content for visitors who would have to go to the search engines and be hunting around to find the stuff if it wasn't right there for them.

I imagine it's more a matter of degree, percentages and being able to discern intent, which no doubt would take a lot of subjective judgment and intuitive reasoning and observation.

I agree, Marcia. DMOZ doesn't reject sites for a reasonably small amount of affiliate stuff. It depends on the nature of the site, and how much affiliate stuff is in it. But most sites like mine are affiliate sites, pure and simple, and they won't get in - unless an editor has a vested interest, of course.

Aw shucks! The site still didn't get listed :rolleyes: