Why ODP is unorganized.

[PixelStreamed]

I'll probably get alot of bashing for this but I do believe ODP needs to fix the way it runs it's directory. First of all it takes forever to get listed in the directory and to add to that they don't notify you if your site gets rejected or accepted. How would someone know when to resubmit their site to the directory if it takes them so long to approve a listing and if they won't notify you if they have reviewed your submission? Guestimating drives me crazy!

Pixelstreamed

[qwerty]

Keep in mind that the ODP is run by volunteers, and that they don't see themselves as part of anyone's campaign to promote a web site. Instead, they just want to list what they consider to be valuable sites.

The best way to find out the status of a submission is to wait a month and then go to the site submission status area of the Resource Zone (http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/). I've always found them to be very helpful over there, as long as you read the guidelines first and post in the right way at the right time.

[hassleback]

You can't reasonably call ODP unorganized. It's by far the largest Internet directory. By far. And almost all done by volunteer work. On the contrary, I would call it very well organized.

[Marcia]

>>forever to get listed

Or maybe never.

Whenever I've discussed or had someone ask me about submitting to ODP I've told them to read the guidelines first, and then send me what they would submit so I could see. Not once has even one of them been near acceptable; it's been promotional hype every single time. Not one would have been accepted - or should have been.

Why should an editor do a rewrite if people don't make an effort to comply with what's simple and available for anyone to read? Maybe some are valiant and do, but why anyone would think it should be a requirement on their time is beyond me.

People volunteer because they feel a commitment to contributing to something they feel is worthwhile. No person in their full senses will volunteer their time and talents for the purpose of padding other people's pockets - it has to be a far broader cause than that.

[eitemiller]

I'll probably get alot of bashing for this but I do believe ODP needs to fix the way it runs it's directory. First of all it takes forever to get listed in the directory and to add to that they don't notify you if your site gets rejected or accepted. How would someone know when to resubmit their site to the directory if it takes them so long to approve a listing and if they won't notify you if they have reviewed your submission? Guestimating drives me crazy!
Pixelstreamed

You could always volunteer your time and do a better job. Do me a favor, and pick an outdoors category so I can submit to you.

BTW - I've been waiting almost the full three months and nothing yet. Ehhh - if it comes, it comes...if not, so be it. It's not the end of the world.

[birdie]

>You could always volunteer your time and do a better job

Good idea. Rather than whinge about what you perceive as problem... why not become part of the solution?

[garyp]

From the searcher perspective some well organized general web directories come from non-commercial/educational interests. They include:

+ Librarians' Index to the Internet
http://www.lii.org

+ Resource Discovery Network
http://www.rdn.ac.uk

+ Infomine
http://infomine.ucr.edu

+ Internet Public Library
http://www.ipl.org

AcademicInfo.net
http://www.academicinfo.net

[St0n3y]

I don't mind so much that ODP takes so much time (though in the resource zone they tell you to submit and wait at least THREE months, not one, before asking them about it), my beef is that Google relies on them more than they should. Heck, even volunteers should have guidlines. A simple one would be every site gets approved or rejected within X months. Rejection notices are sent to the submitter explaining, very simply, why. For Google to use a directory without these simple guidlines in place is beyond me. You cannot measure relevance when many many sites are excluded from the pool because a volunteer simply isn't reviewing sites in a timely manner.

[Marcia]

>>even volunteers should have guidlines. A simple one would be every site gets approved or rejected within X months.

That simply could not be done. Not only because of the issues involving volunteer status, but in some categories that get bombarded it could be more than a full time job, I'd imagine. Besides, I hear tell a lot of sites end up being added by metas and editalls - so what kind of requirements would that take?

>>Rejection notices are sent to the submitter explaining, very simply

It isn't always all that simple. Even for a forum mod/admin doing simple edits there can be considerable back and forth dialog - which can be a big time eater. All that would be needed at most is an auto-responder push-button type thing simply pointing to the guidelines. It's my guess a lot either haven't bother to look at them or deliberately choose to ignore them.

[St0n3y]

quality is never simple, but it should be required. IMHO.

[kctipton]

Everything a submitter needs to know about getting listed is available _before_ they submit a site. Submitting and then trying to learn what to do to get listed or what caused a site to be rejected is doing things in the wrong order.

[St0n3y]

Everything a submitter needs to know about getting listed is available _before_ they submit a site. Submitting and then trying to learn what to do to get listed or what caused a site to be rejected is doing things in the wrong order.

I don't think anybody is argueing that point. I think the main frustration with DMOZ is that they seem to be run like the DMV. I get the feeling that I need DMOZ more than DMOZ needs me, which may be true but its not a good business model.

[eitemiller]

I don't think anybody is argueing that point. I think the main frustration with DMOZ is that they seem to be run like the DMV. I get the feeling that I need DMOZ more than DMOZ needs me, which may be true but its not a good business model.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Yea - I understand that it's a bunch of volunteers. I understand they have to sift through a bunch of crap just to get to the good sites. I also understand that some of those volunteers probably only volunteered so they could get their website into the directory. But fer cryin out load - they need to do something different. Having to wait 3+ months for an inclusion into their precious directory is ridiculous.

[PixelStreamed]

Even if the reply was automated, a simple "yes you were added to the directory" or "no you weren't added to the directory" notice from DMOZ would be helpful. That way the webmaster at least knows and can try to fix his site/listing and resubmit.

Pixelstreamed

[birdie]

>notice from DMOZ would be helpful

Helpful to who? To the spammer who knows his current trick didn't work, so he can immediately try again to stay under the radar with a different tactic. DMOZ is in the business of building category's of valuable resources, not providing services to those who suggest sites and especially not to those who want to create extra work for editors.

[PixelStreamed]

>notice from DMOZ would be helpful

Helpful to who? To the spammer who knows his current trick didn't work, so he can immediately try again to stay under the radar with a different tactic. DMOZ is in the business of building category's of valuable resources, not providing services to those who suggest sites and especially not to those who want to create extra work for editors.


assumptions and negativity. Of course it would be helpful to everyone.

[birdie]

>Of course it would be helpful to everyone.

So why is there apparenlty consensus amoung editors not to do this becuase of the help it would give spammers?

[qwerty]

I just don't get why people get all worked up over this. You submit your site, wait a month, and check to see if it's listed in the category to which you submitted. If it is, you're done. If it isn't you go to the Resource Zone and ask about it. Has anyone correctly started a thread in the Site Submission Status area over there and not received a response?

In any case, an ODP listing will neither make nor break any site. It's a good thing to have, and it's worth the tiny effort it takes to get it, but if it takes a while, or it doesn't happen at all, then so be it.

[PixelStreamed]

>Of course it would be helpful to everyone.

So why is there apparenlty consensus amoung editors not to do this becuase of the help it would give spammers?

if this is the case then it's too bad that spammers and unethical practices ruin it for the rest of us, i guess it's a give and take, either make it difficult for the editors or make it difficult for the submitters. i'm not an editor of the directory so I wouldn't know if this is the reason.

[eitemiller]

Has anyone correctly started a thread in the Site Submission Status area over there and not received a response?


Good point - you got me on that one. But I didn't want to bother them - didn't want to nag them, didn't want to come accross the wrong way - ya know? But what the heck - I will go post something and see what is going on. If I was already rejected - it can't hurt. And if it is still "under review" at least I will know that much.

[eitemiller]

So I did just as PixelStreamed suggested - I started a thread at Dmoz and asked about my site submission. This is the response I got:


"An editor moved it up a level from Recreation/Outdoors/Camping to Recreation/Outdoors, where it awaits review.

Thank you for the kind characterization of us in your blog." (http://http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20957)

Yea - I called them "slow b-----ds" in my blog (http://eatstayplay.blogspot.com/) - oops. So I'd bet 10-1 I never get listed in Dmoz, lmao. Oh well, that's life I guess. But for future reference to all of you, be careful what you say, the Dmoz kids are everywhere.

On a good note, I have to admit that after I started that thread, I got a very quick response from spectregunner. Good luck to getting in Dmoz.

[jimnoble]

It's unlikely to affect your listability or review timescale - either way :D .

[eitemiller]

hope not - but I did find myself in a humorous position, lol.