Why Most DMOZ Submissions Are Rejected

[smith]

Very good tips, but sum few one I'm not sure is it neccesary or not?

- Begin with capital letter for each word

[budalata]

Yes, you can find more about site titles here:
http://www.dmoz.org/erz/sites/title.html

But - please have in mind that some cats have different rules about titles, but not about capitalization.

[anonymously]

In the end the site is the most important thing. Yes for some editors at the end of a long session of editing s/he may look for what seems to be a correctly titled and described site. But truth to tell I change about 90% of descriptions and many site titles, so having a near perfect title and description may get you noticed and listed, but not having either will not, in itself, stop the site being listed. The editor will correct it, so don't sweat it too much or lay awake wondering if you got wrong and your site won't now be listed.

If the site has unique content, is content rich it will add value to the category and therefore when it gets reviewed, and that may take a while, it will get listed.

[jeffnova]

Dman,

Good points. Wikipedia is a model that would breathe life into DMOZ and allow it to fulfill it's stated mission. However DMOZ will not change as long as the editors with sites already listed have a vested interest in protecting the exclusivity of their listings.

[seo analyst]

Good tips, I will keep in mind whenever i will post in Dmoz..

Thanks

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

Dman,

Good points. Wikipedia is a model that would breathe life into DMOZ and allow it to fulfill it's stated mission. However DMOZ will not change as long as the editors with sites already listed have a vested interest in protecting the exclusivity of their listings.

Unfortunately wikipedia is not about listing sites, though they are listed there. You are obviously not an editor and do not realise how much crap ODP has to reject. If we opened our doors like wiki, we could not keep up with the spam submissions that would be made.

I know many editors, have been in ODP for 9 years, and I have not found one who has become protective or behaved in any way badly about competitors sites (if I had I would have reported them for abusive editing). Remember there is no one editor for any category, though an editor may be listed as an editor in a category. I can edit in any category on the whole of DMOZ and so can hundreds of other editors, also any editor in a higher category can edit in a lower one. So an editor trying to keep sites out or protect their own might have a few problems when other edits come and edit. I certainly edit in places where editors have their names at the bottom of the category and I am nowhere up that tree. I add, delete and alter what other editors have done.

When sites don't get in it's because they have not been reviewed or did not match our guidelines. But every webmaster either thinks their site is the bees knees or just want their spammy, get rich quick, copied site to be listed for their own ends.

[jeffnova]

Hmmm...an encyclopedia is vastly more complex than a links directory, yet Wiki manages it to a much higher level of user satisfaction than does DMOZ. We can think of many ways to deal with spam submissions.

"I have not found one who has become protective or behaved in any way badly about competitors sites"

OK. Unfortunately, we have heard from many insiders and outsiders who have.

"I can edit in any category on the whole of DMOZ and so can hundreds of other editors, also any editor in a higher category can edit in a lower one. So an editor trying to keep sites out or protect their own might have a few problems when other edits come and edit. "

Here's where you could really add some insight into the process. That's great that you can edit in any category, but we'd like to know who sees the submitted sites? Does every editor eligible to edit a category see or have access to see all the submissions made for sites ? Do the submitted sites stay in a submitted list forever, or does someone look at them and clear them in some way. Please explain how you would know if another editor removed/deleted/cleared a submission in an effort to block competitor sites?

Do most editors share your view that those sites that have been unable to get included fall into your categories of sites whose owners think they are the "bees knees" (but aren't) or are just "spammy, get rich quick, copied site to be listed for their own ends"?

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

Hmmm...an encyclopedia is vastly more complex than a links directory, yet Wiki manages it to a much higher level of user satisfaction than does DMOZ. We can think of many ways to deal with spam submissions.

"I have not found one who has become protective or behaved in any way badly about competitors sites"

OK. Unfortunately, we have heard from many insiders and outsiders who have.

"I can edit in any category on the whole of DMOZ and so can hundreds of other editors, also any editor in a higher category can edit in a lower one. So an editor trying to keep sites out or protect their own might have a few problems when other edits come and edit. "

Here's where you could really add some insight into the process. That's great that you can edit in any category, but we'd like to know who sees the submitted sites? Does every editor eligible to edit a category see or have access to see all the submissions made for sites ? Do the submitted sites stay in a submitted list forever, or does someone look at them and clear them in some way. Please explain how you would know if another editor removed/deleted/cleared a submission in an effort to block competitor sites?

Do most editors share your view that those sites that have been unable to get included fall into your categories of sites whose owners think they are the "bees knees" (but aren't) or are just "spammy, get rich quick, copied site to be listed for their own ends"?

You are welcome to join and tell us now, if you think you have access to better brains than we presently have. I don't think Wiki entries have much trouble with get rich quick sites, and they don't simply list sites so the whole thing is a different kettle of fish, let alone that many editors at DMOZ, including myself, work in wiki. But I do know that wiki lock pages.

Please offer any evidence that you have of abusive editors, yes we do boot some off unfortunately we do get some scum bags, but they are a rarity. But if we did not need to protect the directory, as you suggest, why do people go to so much trouble to try and plant themselves inside?

Any one who can edit in a category can see the submissions to that category and every editor who performs an edit has a log of that edit, so even if an editor gets at the submissions and deletes some sites there is a record of what has happened, so any whiff of it and it can be very easily checked. A site deleted does not just disappear. Every one of my 20,000+ edits are logged and can be traced and what happened known. We do some checks ourselves, but also rely on the public to complain when they feel that an editor has behaved abusively. They are usually caught and they are certainly a very tiny minority.

Do most editors share your view that those sites that have been unable to get included fall into your categories of sites whose owners think they are the "bees knees" (but aren't) or are just "spammy, get rich quick, copied site to be listed for their own ends"?

I have re-read my comments and perhaps should clarify what I meant.
I was trying to say that any site which is rejected is usually from a webmaster who believes that either their site is the bees knees or just want their spammy, get rich quick, copied site to be listed for their own ends.

The key to my comment is here
"When sites don't get in it's because they have not been reviewed or did not match our guidelines."
Because eventually any site which is submitted and reviewed and meets up to our guidelines will be included. Unless we manage to loose them all as we did in the great crash of 18 months ago. Every site submitted since that crash is either listed, rejected or awaiting review. And there is a log for every site with who handled it, what they did and why.

Trouble is webmasters who don't get a site listed in a few days/weeks or months often believes and says that we are corrupt. Truth is there are just far too many sites being submitted for editors to review as they come. It was wonderful, after the crash, not to have hundreds of submitted sites attached to categories.

So the motto is, if you have good ideas, join, if you want to help get the Q's down, join, if you want to help surfers find what they want, join, if you want to start a fascinating hobby of collecting and organizing websites, join.

But if you do try and join, read the rules about the size of category, pick some sites that fit the category well, read the guidelines about what we do accept and how to title and describe the site and most of all be honest about your reasons and affiliations.

[jeffnova]

I've addressed your questions to me elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat them here. Yes I'm aware that some editors have been booted for improper practices, but my impression from insiders and outsiders is that it is far more common than gets dealt with. Please explain how you would know if another editor removed/deleted/cleared a submission in an effort to block competitor sites?

[John]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

I've addressed your questions to me elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat them here. Yes I'm aware that some editors have been booted for improper practices, but my impression from insiders and outsiders is that it is far more common than gets dealt with. Please explain how you would know if another editor removed/deleted/cleared a submission in an effort to block competitor sites?

Actions by all editors are logged. An editor cannot delete a site from unreviewed (the submission queue) without giving a reason, which is also logged and availabe to all editors.

[jeffnova]

John,

Thank you for adding some real data. Why is the submission queue not made available for public viewing?

[budalata]

Actions by all editors are logged. An editor cannot delete a site from unreviewed (the submission queue) without giving a reason, which is also logged and availabe to all editors.

So sorry, but have to say that not everything is like described here.
However, we really are checking most of the edits, and we are working to prevent any kind of editorial abuse.

Why is the submission queue not made available for public viewing?

Whats the idea here? To have more spam?

[jeffnova]

Budalata, thank you

The idea is to see the status of a submission - was it reviewed, approved, rejected, what?

How does displaying the list of sites submitted, approved and rejected create more spam?

[John]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

How does displaying the list of sites submitted, approved and rejected create more spam?

The fear is that submitters will see that their mirror/bait_and_switch/MFA site has been rejected and they will change things around slightly and try again.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

Please explain how you would know if another editor removed/deleted/cleared a submission in an effort to block competitor sites?

If we told everyone everything we did then the abusive editor with any nouse would try and ensure that any abusive edits were as invisible as possible.
So its a catch 23 if we tell we get more problems if we don't tell we are clearly corrupt.

Let me ask this the other way round. Why would webmasters quietly complain in your ear that there is abusive editing and competitor sites not being listed.
First it is likely that the complaining webmaster is a competitor, if so why do they not do anything and report such matters if they have any shred of evidence to support the claim? I certainly would.
But if in fact they are abusive webmasters and they want their spammy, non-unique, get rich web site listed and DMOZ will not accept it or they know that DMOZ will not accept it because it is a useless piece of junk, now in that situation it is likely the webmaster will try and ensure that DMOZ is branded as being corrupt and editors are corrupt to try and denigrate the site.

So if no evidence is produced about abusive editing I can only believe that it is bad rumours set about by people who have spammy, no good web sites that DMOZ will not accept. You see I note your words "but my impression from insiders and outsider" that is the very best way to throw some mud and hope that some of it sticks.

[sums123]

Submit it to the right category

Ideal to give name of a company as title


Dmoz do not like description such as best service,cheap service or description that praise.

Ideal description is to just write what service your website is providing.

Have patience.Dmoz takes lot of time in evaluating a website.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

Budalata, thank you

The idea is to see the status of a submission - was it reviewed, approved, rejected, what?

How does displaying the list of sites submitted, approved and rejected create more spam?

Why do people become obsessed about wanting to know the status?

The status is either:
1) Waiting to be reviewed --> there is nothing more you can do and life goes on
2) An editor has moved it to another category --> there is nothing more you can do and life goes on
3) Its been listed --> there is nothing more you can do and life goes on
4) Its been rejected --> there is nothing more you can do and life goes on

What are you going to do with the information about a submission?

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by sums123

Submit it to the right category

Ideal to give name of a company as title


Dmoz do not like description such as best service,cheap service or description that praise.

Ideal description is to just write what service your website is providing.

Have patience.Dmoz takes lot of time in evaluating a website.

Descriptions usually come in two parts. One describes what the organisation does and the second describes what the surfer will find on the website. But there are many pitfalls to descriptions other than simply 'hype' ie best greatest etc and not all descriptions are in two parts. But you can read about them here
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/descr...l#descriptions

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Birdie

Why do people become obsessed about wanting to know the status?


4) Its been rejected --> there is nothing more you can do and life goes on

What are you going to do with the information about a submission?

I do have to say birdie that I have some sympathy with webmasters. Years and years ago when I submitted a site it was not listed and it never got listed and I wanted to know what had happened to it. So I applied to become an editor. Then I found out why it had been rejected and changed it.....and it was accepted by the editor who had originally rejected it.

Moral of story if you want to know what happened to your site...become an editor!

[jeffnova]

Anonymously,

I'm not going to play the evidence game with you either. My interest isn't in "throwing mud" but to give my honest input on the answer to the question asked by the person who opened this thread, and then to respond to the attacks made on my comments. There are a number of DMOZ threads throughout V7N and other forums, and what's remarkably consistent is the defensiveness demonstrated by the DMOZ insiders. That in itself speaks volumes. I'm comfortable that anyone reading this thread can well judge where the truth lies.