Why Most DMOZ Submissions Are Rejected

[anonymously]

You only need to read the forums at DigitalPoint to discover people willing to pay for an entry. Strange when that is free and as I said one gets a site banned for good, if one is that desperate for a list would one risk asking an editor to list for money? Do sites get banned for this, yes they sure do, if you were an editor you would be able to read all about it on the internal forums.

These days if editors want to be paid for their work there is plenty of opportunities with many paid directories offering experienced editors payment, so why should one risk as an editor being banned for life in ODP?

But it is strange that we only see those whose sites are not listed bleating about ODP being corrupt. Same group often being people who have applied to become editors and been rejected, interesting link.

All our editing work is under scrutiny not only by the public, who can offer proof here or by a complaint (though mostly its mud with no substance, like yours) but also by our peers and superiors. No one editor edits in any category and only experienced editors who have been tried and trusted edit anywhere. So when I pick up a site for Regional and then also list it in Topical how does an editor just protect either that Topical or Regional category when it could be serious competitors that I have listed. Deleting good sites would begin to attract attention. If you have not sat behind the editing dash you do not know and if you have then I revert to saying sorry you were chucked out. No tears for those who want to discredit without proof.

Interesting how much time some people spend lambasting a free directory if they have not had their site, application for an editor or editors account rejected.

Some people get together to indulge their hobby of listing and categorising internet sites all for nothing and they attract a lot of condemnatory comments. I am surprised the police are not knocking on my door to take me to court for corruption, fraud and lies after listeneing to what a few disgruntled people say on here

[masynee]

Are there any guidelines for what is good content for an online store? Do the editors judge if the store has an appealing range of goods and information is it more formal than that?

I have been trying to get my site listed for a couple of years (only resubmitted very recently to be fair) and as far as I know, mu submission follows all the guidelines.

[budalata]

Are there any guidelines for what is good content for an online store?

AFAIK - no
Havent a lot of experience in editing under Shopping, but here are some of the things I am looking for:
Contact information, About us, Company name, Contact us, Delivery, Disclaimer, Complaints...and - of course - prices and way to order/via tel, Internet etc/.
More infrmation - better chances

[lloyd.velarde@gmail.]

we know that tips before, but still it is useful until now! most of the sites are being rejected because they did not follow the guidelines of dmoz.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by jim_noble

I'd agree that very few websites are suggested with guidelines compliant titles and descriptions. I would say that even fewer than 1% achieve them. However, editors routinely rewrite them so that they are - that's part of the job. A website should never be declined a listing on such grounds.

Rewrite? You mean massacre Titles and Descriptions to something like “Company site” or “Fans pages” or my favorite description “General Info”. Come on Jim, you can do better that that.

Originally Posted by jim_noble

Despite that, it's still worthwhile trying to do it right. Your listing suggestion will stand out from the crowd and is likely to be given some priority. We all like to do the easy jobs first .

Far more important is content - good solid useful content, not content mill garbage, not affiliate link farms and not MFA sites. We also don't like to see blank or 404 pages because they haven't been written yet. If the content isn't there, don't link to it in your navigation.

Why don’t you just say it Jim what you mean by that, or you want me to guess? Ok, let me guess… hmmm… I am going to try Unique. Am I right? You Jim want every site to be unique, “good solid useful content”. What else can it be if not unique?

I have news for you. There is not such a thing anymore Jim. Unique sites disappeared 10 years ago and these days they all the same only look different. Then again, if I have unique site then why would I want to submit it to DMOZ? What is and where is my benefit?

Google will count my link in DMOZ the same as in some PR0 directory, as one single link and if I have unique site then my site will be validating DMOZ and not other way around.

Does it make any sense to you Jim?


fastreplies

[jim_noble]

Do you know fastreplies, I had to search right back to 2008-01-01 to find my post that you responded to above .

It's our directory and we define its standards. There are plenty of directories that don't mind KW stuffed promotional entries but we aren't one of them. We just describe useful websites that have, yes, unique content.

There are plenty of websites with it out there - but possibly not in your market sector . I find some most days in the areas that interest me.

We're probably on different planets though.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by jim_noble

It's our directory and we define its standards. There are plenty of directories that don't mind KW stuffed promotional entries but we aren't one of them. We just describe useful websites that have, yes, unique content.

Our? Hmmm... you mean DMOZ Editors are owners of ODP directory?

Here we go again with unique.
Can you do us all a favor and to define for us your standards of unique. You see, I have problems to find one unique pie in a pot of pies soup because they all look the same to me. Of course, I can grab one of them and declare it unique but, it would be only my personal opinion and not a fact. Please help us to understand you principle criteria for unique site. It may teach us all how to become better content developers and make your life much more pleasant

Originally Posted by jim_noble

There are plenty of websites with it out there - but possibly not in your market sector . I find some most days in the areas that interest me.

Again, you are talking about your area of interest. What about sites that have no interest to you? They can't be that bad or better yet they might be much more better than sites that you like and deserve more than your cold shoulder. What happened to them?

Originally Posted by jim_noble

We're probably on different planets though.

You bet we are. We, sites owners somenow stack on this panet Earth and DMOZ Editors are living on the planet "Nowhere to be found"


fastreplies

[jim_noble]

I've put how I see things. You've put how you see them. It's quite clear that we're never going to agree so there's not a lot of point continuing to communicate with you.

Bye.