Why Most DMOZ Submissions Are Rejected

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by fastreplies

1
???50%??? of sites that you are talking about (where the hell you got this number from?)
belong to Editors and their friends

It was documented in the official DMOZ blog. About 50% of sites that are added were never submitted in the first place. When I was an editor, probably >75% of the 1000's of sites I added were never submitted in the first place. I mostly ignored the submitted sites as they were such a waste of time die to their general poor quality.

[fastreplies]

Okay then. You just proof my point







fastreplies

[HostingITrust]

Well I guess only DMOZ itself wont make much difference but a host of such directories would surely help.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Okay then. You just proof my point

What rubbish! Please explain how it proves your point? Please explain how that if half the sites listed in DMOZ were never submitted in the first place have anything to do with those sites being related to editors? ... How do you know that or are you just making up a lie? Please provide us with the evidence? (I seem to remember that every time in the past on this and other forums that you get asked this, you never come up with the goods)

[Hostnetric]

Originally Posted by Birdie

It was documented in the official DMOZ blog. About 50% of sites that are added were never submitted in the first place. When I was an editor, probably >75% of the 1000's of sites I added were never submitted in the first place. I mostly ignored the submitted sites as they were such a waste of time die to their general poor quality.

I can understand the poor quality issue due to made for adsense sites and such, but I am hoping you still looked at submitted sites since there are bound to be some good ones that are submitted. I guess my issue with this would be how many good sites are ignored due to this thought process that you have and that many other editors have as well. The number of non-submitted sites in DMOZ is not an issue and I agree with them putting quality sites in their directory, but just concerned that some good ones are failing to be listed due to technicalities or prejuduice.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by Hostnetric

I can understand the poor quality issue due to made for adsense sites and such, but I am hoping you still looked at submitted sites since there are bound to be some good ones that are submitted. I guess my issue with this would be how many good sites are ignored due to this thought process that you have and that many other editors have as well. The number of non-submitted sites in DMOZ is not an issue and I agree with them putting quality sites in their directory, but just concerned that some good ones are failing to be listed due to technicalities or prejuduice.

When I was an editor, I scanned the suggested sites, but rarely found one worth listing that way. I am not sure many appreciate the magnitude of crap --- in one shopping category that I could edit in, there were something like 200 in the pool of suggested sites when I started and I left 300 there when I was no longer an editor --- from my scan of them almost none of them looked like being listable (I did list a few from the pool). I did leave them in case another editor felt inclined to review them (its actualy hard and unsatisfying 'work' to review then and write the reason for rejection, so why volunteer for that?). I just simply spent my time using Google and following links from other sites to find the good sites that were worth listing. If you never submit a site to DMOZ and if it any good, it will eventually be found.

HINT: if you want a site to attract an editors attention, then make sure that the title and description are 100% guideline compliant. They really stand out in the pool of sites when scanning them -- they are obvious --- they are the ones that I looked at...... ..... unfortunatly almost 100% of the suggested sites do not follow the guidelines when suggesting a site. How do you think any directory should treat any site submission that can not follow the guidelines?

[Hostnetric]

That explains it better Birdie. The way you put it before it seemed that you just skipped over submitted sites is all. I can see where your frustration would come into play considering the number of websites being started each day and suggested to DMOZ. I personally do not even bother suggesting any to their directory since it is not even certain that it will be seen or listed when the editors are overwhelmed with hundreds of suggestions all the time. I feel that my time is better spent dealing with other means of marketing and SEO.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by Hostnetric

That explains it better Birdie. The way you put it before it seemed that you just skipped over submitted sites is all. I can see where your frustration would come into play considering the number of websites being started each day and suggested to DMOZ. I personally do not even bother suggesting any to their directory since it is not even certain that it will be seen or listed when the editors are overwhelmed with hundreds of suggestions all the time. I feel that my time is better spent dealing with other means of marketing and SEO.

I would still say suggest a site as that increases the chance an editor will come across it - that all it does. A good editor will eventually find good sites, regardless of a suggestion. BUT, look closely at the sites already listed and do a copy and past with minor modification of the description of a site already listed ... that way you can assume that the description is guideline compliant (unless the listed one is not - it does happen!).

Look at it from an editors perspective ... if you are prepared to put in the effort to make the title and description guideline complaint (ie no hype; etc), then editor is more likely to be prepared to put in the effort to look at and and review it.

I am no longer an editor, but still submitted a couple of new sites since not being one and they both got listed ...

[Hostnetric]

Thanks for the advice. I will give it a try. Cannot hurt to submit sites to any directory.

[freebet]

thank you...

[tampa_man_33]

I gave up on Dmoz a long time ago

[blond]

I 2 months ago have made an application on additions of two sites in the catalogue
Unfortunately I have not received refusal approval

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by blond

I 2 months ago have made an application on additions of two sites in the catalogue
Unfortunately I have not received refusal approval

You do not make an "application"; you make a suggestion that an editor may or may not look at and may or may not use to build a category. No notifications are given, other than the "thank you" screen after suggesting.

[Hostnetric]

Dmoz is simply a waiting game. As birdie pointed out earlier make sure you follow the submission guidelines. It could take you months to get your site included or if you did not follow the guidelines or your site is not up to the standards guidelines then it may never get included until you make changes to meet the guidelines.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by Birdie

HINT: if you want a site to attract an editors attention, then make sure that the title and description are 100% guideline compliant. They really stand out in the pool of sites when scanning them -- they are obvious --- they are the ones that I looked at...... ..... unfortunatly almost 100% of the suggested sites do not follow the guidelines when suggesting a site. How do you think any directory should treat any site submission that can not follow the guidelines?

Birdie, stop that.

You know better than the most submitters that Title and Description had nothing to do with quality. Read my post above and tell me that I am wrong and I will stuff your, you know what, with thousands of 3 or even 2 words purely re-written by Editors Descriptions and meaningless Titles. Whom are you kidding?

We submitted our site before SEO even exist 8 year ago and you better believe our description was impeccable and yet some moron decided that it is written to good to be true thus it must to be changed for no other reason but to show that he is doing his job.

So, stop confusing people and telling them fairytales.

fastreplies

[anonymously]

A site with a good or good attempt at both ODP description and title will attract my attention. It shows that the submitter has bothered to read the rules and done what was asked of them as best they could. That makes my job easier, means I can review more sites so it gets priority, it does ofcourse have to comply about quality and content. Unfortunately some sites with good quality and content sometimes get left behind when I read "We have the very best and cheapest....", "Don't need to look any further..."......do I need to go on?

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by anonymously

.....do I need to go on?

Yes, and while you do, tell me what was wrong with this description:
"Canadian Internet Company located in Winnipeg, Manitoba provides web hosting, domain name registration and web design services"
and why some freaking moron editor have to change it to verbal puke we have now.


fastreplies

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Yes, and while you do, tell me what was wrong with this description:
"Canadian Internet Company located in Winnipeg, Manitoba provides web hosting, domain name registration and web design services"
and why some freaking moron editor have to change it to verbal puke we have now.

Whats wrong with it? It does not comply with the guidelines!
Depends on the category, but if it a regional category, then Canadian, Winnpeg and Manitoba are not needed in the description (they are in the category title); if its in the web hosting category, then 'web hosting' should not be in the description (its already in the category title); etc

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by Birdie

Whats wrong with it? It does not comply with the guidelines!
Depends on the category, but if it a regional category, then Canadian, Winnpeg and Manitoba are not needed in the description (they are in the category title); if its in the web hosting category, then 'web hosting' should not be in the description (its already in the category title); etc

I got you Birdie

Where, and I mean give me precise place where it says that I can’t use web hosting in description if category title said this already?

Ah, proper category garbage. Lets see.
Initially we submitted our site to web hosting category but some moron moved us to Web Development. After 3 years of asking editors to move our site to web hosting, we ended up in:
Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Designers: Basic Service: A
which by the way is not a regional as you can see

Now, take a look at description above and tell me if our site is belong to this category
and here is why not:
Who Belongs in This Category?
In addition to basic design, sites in this category may offer any combination of the following services:

• shopping carts
• domain name registration assistance
• hosting assistance
• search engine submission
• maintenance
• custom graphics

Sites offering services to primarily corporate sites, or any of the following major services should not be listed in this category:

• primary hosting services
• e-commerce
• server-side programming and databases
• complex Flash, XML, or DHTML driven web design

These companies are located in Full Service.

“Development” – web hosting and domain registration happened to be services and at least my dictionary written by Chinese translator, Development have nothing to do with those services by definishing. Would you like to tell us your “DMOZ” reasoning that put web hosting service providers in Development Category?

fastreplies

[x3mario]

Originally Posted by frederrick

Countless number of submissions is received by DMOZ directory but only perhaps 1% or less meets with DMOZ submission guidelines. Below are some guidelines:

What Title Should Consist?
- As what it appears on the actual web site
- Contain only the company's name or the title of the site
- Begin with capital letter for each word
- Use caps for a non-acronym

What Title Should NOT Consist?
- Contain descriptive information about the site. Descriptive information goes in the description field.
- Written as the URL. The URL goes in the URL field
- Padded with a meaningless string of keywords. This is keyword Spam.
- Use "&" or "and" in the title field UNLESS it appears this way on the site.
- Use emphatic punctuation (the exclamation points).
- Only use acronym as title. Include the full form of the name followed by the acronym in ( )

One must NEVER submit to DMOZ unless your website has met with the DMOZ submission criteria. This is because once submitted, your website URL will be recorded and if the submission fails, it might have a negative impact on future submissions.

From my experience providing DMOZ submission services to my clients, below are some "unwritten" DMOZ criteria:

- Website generally should be out of sand box period
- Must NOT have any broken links
- Well-designed and user-friendly navigation
- Content is the ultimate factor
- Loading time is an important factor to consider

Good tips man. I will try to submit my site following this tips.