|
You all complain at the length of time that it takes to get a site listed and the heat generated here surrounding listing. Can you imagine what time it would take from editors if they did inform people that sites were rejected and that would mean less sites reviewed. Also most of the sites rejected will be from people who have interests in duping, spaming and simply seeking to get their spammy or non-unique sites listed. Just the sort of people who would try and use rejection notices to portray ODP as corrupt etc etc., and embroil editors in discussion about what that rejection notice meant with a consequence of less editing.
It is also true that websites which follow the guidelines, unique sites and content rich, are extremely unlikely to be rejected. Mostly they wait in a Q because the editors we have cannot get through all the submissions, if they felt that was the only thing they had to do. Many editors prefer to build categories using sites that they have mined as well as and sometimes rather than submitted ones.
If you feel sites are being added to a category that look as though some favouritism is being exercised then you are more than welcome to make a report and whilst it is not within my responsibility area I know all complaints of abuse are investigated.
But we come back to saying that we can review more sites, build a larger directory (and that is our motivation) the more committed editors that we have. I do more than my bit, how about you?
|
Why Most Dmoz Submissions Are Rejected
Linear Mode
