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.

[kimsonsolutions]

thanks for the explanation , they should write down such rules more clearly on the website

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

thanks for the explanation , they should write down such rules more clearly on the website

No need for that.
All Editors have to do, is to follow whatever rules they have now but without making new one as they go.

If the Rule says we want 20 words Description, then it should be 20 if Editor replaced the one you had offer, and not with 3 words "all about shoes" type description but with something more substantial and visitors friendly


fastreplies

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

thanks for the explanation , they should write down such rules more clearly on the website

Couple of things
1. There should be a category description for each category and that should have some notes about any special requirements. There is a good deal of information about what is required for shopping here http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/desc.html

One does have to say that we are sometimes lax as editors and don't always do the category descriptions as well as they should be done, but the major categories are usually done well as the example above shows.

2. One also has to say that people offering sites really do not bother to read what is actually there, often they want to believe what they want to believe. Who bothers to read http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/ ? Take that with the Category Descriptions and you will know as much as those editing the site.

Here we go again with unique.
Can you do us all a favor and to define for us your standards of unique.

If lots of sites are selling widgets we would not expect that they use exactly the same descriptions and any selfrespecting site will ensure they are different and stand out anyway and provided they were obviously not copies, mirrors or affiliates two sites selling widgets which were different companies would be listed because they would be unique because of them being different companies.

I have at the moment in my bookmarks a company that markets the same stuff, with same descriptions on 7 different named sites and different named companies, do you think we are going to list them all? That is what they would like. But only the main one will be listed.

On another forum some one asked about a site and when I checked it was clear they had ripped the information from another site and tried to pas it off as their own, I told them there was no way they would be listed.

you mean DMOZ Editors are owners of ODP directory?

As you well know Jim was saying that ODP will make its own decisions about how it conducts its own directory.

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?

You have a nice way of twisting words. None of us do actually edit everywhere in the directory all of the time. Some editors have the right to do that but we usually function in the areas we are interested in and know something about so I would not go looking in areas that I had no interest in editing. There are stacks of categories and stacks of sites that need my attention in areas that I want to edit in because they interest me and I know a bit about them. Fortunately we have editors with different areas of interest and expertize and so the directory as a whole gets good coverage from the numbers of editors we have. Though we can still do with more editors..

[temyong]

Why don't you use your money for submission to DMOZ?

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by anonymously

2. One also has to say that people offering sites really do not bother to read what is actually there, often they want to believe what they want to believe. Who bothers to read http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/ ? Take that with the Category Descriptions and you will know as much as those editing the site.

You don't have to tell that to me. I know about morons who are ignoring Guidelines as much as you do. I am not talking about some spammer at all; I am talking about people who know how to write Title and Description. People who have no attention to spam your pending bin and give you enough reasons to list their sites.

Originally Posted by anonymously

If lots of sites are selling widgets we would not expect that they use exactly the same descriptions and any selfrespecting site will ensure they are different and stand out anyway and provided they were obviously not copies, mirrors or affiliates two sites selling widgets which were different companies would be listed because they would be unique because of them being different companies.

I have at the moment in my bookmarks a company that markets the same stuff, with same descriptions on 7 different named sites and different named companies, do you think we are going to list them all? That is what they would like. But only the main one will be listed.

On another forum some one asked about a site and when I checked it was clear they had ripped the information from another site and tried to pas it off as their own, I told them there was no way they would be listed.

Again, I am more than satisfied with your spam policies and I don't care about garbage you sweep under rug day in day out. Yes, sites that use Yahoo store are all the same even though they are using different domains. The same applies to millions of pharmacy, gambling and lineup of other mirror image sites. My question is about your "unique" concept and how you apply it to sites that deserve to be taking seriously even though they might be covering the same subjects but from different perspective and point of view.

Originally Posted by anonymously

As you well know Jim was saying that ODP will make its own decisions about how it conducts its own directory.

With all due respect to Jim, and I mean it, because I read his posts and know that Jim happen to be decent man who stack in the wrong place, I don't think he has misspoke this time. You Editors act as if you own DMOZ

Originally Posted by anonymously

You have a nice way of twisting words. None of us do actually edit everywhere in the directory all of the time. Some editors have the right to do that but we usually function in the areas we are interested in and know something about so I would not go looking in areas that I had no interest in editing. There are stacks of categories and stacks of sites that need my attention in areas that I want to edit in because they interest me and I know a bit about them. Fortunately we have editors with different areas of interest and expertize and so the directory as a whole gets good coverage from the numbers of editors we have. Though we can still do with more editors..

Look who is talking. No, my friend you are the one who "have a nice way of twisting words". Keep your praises for hard working Editors for your next post in resource-zone forum when you will brush off another "sorry looser" asking you why his site is not in your index after 3 years of waiting. Lets talk about sites your "experts" wouldn't index because of conflict of interest or simply because of lack of interest by Editor


fastreplies

[HostingITrust]

Majority of the sites are rejected because we need DMOZ and DMOZ does not need us.

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by HostingITrust

Majority of the sites are rejected because we need DMOZ and DMOZ does not need us.

So if we say: go to hell DMOZ, we don't need you, then DMOZ start index our sites?



fastreplies

[kimsonsolutions]

the big question is : is it woth the effort ? once indexed is there a big difference?

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by fastreplies

So if we say: go to hell DMOZ, we don't need you, then DMOZ start index our sites?

Given that more than 50% of the new sites that get listed in DMOZ were never submitted in the first place, then assume that if the site is any good and has some unique content then it will get listed eventually.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

the big question is : is it woth the effort ? once indexed is there a big difference?

How much effort do you put in to get a link anywhere? If you are spending more than a matter of minutes on DMOZ, then yes you have wasted your effort (constantly checking to see if listed, resubmitting, etc etc .... is all a waste of effort and will have no effect on if listed or not)

[fastreplies]

Originally Posted by Birdie

Given that more than 50% of the new sites that get listed in DMOZ were never submitted in the first place, then assume that if the site is any good and has some unique content then it will get listed eventually.

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

2
If you reply to something then at least stay on a subject.
Your reply has nothing to do with the content of what I said


fastreplies