Why Most DMOZ Submissions Are Rejected

[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

[-MGS-]

Good tips, We have heard them all before but good post!

-Dan

[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.

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.

Next comes usability. It doesn't have to be good but it mustn't be actively user hostile. If the editor can't find the content, the site likely won't be listed. My pet hates are mystery meat navigation and 'look how clever I am' flash based systems. The whole point of navs is to make it easy for the user to find stuff, not to conceal it. If the colour scheme is magenta on black, I'll put that back in the pool to wait for somebody with better eyesight to come along.

Then comes load time. If a site is apallingly slow, I'll put it back in the pool and work on something else instead. Somebody will try again some time later. It could be a lot later of course.

Internal broken links are frankly careless, but nobody's perfect. Broken external links could happen to anyone and we're evenmore forgiving over those.

Website age and sandbox time? We don't pay them any attention at all. Neither do we care about PR or Alexa rankings. I don't even run the toolbars to report such figures.

Is your website listable at all? To find out, critically evaluate it against our guidelines and decide for yourself.

[guinanie]

That was a very useful tips and mostly site is rejected in DMOZ because they did not followed their guidelines and procedures in submission.

[Avril]

Right it is a very useful tips not only for DMOZ directory but to other as well...Following submission procedure is very important because this is the first step to know how organized your site is...

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by guinanie

mostly site is rejected in DMOZ because they did not followed their guidelines and procedures in submission.

Absolute rubbish. Sites are only rejected because they have insufficient unique content to add value to the category.

Sites with submitted titles and descriptions that are not compliant with the guidelines are NEVER a reason for a site being rejected. Its a good way to get an editor to skip over your site and move to the next one, but NEVER a reason for rejection.

[seconnection]

I have dropped dmoz altogether, I know for a fact I submitted good quality content following their guidelines and still no listings. I have given up!

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by seconnection

I know for a fact I submitted good quality content following their guidelines and still no listings.

What is the url?

[seobluffmaster]

thanxs for sharing to us

[Bicboro2]

Thanks 2 this forum is pretty helpful.

[jeffnova]

I think you leave out that many submissions are rejected because the editor does not want competitor sites to be listed.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

I think you leave out that many submissions are rejected because the editor does not want competitor sites to be listed.

Do you know that or are you making it up? If you know it, then PLEASE provide the evidence so that editor(s) can be removed.

[jeffnova]

There is a strong financial incentive for editors to exclude competitor sites and there is no process to prevent this from happening. The defense of the exclusion is further enabled by the misguided notion that a site that "adds nothing new" doesn't merit inclusion. So, as a hypothetical example, if walmart.com is included, there is no reason to include costco.com because it "adds nothing new."? Wouldn't shoppers be better served by being aware of both, even if the product selection is the same? Of course.

And please don't bother giving me the "produce the evidence" line. Instead please describe for me the process that prevents the type of abuse I cite.

[sums123]

One of the biggest problem with Dmoz is that it takes a lot of time for site review and I have found many sites which do not have a title and description at all.

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

And please don't bother giving me the "produce the evidence" line.

So in other words you are avoiding answering the question of providing the evidence!! Can you produce the evidence or not? So you made the claim up!

Originally Posted by jeffnova

There is a strong financial incentive for editors to exclude competitor sites and there is no process to prevent this from happening.

WHat evidence do you have for that one. Are you making that up as well?

The defense of the exclusion is further enabled by the misguided notion that a site that "adds nothing new" doesn't merit inclusion. So, as a hypothetical example, if walmart.com is included, there is no reason to include costco.com because it "adds nothing new."? Wouldn't shoppers be better served by being aware of both, even if the product selection is the same? Of course.

You are right. DMOZ is built for surfers, not as a listing service for webmasters. Surfers are best served by having a choice of sites on a topic. They are not well served by having a few 100 sites with essentially the same content (for eg see the web design categories). There will always be a threshold depending on the topic and category where adding more sites with nothing unique to offer is not going to service the user.

[jeffnova]

Do you deny there is a financial incentive to deny competitor sites? Can you described the process DMOZ uses to prevent this from happening? Still waiting for new information ....

[Birdie]

Originally Posted by jeffnova

Do you deny there is a financial incentive to deny competitor sites?

There are no financial incentives. Editors are volunteers and do not get paid. As a DMOZ listing is not worth much (as so many forum threads keep telling us), then what is the point in an editor denying a competitors listing? - they will not benefit from doing so.

Can you described the process DMOZ uses to prevent this from happening?

No I can't in any detail, as most of the processes used internally at DMOZ are not supposed to be made public, but there are plenty of checks and balances in place. Given that >200 editors an edit in each category and what editors do is avaliable for any editor to see and question, the chances of it happening a very remote. There is an abuse reporting system in place - almost all cases reported there are found to have no substance, so from that point of view, editors are not denying compeitors sites.

Still waiting for new information ....

I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence. As repeated requests for this have gone unanswered, it is clear that you just made it up. Why did you do that?

[Alex Aguilar]

Good tips and good post. I am not sure what to think of DMOZ and how much it really matters to be in that directory.

[jeffnova]

The financial incentive to deny a competitor site is clear. A listing in DMOZ has value (despite your claim to the contrary) and as such, if my site competes with yours and I can keep you from being included, I have a financial incentive to do so. It's curious that you don't see that, or won't admit to it.

You assert that there are plenty of checks and balances, but they are not supposed to be made public. That's a very convenient excuse, and not one that I believe. But perhaps you can educate us all as to why it is best to not make the process visible?

You are fooling no one with your tired request for evidence. You admit that the process is not open, so you attempt to stonewall by asking for something that the process denies, while at the same time denying the obvious financial incentive.

[budalata]

You assert that there are plenty of checks and balances, but they are not supposed to be made public.

Believe him. Like editor in small World/Language category I checked almost every edit. And checked every single deleted site. Have never told this to other editors in this part of DMOZ. Can bet also that metas and editalls are checking mine edits

Generaly, most of the editors applied for category, where they have interest in, some of them wanting to edit/list their own sites. But they - like newbies - are watched by senior editors. If they want more editing privs, they have to apply for. This means obligatory cat check...

Can tell you what I am doing. I find and add in unreview in cats where there is an editorquality sites and wait the editor to log couple of times. If he edit them, is ok, if after few logins he/she doesnt - I add them. Just one of the mechanisms against "the editor in this category is my competitor". I am relatively new editor, and I am sure that senior editors know more tricks.

You are fooling no one with your tired request for evidence

Dont understand this. Couple of days ago I fill an abuse report, and its question of hours metas to state their decision. Do you have anyevidense of abuse, or you are just talking, hijacking this useful thread?

but they are not supposed to be made public

LOL, its not public job. I will never inform the publicity how exactly I am checking the edits. Have to confes that a lot of trolls are waiting to find out how to **** the system
Do you expect Google do made available for the public their formulas?