My experience is one of double standards!

As we know the DMOZ rules state that your site shall belong to a single category only. We are told NEVER submit to more than one category!

Yet - my prime competitor is in at least THREE categories! It makes me wonder who he has "on the inside" that is getting him this blatant favouritism.

Why call it "open" at all - its a big joke.

Excellent post. When I was an editor, I'd hit a dream site like you suggest and list them immediately. Obvious spam got deleted immediately. Sites that were "iffy", meaning I had to really dig through them to check for deeplinks, re-write an accurate description, etc. I always left in "Unreviewed" until I had more time. The real nightmares stayed in Unreviewed for months. Poor submissions, as well as spam, were the bane of my existence and they made it take that much longer to get to the good sites that were correctly submitted and deserved to be listed.

As as been said several time in this thread - yes editors can list there own sites.

Yes that is correct, but where is the double standards? Editors can list a site in as many catgeories as they like, provided it provides unique valuable content to the catgeory.

peakstudio - any editor can check the logs for your site to see how much you have spammed DMOZ - you also know how many times you submitted.

CBP

First if you believe the competitor's website does not support 3 listings - report it... that's up to you. You truly can't complain to the rest of the world about how grossly unfair DMOZ is - if you chose not to take the initiative to report it through the appropriate channels.

On the other hand "some websites" deserve a second listing - possibly because they have a physical location (storefront)... or possibly something "exceptional" that adds enormous value to DMOZ by way of added value to DMOZ users.

Clearly a site with small breadth & depth of topic and offering sellable items for a business with no added value - isn't the same as a website that is truly development for the end user with far more than just "buy me".

So put this all in perspective... the "double standard" can be on your side. By not making your site superior than the ones currently listed.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

You obviously missed the posts (or did you not read the whole thread?) about what the "open" in Open Dierectory Project means - its has nothing to do with being open to listings.

CBP

That's the impression I got, but I wanted to here it from an ardent supporter. No other profession would tolerate such an overt conflict of interest. More distressing, how is it I never knew that before? I always thought of the Open Source Directory Project as a buch of enthusiasts.

Guess it's not the first time I ever been a chump.

Any large organization that vulnearble to abuse WILL be abused. I don't see how it's possible for a structure that size to operate under guidlines like that and not already be unsalvagably corrupt.

Same old, same old ... more innuendo with proof.

There are very very clear guideines about editors listing there own site - it has already been dicsussed several times in this thread - or did you not read it?

The link has been provided several times in this thread on where to reort abuse. Please do so. Come back and tell us the outcome after you have had your proof investigated by the proper channels rathr than just post innuendo.

CBP

And one look at your website shows why you believe this.
...but 2 hours to read... and about the same time to invest in reading DMOZ guidelines that allows free.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

I would (guess) estimate that a large percentage of editors don't own any sites in any of the categories they edit.

Editors who do have control over their site's listing are often closely scrutinized by senior editors. This is one of the measures in place to prevent abuse. This is especially true in the more "commercial" categories.

Abuse certainly does occur, but I would again estimate that the abusers are caught more often than not. If you suspect abuse, please complete one of the reports already mentioned. It is the only way your complaint/allegation will be taken seriously and investigated.

I can tell you that those reports are reviewed and alleged abuse is investigated.

__________________
SEO Firefox Extension | Free Link Development Tool | New SUSE Linux Users

that's all i can say to the reaction of this thread... for those who think i've attacked DMOZ unfairly, i will be writing a follow-up article on thursday that will largely present their point-of-view.

my motivations for this article was NOT to bash DMOZ. i simply stumbled across some issues i felt needed to be brought to light. DMOZ serves an important function as one of the more popular directories on the internet. its backlink and PR value cannot be understated. also, DMOZ approves 1 to 2000 sites a day, so it's obvious the MAJORITY of the editors are trying.

i guess it's a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch, and that's unfortunate. please continue your comments, but do not make them of a personal nature. posts like that will be removed and the poster possibly banned.

thanks to flood, cbp, and fathom for their work in moderating this discussion. they deserve all the kudos we can give them...

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

Agreed. THANX!

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

Oh please, fathom. That's just SPECIOUS. That's called marketing copy. You don't wanna read it, don't read it. The signup form is easy to find and linked to multiple locations, and it really does take about a minute to fill out. As for the rest...

Well forgive me for trying to not only sell my product, but make sure my prospects know exactly what they're getting.

First: This is not a big company. The owner and 2 designers.

Second: I'm not sure how a short order form equals corruption.

Lastly: I don't need prroof to have an opinion do I? I have no proof that politicians lie, but it's my opinion they do. To hell with "plausible deniability".

I am glad you dropped by though. As you can see I don't rely on SE traffic. I rely on word of mouth and PPC. My sites not optimized at all, so I have nothing to gain or lose by my opinion.

And by the way, an online tech journal just reviewed us. It's not out til next month, but they sent us an advance copy of their article.

5 out of 5 stars in all 6 of their catagories: automated content, ease of use, tools, visual, site marketing, and pricing and value. :)

Sorry, cbp. You weren't specious at all. A difference of opinion is fine.

Fathom=specious.

Quote:

"Great one? Did you give yourself this name?"
-Lawrence of Arabia

On another subject for DMOZ. Does anyone else notice that the search function is ALWAYS down:

The Open Directory search is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later.

I always get this when I try to use it. Any ideas why?

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog | Cheap Web Hosting

LMAO. No. No clue. :)

It just worked fine for me.

Just a reminder re the search function at DMOZ before anyone else jumps on it - we have already discussed it in this thread...

DMOZ is a directory. Directories are for browsing. Google is a search engine. Search engines are for searching. If you want to search for a site, use Google et al. If you want to browse a category of sites associated with a keyword(s), use a directory. SO, search at DMOZ is best thought of as finding a list of categories associated with a keyword(s) and maybe also show a sample of sites - it never shows all sites.... having said that, he DMOZ search could always be improved to return more sites (if it wants to be more like a search engine :-)

CBP

Yes it works fine for me on some terms and then others it gives the error message above. I understand that DMOZ is for browsing, but I was just wondering why the error message all the time. I got the error on a keyword like "ohio":

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=ohio

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog | Cheap Web Hosting

That isn't actually true. Sites can be, often are, double listed but the circumstances are strictly controlled. Generally you can have a listing in the Regional branch if your site has local relevance to where you are based. It may also be listed in a topical (i.e. non-Regional branch) if a category exists that fits the site. It may also be listed in Kids and Teens separately if it qualifies there. And it may be listed in each of the different language branches for which a translation exists on the site.

The help guidance is actually a little misleading on that one. It does say "You should submit your site to the single most appropriate category that is directly relevant to your site's content" but in http://dmoz.org/help/cats.html it explains about the others. It isn't a secret but it could be better signposted.

An interesting view but you have to understand the way DMOZ works internally. Firstly it would be patently unfair to deny editors own sites a listing wouldn't it. Secondly, editors always list their competitors at the same time as their own and none must be given any slant positive or negative - how an editor handles this is scrutinized very carefully. Thirdly every editor declares their affiliations so potential conflicts of interest are known and subject to monitoring. Fourthly, editors watch each other like hawks and there is no hesitation should an editor have a suspicion about another in hitting the Report Abuse button. There is nothing an editor hates more, even more than a pain in the *ss spam submitter, than a fellow editor who abuses their position. Put quite simply there is no tolerance in DMOZ for corruption whatsoever.

Maybe it would be useful to also give the top ten tips on how to get the most out of editors in terms of advice and assistance in submitting sites.

1) Be polite - editors are unpaid volunteers and are under no obligation to give anyone advice or assistance. They do so because they want to but if all they get in response is abuse then they will stop. Many editors have given up editing, others have given up communicating with submitters because of abusive attitudes directed at them.
2) Don't insinuate the whole of DMOZ is corrupt - editors hate corrupt editors more than anyone can possibly imagine. If you have a genuine concern and specific evidence, meta editors are waiting to hear from you.
3) Don't insinuate editors are lazy or neglectful - they have real lives, a living to earn outside, and are trying to build a resource in whatever spare time they have available. Your commercial concerns are of no interest or importance compared to reading the kids a bedtime story.
4) Read and grasp things like submission guidelines before criticising editors for failing to list your Nokia ringtones affiliate site.
5) Learn how to submit sites properly, to the right place, titled and described to standard, so editors can list them without delay.
6) Don't submit sites you know we won't let in, it wastes our time and yours, and don't then inquire about its status, wasting more time on both sides.
7) Don't threaten "legal proceedings" for the failure to list a site. To my knowledge no-one has succeeded to date after 6 years nor has even got as far as a courtroom. Frankly it just amuses us but if you want to pay $$$$$ to your lawyer to find out then go straight ahead.
8) Don't start spouting about rights - you have no rights over the efforts of unpaid volunteers.
9) Try and grasp that DMOZ is not a commercial listing service - we list sites, we welcome suggestions, we make no guarantees that suggestions will be accepted or when a decision will be made one way or another.
10) Try and work with us, not against us. Help us to help you by following the "secrets" I posted earler.

... sorry my comments weren't aimed at you. Just thought I would get them in first before the usual beat up comes about DMOZ not turning up "my site" in the search when the search is not for that.

You are right about the Ohio thing - there must be a bug ---I will go and report it.

BTW - if you come across these things, don't assume DMOZ knows about it. The place to report bugs etc is here:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18

Thanks for pointing it out.

CBP

re: ODP submission guidelines

Submitters get one set of guidelines, editors get a different set. There's nothing wrong with that. They aren't the same population after all.

__________________
ODP meta-editor kctipton

Complaints about DMOZ somehow "corrupt" is rediculas! There may be isolated circumstances where editors abuse their positions, but day to day activity of even a bad editor can't be as accused.

I have seen several accusations of editors refusing admission or deleting competitors from their category. If one knows that happened and state to even know the idenity of the editor and the editor's website, then why doesn't any complainer reveal who they are or their website? And why not report them to someone at DMOZ?

The whole corruption theory just don't make sense. The complaints of DMOZ being slow is true is cases, but I do not believe the corruption exist as stated.

I tend to believe frustrated webmasters/site owners imagine things when they do not get listed.

I agree with a previously stated posts that says the spammers cause 99% of the delays, just like they cause 99% of the bad search results on the web.

Whatever! That's what I think.

__________________
pinesprings
___________________________
www.pinespringsgolf.com

...and look at how many of them have posted in this thread with a "real chip on the shoulder" and making all sorts of threats and accusations...

CBP

Taking a step back and being objective, one might say chips have been pretty evident on both sides. (not naming names)

Aside from that, discussion is good.

(sorry to double-post)

I have a good guess we'll start to see that remedied on its own in the next couple years. I may have mentioned this in another thread somewhere, but I've seen firsthand how elementary school kids are taught search skills -- how to use search engines without just doing the one or two word searches. They've learned all the google search tricks. Those kids I've worked with are now in high school and will be in the workforce in the near future. I think the future of searchers will be that they will become more skilled in finding what they need, including the value of directories such as dmozilla.

Which is why I'm hoping to see any potential conflicts or bugs resolved, if any.

____________________________________
"You are only coming through in waves. Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying." - (pf)

Ok, I'll weigh in now for what it's worth.

The truth in this case, as with most things, lies somewhere between the two extremes.

I know a little bit about DMOZ and I know a little bit about directories. That being said, I can certainly appreciate the logistical hurdles facing DMOZ. I deal with many of the same issues on Jayde that they run into.

Is it possible to say either side of this debate is right or wrong? Probably not. There are doubtlessly a good number of legitimate sites waiting an inordinate amount of time for listings. That much is pretty well undeniable. It's gonna happen. Some editors simply have more time to dedicate than others, some categories get more submissions than others, some editors probably deal with higher volume of spam attempts depending on their categories etc and so on. And yes, it's also true, for whatever reason, the end of the day, some editors are just better than others.

I also have no doubt, having dealt with, DMOZ editors in the past, that an effort is made to maintain the integrity of their editorial process. People being people however it would be almost naive to say that there are no editors in the whole lot of them that haven't at some point demonstrated some bias. I don't buy that for a second. 99% of them are probably doing outstanding work but to suggest that none of them ever made a decision with the expectation that it was contrary to some competitor's best interest is a stretch at best.

On the other side of the coin, the vast majority of complaints from those who have had listing troubles probably have no one but themselves to blame. However here too, just like the editors, misconceptions are rampant.

Perhaps a site was deemed to be spammy and denied. It's quite reasonable to expect that the site owner had no idea s/he was doing anything wrong. They read something here or there where so and so added 'this' to their page and -bingo- the traffic rolls in. Somebody that didn't necessarily live in SEO circles may not know that the thing they just added to their page was the biggest spam trick going at the time. If you think these site owners are all little Danny Sullivans you are sorely mistaken. Thing is they're also not necessarily trying to intentionally game the system.

That doesn't even take into consideration editors of popular categories that get crushed with submissions on a daily basis. I have dealt with this first hand, it aint easy and things can and do sit in a queue for a good long time. Unavoidable. The site owner again doesn't necessarily appreciate this fact and ill will begins to stew after a day or two.

To wrap it up (I commend anyone still reading this), everybody's right (kinda). I do not think either side's contentions are altogether unfounded. I'm sure there are people not in DMOZ that deserve to be, likewise I'm equally confident the DMOZ editor's do what they must in order to keep some semblance of order in their categories.

Do all sites that spam get denied? Probably not. Has an editor ever placed their (or their client's) site ahead of a competitor - or perhaps denied a competitor access? Probably so. Do sites deserving a listing always languish in queues for 6 months? Not typically. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it a useful directory? Yes, so the system must not be too bad huh?

Chris pointed out some examples where folks had negative experiences getting listed. I don't see the big problem with anything he wrote. He didn't necessarily point to any of the things DMOZ does well, but that wasn't really what was being discussed. His thesis was basically that some people have a hell of a hard time getting in. Well, sure they do. Now let's discuss why and who and when and where and figure out if perhaps something could be done more effectively by; site builders, DMOZ, editors or whatever/whoever. (I think that was the plan).

Next round of Ritalin is on the house...

__________________
WebProNews Videos

For my last post here in this thread, first urknighterrent I apologize for that earlier crack - it was unprofessional. My point - if you have attempted to get listed in DMOZ, and haven't... part of the problem is lack of additional value to add.

As a kid I traded hockey cards - having 2 of the identical card added no additional value to my selection... this is the same as DMOZ.

I worked with a client in software development a few years back who wasn't listed in DMOZ but was proficient is Shockwave and had them convert their text-based/image archive to shockwave, and submitted.

They got listed is a big way by giving away $100K of free software development time. Their applets add merit and in exchange DMOZ listings add merit to their website.

So if you truly want a listing don't look at it from a commercial vantagepoint (making money) look 100% at adding additional merit to the archive.

The value that comes out of threads like this is insight but if you only take away how corrupt a free organization is... you lose and DMOZ still gains from those that accepted the advice given.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

NP fathom. I over reacted a bit myself. I hate when smart people disagree with me.

And I don't think the DMOZ isn't just a bunch of self-serving back scratchers. I'm inclined to agree that 99% (welllll... Lets say 95% :-/ ) of the editors are good people doing good work. I'm equally sure that the back scratchers that have made it in as editors are having a great time. Unfortunately cliches are usually founded in wisdom, and one bad apple...

Ugh. I can't say it. But I do happen to believe it.

Well you will probably think me bias Mike but I would differ with your conclusion. When you are talking about what DMOZ is about and what it should be about, the only right answer belongs to DMOZ - we set our own agenda according to our own aims and objectives. Those aims and objectives don't include provision of a commercial listing service.

DMOZ is a group of people from all countries, backgrounds and professions who spend some of their spare time on a voluntary project to catalogue the best sites, in their (joint) opinion, on the Internet. The results of their labors they give away, free of charge, to anyone who wants it, provided they follow the terms of the licence of course. What others have done with our labors is up to them - as long as they don't violate the licence we don't mind. And, it appears, others have created a situation where having a listing in DMOZ is commercially valuable.

But that isn't our doing , nor our problem, nor does it play a part in our thought processes, nor should we be required to have a response to that. If we look at ways to speed up the processing of external suggestions it is because it suits our objectives not anyone elses. That isn't being arrogant or dismissive, just telling it the way it is. Those who can grasp the voluntary and non-commercial concepts that are the essence of DMOZ we can talk constructively with. When people start talking about the effects DMOZ has on Google page ranking and the commercial consequences of not being listed in DMOZ for search engine results then they are talking to the wrong people - it is entirely a matter for Google and the other search engines, not DMOZ. We are simply data providers and the search engines can take, or leave, our data as they like. I dare say that if Google attached no premium to DMOZ listings whatsoever it would do us some big favors by reducing the attraction of spamming us.

All that said, we do try and work with webmasters and web owners, and encourage them to submit their sites for consideration, no strings attached. We tell them how to do it (see my previous post on how to maximise chances of inclusion in the shortest time), most ignore that. Which is a shame because as I said before, we really do love listing good quality sites and lots of them.

Go back to that post where I "revealed" how to maximise chances of inclusion in the shortest time. That is the answer my friend!

Points taken Briz. Actually I never contested any of those, I agree with everything you said more or less.

The situation being what it is with DMOZ. it inherently lends itself to this sort of debate however. Mind you, I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing. There is however a fundamental air of suspicion surrounding any circumstance where one person is subject to another person's judgement call.

I'm all for taking a position of a 'if i don't like a site, it isn't going in my directory, regardless of the circumstances' kind of mentality. I'd call that custodial descretion. I use it and anybody concerned about having a decent directory should too. Thing is, anytime you deny, dely, or otherwise prohibit a site from inclusion, the submitter is not neccessarily going to be disposed to appreciate the decision from your angle as an editor.

For example, you may have 147,000 listings about chia pets and automatically zap the 147,001st simply because you feel like you have an adequate amount of chia sites (that is a conceptual example not trying to say it is an existing policy). Point being there exists the possibility that a site won't make a directory despite the fact that that site technically has nothing wrong with it.

Now it may be policy to go ahead and take that site, but here's where the individual editor's judgement might come into play and all of a sudden you need to have a really exceptional chia site in order for that editor to think 'wow, we need this one' (particularly if the editor in question runs a leading chia site of his own).

Again, I am not saying editor's are corrupt. What I'm suggesting is that the human element comes into play. 99% of the time that isn't a bad thing at all. That is however precisely the reason why, when rejected or left unlisted, people are quick to call foul. Because somebody decided that their site didn't merit inclusion and in the absence of hard and fast objective measurements and parameters people are going to look to blame somebody for their circumstance. Whether or not these folks have a legitimate gripe is another matter. The vast majority likely do not, however I fully expect some prejudices to exist in any such system and I don't think it's entirely reasonable to preclude the possibility.

Failure is frustrating to people and in the absence of an explaination or reason for their lack of success, they will naturally externalize the blame. DMOZ is up against basic human psychology on a variety of fronts. I understand and can commiserate with that, trust me. However it is certainly reasonable to expect a segment of the rejected and/or unprocessed population to react negatively.

__________________
WebProNews Videos

the problem with DMOZ - my competitor takes care of our area, and another competitor takes care of another area etc., where we compete for business. Of course, my domains were never included or buried like trash in a landfill.

Having said that, a year ago, when I still had faith in DMOZ, we investigated our placement / the directory etc. and found that our domains were either buried, did not meet our competitor's idea of a site, or were not included. We contacted and complained to Google and asked our competitor for his senior's email address. After contacting the "senior" we were included. We contacted Google and gave them our opinion of DMOZ (not good) and suggested they develop their own Directory or at least lose DMOZ period, because it is not fair. We have proof. We do not include any of our client sites or our sites in DMOZ anymore - just because we do not want to participate in anything that is underhanded and we do not want to give DMOZ any credence. Poor Google - DMOZ will eventually either die or it may be the end of Google's directory. There are bazillions of good directories out there - why would Google stick with such a piece of WORK!

5Fish
http://5fish.net

So what you are saying is, you submitted an abuse report and the problem was resolved by DMOZ senior editors. Isn't that a shining example of DMOZ's intolerance of abuse?

That struck me as funny.

__________________
SEO Firefox Extension | Free Link Development Tool | New SUSE Linux Users

Before dismissing this as a sign of the system working, I'd be inclined to wonder if the catagory in question has a new editor or not.

I suppose they [Editors/Moderators] have nothing better to do all day but to stay at home in front of the computer and play God with people's lives and businesses. I wonder if they have a good laugh at the end of the day - "Boy, really F---d his day!" (smile)

I feel sad for all the good and helpful editors, who get knocked down because of a few of these high and mighty Disreputable Myopic Obdurate Zeros.

P.S. Yes we "used to" use DMOZ to search - not anymore - the results are more biased than a "paid for" submission site.

I believe the only reason DMOZ has value is that the big players like Google and others use the service.

People should contact Google and similar sites and discourage the use of DMOZ since it is a bad business practice. (Remember with Overture/GoTo lost big clients and their stock tanked!)

It is true DMOZ basically has no ethics and is very prejudice. I have had a DMOZ editor say to me "ha we don't even have to be fair!"

Example: General Motors builds cars (one type of product) and they have over 12 web sites (one for each brand of course).

My company, and others I'm sure, makes several completely different types of products, yet DMOZ only allows us to have ONE web site. I have completely different sites with different products yet DMOZ restricts web access. They are literally keeping food off of the table for small business owners.

If DMOZ was somebody...there should be a class action law suit against them.

Generally, any business big or small, uses a product or service because it is advantageous for them to do so. Seems to me many find using DMOZ advantageous.

See reply above.

There are channels to report this kind of abuse. It's listed in other replies throughout this thread.

I don't think DMOZ would mind if you have a separate web site for each of your products. That's up to you.

See answer above

I'm sorry, but I don't see the DMOZ as being the beat all end all to all of this. I don't see that a listing with them is a "right" or a privlege. It should be only one small facet to your approach to marketing. I'm not inclined to depend upon any one thing, engine or directory to put food on my table.

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

More innuendo, no facts, nothing constructive, same old same old, just trolling ....

I agree - if your business model is dependant on a listing in DMOZ, then its time to get out of business...

CBP

Our records show a different story. Without going into detail, a number of editors, some very experienced, independently rejected your main site in several different categories (you didn't pick just the one as you should of) until the content appeared to change and it became listable. It was then listed. Other domains have all been examined by multiple editors including very senior and experienced editors. You have made an assumption that a single editor had discriminated against you because he is a competitor. But that wasn't the case - your site was originally ineligible and any of the editors who looked at it could have been disciplined had they actually listed the site in contravention of guidelines.

Not a good example, no abuse was apparent. It is a risk all editors take when dealing with competitors' sites - they have to follow the guidelines for listing knowing that a decision to reject may lead to accusations of corruption. On the other hand where abuse is proven editors are fired, no hesitations. I've reported them myself and watched their account being terminated. The system works.

You didn't read my last post did you. Please do. I hope you live a long and happy life and your business goes well. But that has nothing to do with DMOZ, there is no obligation to you or anyone else. At the end of an editing session, virtually all editors, if they have managed to list some good quality sites, feel very happy to have contributed towards the expansion of the directory. Submit some great original sites to the right categories, titled and described properly, and we'll list them as quick as we can.

Mike, you're right that some of the rejected do react negatively and because that is human nature we can expect it. Whether it is reasonable is debatable! All editors really do want to list sites, it is what we exist for, not the drudge of de-spamming, and rewriting keyword stuffed titles and descriptions, then having to find and move the site to the category it should have been submitted to. If you on this board, and admins of other boards of a similar nature, can promote the tips I gave earlier as to how to maximize the chances of a quick and painless DMOZ listing, still no guarantees of course, it would do everyone a lot of favors! An important consideration is whether your site is up to the standard to begin with. If it isn't don't submit it. Quality, quality, quality! And Originality too!

People will still get upset about being rejected and will still rant and make accusations of corruption. It comes with the territory and in the end it stops even being irritating, it is just background noise you can switch off. What I am concerned about is that owners of excellent original sites we'd love to list will read this thread, and be dissuaded from making their suggestions, perhaps some would make great editors too. To them I'd say we'd really appreciate hearing about your site - please follow the tips I gave earlier and all the guidance on the DMOZ site and you shouldn't have anywhere near the problems reported by many of the posters here. Unfortunately in the really popular categories there is still a long wait but then a DMOZ listing shouldn't be the start and finish of anyone's web marketing campaign.

Most of us have areas of the directory we focus our attention on and I'm no different. Like all areas after a while you get to notice the "regulars" submitting on behalf of clients - the SEO operatives and web designers. By pro-actively approaching those "regulars" and pointing out how to submit their clients' sites (essentially pointing at and summarizing the guidelines already there), spam submissions fell considerably and and submitted sites were of better quality and very much easier to list, needing minimal work. Given the numbers of "regulars" throughout the directory, this approach is impractical on a widespread basis but boards like this can reach plenty of ears. Anything you can do to help spread the word would be appreciated.

brizzie,
your response to my : Quote:
I suppose they [Editors/Moderators] have nothing better to do all day but to stay at home in front of the computer and play God with people's lives and businesses.

You didn't read my last post did you. Please do. I hope you live a long and happy life and your business goes well. But that has nothing to do with DMOZ, there is no obligation to you or anyone else. At the end of an editing session, virtually all editors, if they have managed to list some good quality sites, feel very happy to have contributed towards the expansion of the directory. Submit some great original sites to the right categories, titled and described properly, and we'll list them as quick as we can.

-------------------------------

--- We "were" listed in DMOZ, but recently, we had made a few changes to our product line, and thought it was time to "update" our listings...

We submitted a request to simply "update" our listing "description" and to make sure we were in the correct category.

Within a week, we dropped off the face of the earth!

--- All we did was request to make a slight change to our description, and change our category to "update" our listing to a more relevant category, since we had overhauled our product line.

One nice editor replied and suggested we re-submit to the proper category - then right after that the Meta told us not to bother that our site would not be listed. (?!?!) at all (!?!?)

The exact posting was...
--------------------

Your site (http://tzrz.safeshopper.com ) was listed in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Clothing/Women%27s/, but was moved to http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Clothing/Undergarments/Basics for further review. I don't think that's where it belongs now, if it did then, so I suggest you resubmit to the best subcategory of http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Clothing.
--------------------


Unfortunately it doesn't matter, as your site won't be listed.
Please see http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude

(which implies that we are an affiliate site or the site we submitted was a mirror - which it is NOT).

--------------------

O.Kaayyy? What do you mean "won't be listed?"
It was before - what makes it so different now?

We replied to that message, confirming that we are not a list of affiliate links and the site submitted was not a mirror site… but doubt if we will receive an answer.

Lack of unique content to add value to a category is by far the most common reason a site is not listed.

CBP

tzrzbiz, I've looked at the site and I've looked at the history. It appears to me that the products you sell are original and not to be found elsewhere on the Internet - I've done searches for individual items at random and can't find the same ones elsewhere. I'm not an expert in this area of the directory but it is possible (I won't put it stronger than that) a mistake has been made. The editor who made the decision to exclude the site (who may not be the one who communicated with you) is probably the most experienced and respected in this field so there may be reasons I have not noticed or specific policies for this area of the directory I am personally unfamiliar with.

I presume this set of communications was in the ODP's Resource Zone though I can find no trace of it there - if not then that is the place to go. Return to the thread if it was in the Resource Zone, or post there if not, explain your business model in sufficient depth so that it can be understood, and why you believe your products are worthy of inclusion. Ask politely for someone to do a re-evaluation of the site and reconsider the decision. If a mistake has been made then it should be rectified but if you aren't a genuine seller of original products then expect no sympathy! Don't take an angry or aggressive stance, it will get you nowhere.

Well, CBP that is precisely the kind of thing that I believe could be very concerning to many webmaster/submitter types. Is it neccessary to have truly unique content in order to be listed? I'm not too sure.

If for example we use an earlier example and do a search for baseball cards, I think you'll see a significant amount of crossover. While it is true that many of these sites are well done, you could also argue that there is a great deal of repitition insofar as content is concerned.

Now obviously I cannot avouch for any official stance on repeated content from DMOZ, but I would suspect that duplicated content in and of itself is not an inherently bad thing. After all if that were the case there would be a lot less variety.

After someone made the best, most comprehensive baseball card site in the world, there wouldn't be any need to submit my baseball card site as I would probably not have anything new in the way of content to add. What my baseball card site might offer however is variety and another quality alternative. On that basis, I would expect DMOZ wouldn't neccessarily be serving it's own best interest by saying you need new content in order to make it in.

I just don't think you'd want folks to get in a category where they want to submit, see a site that does pretty much the exact same thing they are trying to do and just say "oh well, they already have one, damn, guess I shouldn't submit".

Boy I'm rambling today huh?

__________________
WebProNews Videos

From DMOZ guidelines:
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

Mike - also sent you a PM with more info on this.

CBP

CBP I have a question. I have a client that has spammed DMOZ (submitting to often) and I told them to stop submitting every month after they signed on with me. Now does this client have no chance to ever get into DMOZ or should they wait a year before submitting again? I find it hard to believe that DMOZ editors will ban a website for life if they have learned not to SPAM like they have in the past. Any comments?

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog | Cheap Web Hosting

They are very unlikely to get banned for it. It just can create a lot of work for the editor.

Usually the resubmission just overwites the old one with the new date, so when the editor looks at the pool of sites and chooses to review them by date, they are just hurting themselves and they go to the back.

The overwriting does not always happen and does not happen if they submit deeplinks and to multiple categories - and the editor then has to delete all these, generally leaving one for review .... BUT, they could accidently delete them all and leave none for review (does happen occasionaly) --- also put yourself in the editors 'shoes' - they just deleted all the spam ... they are not really going to be inclined or be in the mood to review the site, so it just gets left for later or another editor. All editors can see the notes regarding the deletion .... its hard to get motivated to look at sites that create so much work.

At the end of the day, DMOZ wants quality sites with unique content, regardless if they have been submitted or not. Going over the top with submitting is not going to preclude them ...unless it way over the top, the site is no good and the spam is to multiple categories and multiple deeplinks.

If you are concerned about a particular URL, PM me.

CBP

Well, I can understand and appreciate that (post + PM). However, I will stand by the point that the whole matter of the duplicate content thing can be a prickly issue. This is all a very subjective process and I guess that's what I'm getting at in the end.

What precisely constitutes 'duplicate', I suppose, would be my question and if (as I suspect) not all duplicate content is just dismissed, how much is enough? You see my point?

I think those are valid concerns. Had this article been written addressing this (or some other)issue more specifically, perhaps that would have been more acceptable to some folks. I suspect we'd still be experiencing a pile on of ODP bashing either way.

I've tried to be clear in stating that I personally have no beef with DMOZ. I deal with a lot of these same problems myself. That said, I don't think it's improper or damaging to ask these kinds of questions and I certainly would hope they could be asked and discussed here.

__________________
WebProNews Videos

One of the main complaints I hear from DMOZ is the submission to incorrect categories. I am not talking about spamming with multiple submissions, but a straight, single submission. Categories are arbitary and it is a very subjective matter. Take an example of a website about "underwater bat strangling". I very much doubt that there is a single category that will fit it and so you have to decide which category is most applicable. It is not always very easy. DMOZ is easier than most, since it has a large number of categories, but it is still limited. There may be cases where a sub-sub-category has been overlooked.

A DMOZ category chart would be a nice addition for us, helping to find the best category. Teh additonal work for you to provide this would be amply repaid by less work in sorting applications. It is also a comment I have about a number of directories. For the searcher this would be a valuable addition as well for the same reason.

__________________
Simon - Biogas, Rauchgasanalysator and Rauchgasanalysegerät

sfowler, this isn't directed at you, I just want to jump on the chance to maintain this thread's recent trend of helpful discussion and offer some advice to webmasters trying to decide what category to suggest their site to.

Selecting which category to submit a site to can be very difficult. Editors struggle with this all the time.

Often a site will be submitted by a webmaster to a category, the editor finds it's not appropriate for that category and sends it to another category. That editor will get it, see that its not quite right and send it off to someone else; sites can easily be bounced to 6 or 7 categories before it finds an editor who finds it appropriate. It is a mistake that is easy to make.

The best way to prevent this is to spend enough time researching which category is most appropriate. Most categories will have a description, take the time to read the description and look at your site from an objective point of view.

To use your example, if you only strangle bats in fresh water, make sure you consider sending it there. Make sure there isn't a category for strangling bats in the Danube. If there is a "Danube Underwater Bat Strangling" category and you only strangle bats at the Danube, don't submit the site to "European River Underwater Bat Strangling" hoping your site will get more exposure, you'll just be guaranteeing that it will be bounced around.

If you strangle bats and the site is in German, submit it to the appropriate World category. Try to squeeze your site into the lowest category that makes sense, because that is most likely what an editor will do.

Use the search feature to check out where similar sites have been placed. Search for your keywords, you may find a category somewhere that is most appropriate but hasn't occurred to you to submit there. If you have a competitor and you both strangle brown bats in swimming pools, see where his site got placed.

Categories will also often display related categories. Take a look at those and see if they might be more appropriate.

It can take a long time and be a royal pain, but it will seriously decrease a suggested site's potential wait time.

sfowler, describe what you mean when you suggested a "category chart"; I'm having a hard time imagining what this would look like.

__________________
SEO Firefox Extension | Free Link Development Tool | New SUSE Linux Users

Site map?

CBP

Something along the lines of a site map or flow chart. Sometimes you find that a category makes unusual turns in the middle, so to speak. Whilst you would never dream of submitting to the top category, there is suddenly a sub-sub-sub-category that looks just right. By the time I have worked my way through all the possibilities, I have forgotten what the first one was in many cases. There is seldom a "perfect" category, and it is often a judgement call on it. Being able to see all of them at once would be an advantage. You can then look directly at various possiblities without losing the overview. The judgement call often looks different, depending on where you are sitting. Take an example: I wash my car (when I wash my car!) with industrial floor cleaner. One reason is that I can steal it easily, but the main reason is that it does the job best. I cannot see you accepting it into the category "automotive" very happily! I appreciate what you are saying, I am just trying to simplify the matter.

There are directories that give an alphabetical list of all categories and subcategories. I cannot think of a worse way to search for something!

Something nice and clear and graphical is needed to aid the process. It is an objective call, but nearly right is better than way wrong.
Thanks for taking my excamples halfway seriously, CBP. I get strange around full moon!

__________________
Simon - Biogas, Rauchgasanalysator and Rauchgasanalysegerät

Thanks, I will rise it in the internal DMOZ forum.

CBP