How to submit your site to google directory "dmoz"

Discuss Yahoo, Dmoz, Looksmart and other directories here.
Post Reply
A7
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:52 pm
Contact:

How to submit your site to google directory "dmoz"

Post by A7 »

Hi, does anyone know how to submit sites to Google directory "dmoz"? Whenever I try, I get a message that the service is temporarily unavailable! I have been getting this message for few months!

viradian
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by viradian »

dmoz is not owned by google, but a listing by dmoz makes your site more trustworthy to google. To submit to dmoz, find the category that you think your site is most appropriate in and click the suggest a site link at the top.

Then forget about it. dmoz is extremely slow and extremely picky. I've submitted 3 times over the course of 2006 and am still not in. Best to just submit once and forget about it...if you get in good, if not, it won't really affect your site too much.

harrysmith
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm
Contact:

Post by harrysmith »

Hey guys,
There was much discussion going around about “ DMOZ being dead ”at various popular forums.
DMOZ was facing some technical problem since long time and they were not able to solve it till now so there is problem while submitting at DMOZ.
Why to just concentrate on DMOZ there area many more important directories to submit.

DMOZ used to be Google’s favorite but today it is not so.... :(

Hostnetric
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Hostnetric »

junoman wrote:Yeah DMOZ is pretty much dead for me. Submit once if the submission page works and forget about it. Many editors never even check submitted sites and even if they do there are hundreds of sites to go through and they have very stict criteria as many oft hem may own sites in your industry and may not want their competitors listed. As you know the editors are volunteers and anyone can become an editor, altough now they decline over 95% of applicants.
The problem seems that they decline their competitors as most applicants that want to become editors have to give their background. I know some pretty knowledgable people who are well respected who have been turned down in their effort to volunteer. Seems they want only those that will not make much impact on their own listings. Of course this is speculation, but it leads you to wonder about this and the people they are turning down.

Kammie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 3:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Kammie »

Hostnetric wrote: The problem seems that they decline their competitors as most applicants that want to become editors have to give their background. I know some pretty knowledgable people who are well respected who have been turned down in their effort to volunteer. Seems they want only those that will not make much impact on their own listings. Of course this is speculation, but it leads you to wonder about this and the people they are turning down.
Most editors don't review editor applications. You have to be a certain type of editor in order to do that. So, most editors can't see your editor application waiting in the queue, nor are they able to review it. They can't see the affiliations you list either; only Meta and above are able to see them.

Hostnetric
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Hostnetric »

Kammie wrote: Most editors don't review editor applications. You have to be a certain type of editor in order to do that. So, most editors can't see your editor application waiting in the queue, nor are they able to review it. They can't see the affiliations you list either; only Meta and above are able to see them.
This may be then, but still why the high percentage of turn downs to help edit when many individuals are more than qualified to assist them. I was told by a long time editor that they are working with only around 7,000 active editors now. This seems extremely low considering the number of categories that are on this directory.

bradystjames
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by bradystjames »

it looks like they would want as many sites as they can get. and they should not let people cut out sites if they are selling the same thing.

Kammie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 3:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Kammie »

Hostnetric wrote: This may be then, but still why the high percentage of turn downs to help edit when many individuals are more than qualified to assist them. I was told by a long time editor that they are working with only around 7,000 active editors now. This seems extremely low considering the number of categories that are on this directory.
Firstly, you have to think of why so many applications are being turned down. Keep in mind that Dmoz does not keep any hard figures on how many applicants are turn down, so any figure you get from somewhere other than the Dmoz site is pure speculation.

Most editors get turned down for not being honest on their applications. Think of the reasons someone wouldn't want to be honest about the sites they are affiliated with and be thankful they are not accepted as Dmoz editors. It's very well that someone may be very versed in the category's subject and have a near perfect application, but if they lie on that application, or show they can't be trusted with the responsibilities of being an editor then they will be rejected. People lie, and Dmoz does a good job of catching them when they submit applications.

Some people are turned down because they picked the wrong category to apply to. Some categories are too large for a new editor, or it gets too much spam that a new, inexperienced editor will not be able to handle it.

Others get turned down because they don't know how to classify sites for the category they're applying for. They choose incorrect sites for the category on their editor application. Keep in mind that when you are accepted as an editor, the sample sites on your application go into the category's unreviewed pool for you to list in that category. You need to show on your application that you know how to choose the correct sites for the category in which you're applying.

There are many reasons why editor applications get rejected. Most of them aren't obvious on the surface, and most of the time applications get rejected because the person has shown that they can't be trusted.

Hostnetric
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Hostnetric »

Kammie some of what you say is fine and makes perfect sense. However, there is no way that everyone nor every current editor makes the right choice each time. Sometimes it is a learning curve since as you say the number of categories is great. This is understandable, but there has to be a much better way to handle the current situation at DMOZ.

Consider that their site suggestion tool has been inoperable for quite some time now. Their backlog is months and even years sometimes. The sheer volume of requests and the lack of editors to wade through these requests suggests that the system is becoming to cumbersome to maintain in the current method they have chosen. A few years ago the current method worked and it worked quite well, but with the number of sites that are coming online these days DMOZ simply has to make a change to keep its position as a viable source of quality listings.

DMOZ is becoming less relevant as time goes on. While it is true that getting listed there could do nothing but help any sites rankings and to some degree their traffic it is not the only solution on the Internet these days. DMOZ is simply becoming a dinosaur in its current state and with some good luck they will fix their issues and move themselves into a position to better serve the Internet community with an updated system.

Kammie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 3:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Kammie »

Hostnetric wrote:Kammie some of what you say is fine and makes perfect sense. However, there is no way that everyone nor every current editor makes the right choice each time. Sometimes it is a learning curve since as you say the number of categories is great. This is understandable, but there has to be a much better way to handle the current situation at DMOZ.

Consider that their site suggestion tool has been inoperable for quite some time now. Their backlog is months and even years sometimes. The sheer volume of requests and the lack of editors to wade through these requests suggests that the system is becoming to cumbersome to maintain in the current method they have chosen. A few years ago the current method worked and it worked quite well, but with the number of sites that are coming online these days DMOZ simply has to make a change to keep its position as a viable source of quality listings.

DMOZ is becoming less relevant as time goes on. While it is true that getting listed there could do nothing but help any sites rankings and to some degree their traffic it is not the only solution on the Internet these days. DMOZ is simply becoming a dinosaur in its current state and with some good luck they will fix their issues and move themselves into a position to better serve the Internet community with an updated system.
No, I don't think lowering the standards to let in people who will blatantly lie on their applications will help Dmoz at all. Those people will only want to list THEIR sites then move on. They'll want to keep out the competition. Or, they will only want to keep editing the category so they can fill it with their clients sites. Don't for one second think these people are at all interested in helping to build the directory with useful sites, so chances are they're not going to care about listing your site. They will be the very ones who try to keep your site out of the directory if they feel you are too much competition, or, they'll try to bribe you for money for a listing. Dmoz has seen it all. The best way to help the directory is to keep these people from becoming editors because they do nothing to help the directory. I think the way they carry out that mission is as good as it's going to get. Not everyone deserves a second chance to fool you.

Secondly, Dmoz isn't in the business of listing every site ever known to man. Dmoz's purpose as far as that is concerned is to offer a selection of sites on any given topic that you will find over the Internet - not to list all sites available over the Internet. That will be virtually impossible since it's a volunteer force, and since the Internet is forever growing with many sites popping up everyday.

Thirdly, Dmoz is not a listing service for webmasters. Most editors know of the amount of time it takes for most sites to be listed. An editors job is not to sift through the suggested sites, but to find good sites for the category. Editors can find those sites any way they choose, be it the suggested sites, a search engine, or those listed in signatures at message boards. It's completely up to the editor on where they choose to find listable sites, so the number of sites in unreviewed doesn't play a role in how fast sites are listed unless the individual editor feels he/she needs to make it a priority.

Yes, the suggest a site script has been inoperable, but so what. That's a feature for the directory. Dmoz, at any time, can choose to take it away and require editors to find sites by other means. But, there aren't many people who want their choices of finding listable sites limited, which is what cutting off the suggest a site feature would do. So, think of the suggest a site feature as just that - a feature - but certainly not a requirement that Dmoz has to offer at all.

And, FYI, even if Dmoz did find more qualified, honest editors, it doesn't mean most categories in Dmoz would then be edited regularly; it all depends on the interest of the editors. Editors edit in the categories they want. They are not forced by anyone to edit somewhere just because the category hasn't been kept up to a decent level. Have you thought about becoming an editor, hostnetric? It's hard to complain about something unless you're willing to help in "fixing" it.

Hostnetric
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Hostnetric »

First Kammie no one suggested lowering any standards.

Second: No DMOZ nor any other site should list all the websites on the Internet, but you cannot tell people that they are listing all the quality websites that are out there that have applied. This is due to a lack of manpower to sift through the sites that are suggested for one and two the sheer number of sites on the Internet as I have allready stated.

Having standards is fine with respect to editors and they very well should have these in place to insure the integrity of their operation. I have managed businesses for almost 20 years now and I will be the first to say that if you do not perform proper checks on your people then yes you can run into issues. Yes the implications of having bad editors is a high risk, but as I said they still need to consider a change that will make the procedures easier for the editors and the listing of quality sites much easier.

Do I agree with you on the fact that their suggestion url is not working anymore and that they have the right to not utilize this anymore? Then the answer is yes, however, it still raises concerns for many on the stability and long term prospects of DMOZ as a viable directory. Will it ever go away? No I doubt that, but its importance is becoming less of a factor in the minds of many webmasters.

Have I thought about becoming an editor of DMOZ? Yes a few times, but then I would have to take to much time away from my own business and family to do yet another thing. That is not an option that I am willing to commit to at this time.

One other thing. You suggested that even if they found honest editors that the situation would be the same. This may be true, but with over 596,000 active categories to be managed at this time do you not think the addition of yet more qualified and interested DMOZ editors would help? I believe they would, but to get to the point of making the categories manageable more qualified editors need to be found and assigned specific groupings of categories so that DMOZ knows that these are handled by the editors that are responsible for them. Yes they could allow them to help in other categories once their areas are taken care of and this would only be prudent, but letting them edit in the categories that they feel they want to can create backlog issues very quickly. Some semblance of order needs to be in place.

I will assume that you are an editor for DMOZ and if this is true then you understand the complexities of the situation there better then most do. However, DMOZ is no different than any other large business and running a business without boundaries for the employees and specific goals in mind for each causes issues.

BizEngine
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Post by BizEngine »

Managed to submit my site to Dmoz just a minute ago.

For your info only.

BizEngine
BizEngine
Building Value-Assets on the Web
Website: www.bizengine.com.sg

Kammie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 3:06 pm
Contact:

Post by Kammie »

Hostnetric wrote:First Kammie no one suggested lowering any standards.

Second: No DMOZ nor any other site should list all the websites on the Internet, but you cannot tell people that they are listing all the quality websites that are out there that have applied. This is due to a lack of manpower to sift through the sites that are suggested for one and two the sheer number of sites on the Internet as I have allready stated.
Dmoz has never said it will list ALL quality sites over the Internet. Again, as you've already noted, this is not feasible. We WILL list sites that meet our listing criteria. We WILL list a portion of the TYPES of sites you come across over the web. In other words, if the types of sites you can find over the Internet are SPAM sites, then Dmoz will list them. But, we will not list every site, nor every quality site. That's virtually impossible. Quality is defined by our criteria and has nothing to do with how a site looks, but the kind of information it has.
Hostnetric wrote: Having standards is fine with respect to editors and they very well should have these in place to insure the integrity of their operation. I have managed businesses for almost 20 years now and I will be the first to say that if you do not perform proper checks on your people then yes you can run into issues. Yes the implications of having bad editors is a high risk, but as I said they still need to consider a change that will make the procedures easier for the editors and the listing of quality sites much easier.
Do you have any suggestions of how this can be effectively accomplished? The hard part is balancing it so that you're not letting in just anyone. Dmoz takes seriously the integrity of the directory. That's why editors who are even subtely showing favor towards their or their clients sites can have their editor account removed. As far as listing quality sites, well, individual editors are empowered to make that decision on Dmoz's behalf. We have no problem with deciding whether a site meets our criteria or not. And, even if an editor isn't sure he/she can always ask on the internal forums. So, when you say "the listing of quality sites much easier" I'm not sure what you mean. We have guidelines for editors to follow that will determin whether a site should be listed or not based on quality.
Hostnetric wrote: Do I agree with you on the fact that their suggestion url is not working anymore and that they have the right to not utilize this anymore? Then the answer is yes, however, it still raises concerns for many on the stability and long term prospects of DMOZ as a viable directory. Will it ever go away? No I doubt that, but its importance is becoming less of a factor in the minds of many webmasters.
I agree. It's not as important as a lot of peoplemake it out to be.
Hostnetric wrote: Have I thought about becoming an editor of DMOZ? Yes a few times, but then I would have to take to much time away from my own business and family to do yet another thing. That is not an option that I am willing to commit to at this time.
Okay, but that's your choice, but i'm sure you can see what editors face in that realm. They're no different than you. They have real lives and families that come first. The minimum requirements for keeping an account active with Dmoz is to log in and make at least 1 edit every 120 days (4 months). Just future info in case you change your mind. We can always use more editors, I'm not questioning that. Finding a way to get more qualified, honest editors to appy is something that's currently being talked about on the Internal forum, but I can tell you one thing - making editors edit in categories they don't want to edit in will make Dmoz LOSE editors. No one wants to be forced to edit in a category where they're not interest. Can you imagin the number of editors that will quit if they're forced to review SPAM sites? I would. People are more productive when they are given a choice on where to edit, because if they are forced, then they are less likely to edit often in areas in which they have no interest.
Hostnetric wrote: One other thing. You suggested that even if they found honest editors that the situation would be the same. This may be true, but with over 596,000 active categories to be managed at this time do you not think the addition of yet more qualified and interested DMOZ editors would help? I believe they would, but to get to the point of making the categories manageable more qualified editors need to be found and assigned specific groupings of categories so that DMOZ knows that these are handled by the editors that are responsible for them. Yes they could allow them to help in other categories once their areas are taken care of and this would only be prudent, but letting them edit in the categories that they feel they want to can create backlog issues very quickly. Some semblance of order needs to be in place.
My whole point when I made that statement is that even with the addition of new editors some areas will still go unedited for large amounts of time. A lot of time it's due to lack of interest from editors. Dmoz will never go the way of forcing editors to edit in categories where they're not interested - see my statement above as to why. Dmoz will lose editors that way. Plus, editors will log more edits working in areas they enjoy rather than in areas they don't. I'll explain it to you. An new editor will start in a small category. Once they have the category in shape, they can then apply for additional categories - which they will have to fill out an application similar to the new editor application. Current editors can also have their applications for more categories rejected if submit incorrect sample sites on their application, or if their current category isn't in shape. They can also be rejected for other reasons.

Again, I will stress, Dmoz is NOT a listing service. You keep mentioning the backlog, but I want to point out that editors don't see it as a backlog because our main job as editors is NOT processing submissions. Had processing submissions been our main priority then, yes, clearing the "backlog" would be of utmost importance - but it's not. WHen you suggest a site to Dmoz you are doing just that "suggesting" it. We are not offering you a service when you suggest your site. We don't give time frames when they will be reviewed because they are not our main priority. There is way more to Dmoz than listing sites in the directory. There is quality control, making sure there aren't any overlapping categories, making sure categories are in the best section of the directory, linking those categories together correctly, etc. There's also processing the REDs, those sites that go dead - some editors make it their priority to see if those sites are now under a new URL. There are so many things that editors do to make Dmoz what it is. There are always proposals for new categories to be created, for categories to be moved to a different part of the directory. going through categories to correct redirecting URLs and removing dead sites. Some editors focus on things that have nothing to do with suggestions. Those are some of the things editors do to keep the directory functioning, not just processing greens. Editors can focus on whatever task they want - usually it's the upper editors (editall+ and high category editors) that have the opprotunity to focus mainly on those other tasks.

But, right now, there is nothing in place to guarantee that a category will be reviewed within a certain amount of time. An editor would have to take an interest in it, before anything gets done. And, that editor who takes an interest might only be interested in removing the dead links rather than adding sites to it.
Hostnetric wrote: I will assume that you are an editor for DMOZ and if this is true then you understand the complexities of the situation there better then most do. However, DMOZ is no different than any other large business and running a business without boundaries for the employees and specific goals in mind for each causes issues.
Dmoz does have boundaries, they are called editor and site guidelines. Those guidelines are public and you can go to Dmoz.org and read them at your leasure - they are probably just not the type of guidelines you would liketo see in place.

Hostnetric
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Hostnetric »

I am glad to see that the quality of a site matters more then anything and that is how any business whether online or not should be run. I am also glad to see that the submission url is once again operating.

You have made some good and sound points in your posts and for that I thank you for being professional in this discussion. Normally discussions like this become heated by some parties, but you have handled it professionally and I commend you for that.

I will evaluate my time constraints and give deep consideration to applying for a position to the editorial staff of DMOZ. I can see the frustration that editors there must have as well in respect to the number of submissions and the constant complaining that they read on forums.

Good Luck Kammie and I look forward to more open talks like this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests