lachenm

I'm afraid it's still waiting there with about 30 other sites. Please feel free to check back again after at least another month.

Unfortunately, there's no change. It's still waiting with about the same number of sites.

Sorry, it's still waiting, still with lots of other sites.

Re: photography site Still waiting, I'm afraid, and still with a handful of other sites in the "A" subcategory (but remember, there are a lot of letters in the alphabet, so even small numbers of unreviewed in each letter can add up quickly). Sorry there isn't better news.

Yes, it's still waiting with over 500 other sites. There were duplicate submissions, dated April 02, 2003, so I deleted one of them. I'm afraid that someone did resubmit your site, overwriting any older submission under that URL, which means that if an editor sorts by date, it will be near the bottom again.

You've been waiting almost exactly 5 months (your site shows a submission date of November 29, 2002). I wish we had more qualified volunteers to edit so that the waits would go down, but at least you have been listed once during that time. Please be patient, and your other submission will eventually be reviewed.

[Edited]Alucard was faster by 2 minutes![/Edited]

It's still waiting (along with more than 100 other sites) in the Society category, too. That's a pretty backlogged area of the directory (nearly every letter of the alphabet has a sizable unreviewed pool), so it could be a while.

We do not list different product-specific URLs for a company, especially in the same category. We will list a single company website -- it is the company's choice whether they want to have a website that allows users to see their products or whether they want to "break" the navigation on their site, effectively preventing users from seeing the rest of it. We assume that the company can decide the best way to market their own products. The ODP is not intended to be an index of individual web pages or a substitute for effective web design. As I've noted before, it amazes me that small companies are the ones who most often object to this policy, never stopping to think that if the policy were to change (it won't), the directory would be flooded with product links from sites like WalMart and Amazon.com, making the little companies almost impossible to find.

Adding to giz's answer, there is no way to tell when exactly any given site will be reviewed. Editors are volunteers, and they are not required to review a specific number of sites at any time. Also, editors are under no obligation to process sites in any particular order. >>Or may I ask for an alternative (why not the category where i submitted in the first place) where i could submit the site as well, with a chance for a faster inclusion.<< Actually, the only thing you would get by submitting your site in a category where it doesn't belong is a chance for slower inclusion. If an editor found it in an incorrect category, he or she would just move it to the correct category, where it would overwrite your earlier submission. If an editor decided to sort by date, your submission would be processed later. In addition, by creating extra work for editors, you would slow down the processing of sites overall. Your category was sent to what an editor believes is the appropriate category. You should not submit to another category just in the hopes of getting listed more quickly.

Still waiting in a pool of more than 300 sites, I'm afraid. >>I'd apply to be an Ed. to speed things up but I don't think I'm very qualified.<< It's not as though they check resumes... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> All that the meta editors ask is that you are honest (declare your affiliations!, don't abuse your privileges), that you can follow some directions (where to place a site, how to describe a site), and that you write in reasonable English or whatever language is appropriate for your category (check spelling, be concise, make sure that the descriptions make sense). Granted, there's a little more to it than that -- choosing an appropriate category is also important -- and many people take a few tries before they get accepted, but my point is that you don't have to be an expert. Being accepted as an editor is just the start of a learning process, and new editors aren't expected to be perfect, just to do their best. We leave perfection to the metas. <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Re: www.whirlpooljacuzzitubs.com Submission Status I'm sorry there's nothing new to report. Still waiting, in a pool of the same size. Please feel free to check back again after at least a month.

Re: Site Status Like I asked last time, please wait at least a month between status update requests. Yes, I know you are just one day away (from another update that was answered one day early because I was trying to be nice), but the forum guidelines have to draw a line somewhere (if we allow one day early, next it will be two, then three...). If you come back after at least two days, you'll be back on schedule from your original request.

Re: Status: www.onlineshopmall.com I always have to think twice or three times about the dates on this forum (I'm American), so I certainly sympathize! Sorry our jumbled system has disturbed the normal order of your thought processes. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Re: Status: www.onlineshopmall.com Umm, dfy, I could be wrong, but didn't he leave more than a month (March 4-April 22)? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Unless there's another thread somewhere... The site is still waiting for review.

If you have submitted to the one category that best fits your site, as the ODP Submission Guidelines ask, then why on earth would you want to submit your site somewhere else? An editor would just end up moving it to the correct category, where it would then wait for review (probably overwriting the earlier submission, bumping your site down in the order if an editor chooses to sort by date). Submitting to incorrect categories will only slow the review process down. All categories in the ODP have editors, whether one is listed or not. Editors that have priveleges in categories that are higher up on the tree can edit in the category, and editall and meta editors can edit anywhere in the directory. I know a lot of categories with no listed editor where the backlog is much less than in other categories that have listed editors. It's impossible to predict when an individual site will be reviewed, but rest assured that your site will eventually be reviewed.

Sorry, still no change. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> It's still waiting.

To answer alfine6502's question from the other thread, your site is still waiting for review, in a pool of fewer than 10 sites.

>>1. According to the editor guide lines a site may be listed in more than 1 category.<< Yes, but that tends to be an exception, and sites are not listed in both a parent and child category. As I said before, the reason why iprepare.com was listed in the parent category was that it was too general for the category for which you applied. Using your reasoning, nearly every site in the parent category would also be listed in the category for which you applied. That's not the way ODP works. For the site to be listed in the subcategory, its primary focus should be the subject of that subcategory (and then it wouldn't be listed in the parent category). As I also pointed out, those sites were not in the mainstream of the category. Finding sites that were closer to the mainstream would be a good first guide. I'm not sure why you repeated the reason why your application was rejected. It just states what I already addressed: both iprepare.com and x10(.com) were inappropriate. The reviewer didn't make a mistake. Neither of those sites should be listed in that category. If you had actually listed either of those sites in that category, the net result would have been that another editor would eventually have come along and removed them. Your single point has been that "given the facts you were using, the sites could have been considered appropriate." My point is, and continues to be, "you weren't considering all the relevant facts." Part of being an editor at the ODP is looking around to figure out whether one's first impression about where a site is best listed is actually correct. Another part is asking other editors for their opinions when there is a difficult case. A third part is taking other people's opinions, thinking about them, and either deciding that they are right, or coming up with a persuasive reason why they are not -- and trying to reach a consensus. I have yet to meet the ODP editor who was always right (no offense to any metas who might be reading <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ). Listening to other editors' opinions is one of the most important ways that individual editors improve their own skills (prospective editors might also benefit), and that the directory improves as a whole. Telling me (or any meta) that you didn't know those sites were inappropriate isn't going to change anything. The reviewing meta probably already guessed that you didn't know (why would you submit sites that you thought were inappropriate?). Taking note of the reasons why the sites were judged inappropriate and using that knowledge to submit more appropriate sites, would have helped your case a lot more than trying to seize on a technicality which, as I explained, didn't apply to those specific sites. Look, I have no hidden agenda. There's absolutely no reason why I wouldn't want you to be an editor -- in fact, I wish we had lots more editors -- and I even gave you advice that could have helped a subsequent application. I'm just trying to explain that, given the way sites are actually listed in the ODP, your application appears to have been reasonable not to accept, and that the message was intended to encourage you to try again (with different sites), rather than to anger you or hurt your feelings. If the meta hadn't thought you were worth encouraging, you wouldn't have received any specific feedback at all.

I'm afraid it's still awaiting review in that category, in a pool of fewer than 50 sites. Sorry I don't have better news.

Responding to your status request in the other thread, you are still waiting with a few dozen other sites.

Re: http://www.newsletterfactory.com [Edited] Kokopeli was faster! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> [/Edited]

>>I don't understand 'neither site' there was only one site rejected<< Two sites: iprepare.com, x10.com ("ditto x10"). >>according to the category description the site was appropriate for that category<< And as I explained in my post, the category description is only one place you should look. For example, as I said, iprepare.com was already listed in the category above the one for which you applied, precisely because it was too general for the category. Checking to see if a site is listed elsewhere (especially in a parent category) is an important skill expected of editors. If I were a meta, and I saw that someone had suggested two sites that were not appropriate to be listed in a category, even if they were close to the mark, I don't think I'd approve their application, either, because I wouldn't be sure that they knew exactly what types of sites fit in that category (but as I'm not a meta, I don't know for sure what I'd do). I think I would try to encourage them to apply with different sites that were more suited to the category, because they might turn out to be good editors, which is what I tried to suggest to you. >>No I'm not going to reapply<< I'm sorry to hear that. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Remember, though, the presence of another editor in a category doesn't necessarily preclude an application, though it might make it more difficult to be accepted. There are plenty of other categories with no listed editors in the ODP, though.

>>The point is that a mistake did happen<< I'm afraid I respectfully disagree (though, again, I'm not a meta). The only possible mistake I can see is that the response may have been too terse. The bottom line is that neither site is appropriate for that category for the reasons outlined in my previous post. I think the meta was probably trying to be helpful and to suggest that you try to find sites that are more suited to the category, if and when you reapply. I hope you do reapply, but, in addition to theseeker's helpful advice, I recommend finding some different sites. It certainly couldn't hurt. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't see it in either of the two categories mentioned in this thread. I also don't see any evidence that it was moved or deleted. When you submitted, where exactly did you submit? And did you receive any error messages? My guess is that if you re-submitted to one of these two categories, the submission never went through. Frankly, I'm not sure that either of those two categories is the best one for this site, though. The site appears to be about a method for citizens to contact their local government, not about an organization. It also appears to be Connecticut-specific. As a result, it should be listed somewhere in http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Connecticut , but since it isn't about an organization, doesn't belong in the Organizations subcategory. The main CPEC site would belong here, and, in fact, is currently listed in this category. Essentially www.civicradar.com is a subsite for a specific project of of CPEC. As a result, I'm not certain that your main page would be listable at all. If it were (and that's a big "if," depending on an editor thinking the content is valuable enough to a category to justify the listing), I suspect that the Connecticut Government category would be the most likely fit, with a description along the lines of "Service allowing residents to contact their towns." It is also possible that an editor might decide to list only the individual pages for the towns you represent (currently only Wethersfield and Weston), if they were judged to be valuable enough to warrant deeplinking. The bottom line is that I'd suggest submitting to the Connecticut Government category, but I'm not going to make any promises about listability.