arlarson

The ODP takes a very strong stance against abuse. If your account was closed for abuse, you have already seen the following, which represents the position of the ODP's staff:

A couple of things: First, http://store.yahoo.com/ is not a free server. Second, many prominent businesses are hosted there - see, e.g., http://store.yahoo.com/us.html .

The guidelines, of course, provide content which is helpful to both editors *and* submitters, on describing sites. http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html I can say that, with the description at issue in this discussion, the one given by the editor is far from the best for an end-user. And ultimately, that's what editing is about.

By that logic, why do websites need descriptions at all? The description should help the end user. If telling what a company does in the description helps the users of the Open Directory, we should help the user.

You'll excuse me, I'm sure, for disagreeing. Submitters should submit only under URL's which are appropriate for listing in the directory. No "vanity URL's" which frame their pages, no redirects, no doorways. Submit the *actual* URL. When you move to the new site, set up a redirect for the page listed in dmoz, and use the "update" feature to submit the new URL. If the link is not updated prior to a Robozilla run, when Robozozilla checks the link it will automatically record the redirect for the editor who checks the error.

If you didn't understand my comments, perhaps you didn't read them carefully. In any event, if Yahoo "goes down" (and there is no reason to expect that it will "go down"), the ODP will be the only remaining comprehensive, human-edited directory. It would be quite peculiar for the ODP to fail solely because the only comparable service disappeared - most enterprises dream for a day when they have no competition. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=monopoly

Sure, I could estimate an average time, but I wouldn't want to say anything... mean. /images/icons/wink.gif (Actually it would be difficult for any editor to even guess at an average. Staff probably could calculate one, but doing so would likely rank somewhere around the bottom of their very long list of priorities.)

If it makes you feel better, you're not alone. Fired, abusive editors have been declaring the ODP irrelevant, or on the verge of irrelevance, literally for years.

Your site is a directory, so many editors would prefer to harvest links rather than add the site, particularly as most of the sites appear to already be in the ODP. This is even more true when the directory consists primarily of affiliate links.

If they use exactly the same URL, and submit to exactly the same category, the new submission should replace the one waiting in the unreviewed queue. (But there is no benefit to the submitter.) Speaking more generally, if submitters would present proposed titles and descriptions which meet ODP standards, rather than hoping we won't notice their hype, keyword repetition, inappropriate capitalization, and emphatic punctuation, they would receive much more efficient service.

Re: Submission status for http://www.leocanhelp.co Sure, it is in the dictionary - but not as an alternative spelling for queue. See, e.g., http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=que .

Dr. Alois Alzheimer.

Perhaps a shopping editor will comment on the overlap between the two sites. I do see that the 995artprints page for any specific artist is linked from the nalasgallery.com page for that same artist. With the present backlog, it will probably take several months for the site to be reviewed.

Lots of unreviewed. Unless we get more volunteers working that category, you're likely in for a very long wait.

Re: Submission status for http://www.leocanhelp.co <laisha> queue </laisha>

Please post the link to the dmoz page at issue.

I'll disagree with most of that. 1. That's not what we mean by "open". See, e.g., http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html . Nor are the interests of submitters our priority - "We will be guided by the needs of our data users and the ODP editorial community. We will place their interests first in our priorities." 2. Easy answer: "We extend an open invitation to the general public to join to the ODP." 3. More volunteers = faster review time. The equation is that simple. 4. I agree with you that some submitters seem to think we'll be gullible or eaisly intimidated. (However, if you look at even some of the historic mistakes of Yahoo! editors, you will see that payment to editors isn't a guarantee of quality. And if you look at the present taxonomy of Yahoo!, I think you'll see that redefining categories to suit advertisers (a/k/a submitters) significantly diminishes quality.)

The editor who reviewed it did not think it was a good fit for the category. If you disagree, you may wish to send the editor named to that category a *polite* inquiry - but be aware that editors do not always have time to reply to inquiries. Otherwise, consider submitting to a more appropriate category, and/or in your home town in the Regional/ hierarchy.

In that context, it should probably be noted that legal threats get passed through staff to AOL's legal office, for which this type of complaint appears to be a very low priority. So legal threats can cause extraordinary, perhaps indefinite, delay in getting even a good site listed, as we wait for one of AOL's lawyers to find the time to review the complaint. The ODP has a "zero tolerance" policy on bribery and attempted bribery. Don't even *think* about going there. I am not sure why it is that people accepted Yahoo's editorial standards (back when it had high standards), and accept that they should presently pay Yahoo! hundreds of dollars a year for a listing, but seem to think that the ODP has no right to impose any degree of quality control.

Re: >1yr wait for submit of www.crosscustomworks.c Some general advice on how to help your own submissions along: * Submit to the most appropriate category. * Propose a title and description that you think an editor will be able to approve as-is, even if it does not include all of the keyword-stuffing you would find optimal. * Be careful not to add scripts which crash browsers. An editor whose browser hangs or crashes upon review of a site is apt to leave it in unreviewed.

If you submit exactly the same URL to exactly the same category, the new description should replace the old in the unreviewed queue.

It would be more correct to say that such a site could be listed, but not as a shopping site, and not in the guise of being a literature site. It either needs to sell the book directly, so as to qualify for shopping, or provide sufficient unique content that it stands on its own without regard to the link to Amazon. Do you mean to describe sites which would have affiliate links to Amazon? Or are you speaking of authors and publishers who wish to disseminate information about their books, but are happy with their profit margins or royalties without trying to also generate affiliate revenue?

Perhaps your problem is that you want your site to be spidered instead of edited. Sorry, that's not what the ODP is about. Submit to a search engine. As for the issue of sites using ODP data, the policies are clear and are uniformly applied. If a site simply presents properly attributed ODP data, it is classified as a site using ODP data. If it doesn't display proper attribution, it is not listed. Not particularly complicated.

If you truly believe the ODP is verging on irrelevance, perhaps you could save us time by devoting your attention to directories you deem relevant. If, on the other hand, you wish to continue this discussion, please tell us what we can find on your site that constitutes unique content. Is your rating system the extent of your unique content? Thank you for letting us know about the smartshop redirect.

Re: http://www.1-rated-british-smoked-foods-salmon-balsamic- The URL is too long to work in certain older browsers. I don't see any difference between the content of this site and http://www.mackenzieltd.com/british.htm .