hutcheson

Your desire to get your site listed is not necessarily contemptible, it's merely irrelevant. What matters is why any surfer would want to be directed to that site. And that, we'll only be able to answer when some surfer has reviewed it. Nobody here "needs" anyone else. We're all building on other people's efforts. But some people try suck off value from other people's efforts; and some people try to add value to other people's efforts. The former deserve respect from everyone, and I try to give it to them; the latter deserve contempt.

What you mention is not a difference at all. Yahoo! was and is completely human-edited. But if you read this whole thread, you'll see several important differences mentioned. And there are others. Fair enough. OK, I've thought. And here's what I think. What a waste of time! How can I avoid ever having to deal with such uninteresting websites? $150,000 may seem like a lot of money to you. But do a little research, and you'll find bare-naked domain names that have sold for more. On the other hand, think about this: I remember another directory, with delusions of ODP-parity, that was (briefly) being rented to third-party hosts for eight-figure ANNUAL fees. When ODP adoption took off, that directory was relegated to PAYING seven-figure amounts to those same hosts. The mere presence of the ODP as competition DESTROYED an apparent valuation of $100,000,000 or more. And in the years since, that ODP idea has served as a useful guide to picking out what's valuable to surfers. I'll stick with it until I see something demonstrably better. But if you think you have a better idea, don't be giving away valuable secrets to me! Go build a directory around it yourself--and see how much it's worth. If it even seems to be about to work, the ODP community will examine and analyze it, as we've done earlier "similar projects." Which is one of the reasons the Open Directory HAD a tenth birthday.

>In fact, you can be listed in all of the other directories and never be listed in the DMOZ... Exactly. That's what gives the OTHER directories a CHANCE to be unique. And the Open Directory has whole categories on subjects where other directories don't have a single site listed. That's what makes IT unique. Or, if you look one step back in the chain of causation, the Open Directory has given thousands of people a chance to contribute something of their own unique personal knowledge. So, almost from the beginning, its categorization of obscure religious groups was more accurate than Yahoo's, because members of those groups contributed to the discussion that hammered out the ODP taxonomy. Its Music categories had the benefit of volunteers with Music degrees. Its programming categories had the benefit of volunteers with relevant professional experience. It drew on local knowledge from thousands of volunteers--knowledge that a few dozen Yahoo editors in a single office could never have matched. And that's the same thing that can make a personal site unique: the unique knowledge, skills, experience of the person it represents: (or if a business, the specific services its employees provide (and the fee they charge); if an organization, the unique sequence of activities its members share; and so on.) Look at the people around you. If you recognize how each one is a unique person, then you should have no trouble recognizing their online representation (websites) as unique.

Sites don't get listed because they're submitted well. Sites don't get listed because they're submitted often. Sites don't get listed because they're submitted in the right place. Sites don't get listed because of ANYTHING about the submittal. And yet, when people say they're "trying to get listed" they always mean they're "submitting early and often." But that has nothing to do with getting listed (even when it's carried on beyond the limits of common courtesy, not to mention the submittal policies.) Sites get listed because of what's on the site in the form of unique content. So, in a rational world, "trying to get listed" would mean "creating and collecting lots of content not already available on the net, organizing it well, posting it on a website, and cooperating with other people who are creating similar kinds of content." Of course, the net is man-made, so even there rationality is an ideal, not an observed condition.

There is no reason to suppose there is a problem. See, just suggesting a site doesn't impose an active obligation or priority or deadline on anyone. So you can't assume that after some time interval you set that anything has happened. What might have happened? Perhaps you created a site of a kind for which there turned out to be no surfer demand -- your mistake, but perhaps not a moral failure. There's no reason to resuggest the site, either. Perhaps the site was reviewed, and the reviewer didn't find anything the ODP would be interested in (i.e. unique content in the form of information). Not necessarily anyone's fault -- your interests and the ODP just don't happen to coincide. Definitely not a reason to resubmit--that WOULD be spamming. Perhaps (not likely) the site was so unique the editors are still trying to figure out how to position it. But there's no point in resubmitting unless you've learned a LOT about the ODP taxonomy in the meantime. Perhaps the site is listed and you hadn't noticed. In any case, the suggestion is the same. Go on with your life -- by suggesting the site you've done all the help for the ODP that you can. And all the ODP communication channels are designed to ... help the ODP.

>It would be easier to make a case for changing how Yahoo Stores are indexed if I understood the criteria that would be used to make the decision. No, it wouldn't. It would only be easy to make a case for changing the policy if (by reviewing a sufficient number of sites) you had demonstrated an exceptional ability to handle the kinds of problems that arise. Otherwise, you have neither standing nor interest in the matter. The number of sites involved, for instance, is not an argument for making exceptions, it is an argument for carefully fitting all those sites into the standard procedure, and a very strong argument AGAINST considering exceptions for individual sites. At bottom it comes down to: this is, in the judgment of people who have reviewed hundreds of thousands of sites, the easiest way for us to work: and it causes no degradation of service to our users. So that's an end of it. I wouldn't CONSIDER raising the question, I don't have the experience to understand the issues: I've probably not done ten thousand edits in Shopping categories!

PM your username and category to me. I'll be happy to reject the incomplete app "without prejudice."

It may be a simple technical glitch. The editor apparently thought that the site was in violation of the ODP license.

Yes, automatically, after a time interval between 1 minute and 14 days.

Straightened out now, I think.

Staff, administrators, and volunteer meta-editors check the applications. It is probably not the same person every time -- the process works just like submittals, people volunteer to review the pool of applications. But ... if dishonesty is the thought that springs most quickly to your mind, as an explanation for someone else's volunteer actions -- even in the absense of any apparent motive -- then you probably won't find participating in any volunteer community congenial. I'd recommend starting out by actually meeting some of the people that volunteer in your own physical community -- see what they do, try to learn why they do it. If you catch the spirit, there will be so many opportunities for public-spirited activity that you'll have to pick and choose -- whether or not you participate in the ODP.

No. Would you like to ask about the status of your update request?

One listing in all of Shopping, and that's one of the most rigid guidelines we have. Submit to the most specific category that covers "the vast majority" (say 80% or more) of the products.

We do not discuss search results in this forum. The ODP is a directory, and does not offer a commercially viable search engine.

If you wish to change your site away from its current focus on sales to business, that would be your right. If you ever do that, then please submit a "change URL" request. Arguing about site placement would not be an appropriate subject for this forum, even if a reasonable case could be made for an alternate placement, which is clearly not the case here.