hutcheson

Now _that's_ not dedication, that's just obsession.

Lost without trace. Please resubmit.

Re: Submission Status - http://www.webpublicitee.c No, no, no. TWO categories, not three. The "Business and Industry" category of some Locality in Regional is only ONE category, not two. (If the locality isn't large enough to have a separate B&I category, then the listing would be directly under the locality.) If you were, say, selling patio furniture, you might be listed in Regional/NA/US/Illinois/Localities/C/Chicago/Business&Industry/Shopping/Home&Garden/Patio-Furnigure or in Regional/NA/US/Idaho/Localities/P/Podunk depending of course on which town the store was located in. But not BOTH in Regional/.../Chicago and in Regional/Chicago/.../Patio-Furniture The category names are made up to illustrate the principle; don't go looking in the directory for those examples.

Not an original idea. And (because of the reputation prior practitioners have earned) it would be type-casting for a pretty slimy crevice of the gene pool.

No estimate possible: but bear in mind that the editor who went to that category to work, might well think the first step should be to disperse the regional-only listings to regional categories.

[dmoz.org is down right now] Those both look like local businesses, and should be submitted to the locality Business and Industry category. (The Business categories are generally for sites of national or international interest.) Tomorrow, I'd recommend submitting again to the right Regional category. Editors will eventually get to the Business category and either (unlikely) list or (more likely) send to Regional or (least likely) do both. The description can include a BRIEF description of the service area (Washington and Idaho, Southern Patagonia, Metropolitan Podunk County, North America between the Pecos and St. Lawrence rivers, whatever).

The actual status is "Still Waiting for review." The most recent submittal in that category was early this month. (Any prior submittals would have been overwritten by that one. We don't have to deal with that kind of duplicate effort by hand now.)

Not in #4. The system is rather slow right now. More to follow someday.

Short month, huh? Still waiting.

I'm sorry, we simply can't do what you ask. If you list the two or three categories that you might have submitted to, we can look in each one. That's the best we can do in the current state of the software.

"innovative approaches"? Thought experiment: divide the self-defined "innovative" groups from the self-defined "imitative" groups. Leave the label off of sites in the larger set, and include it only on the others. "Los Idiotes Gallery -- just another knockoff of real creative artists. Includes ...." "El Pretentiouso -- outmoded and obsolete presentations of passe art fads. Includes ..." The latter set is in my experience empty. Our users can't go wrong by assuming that ALL organizations are vibrant! creative! innovative! mutual-admiration-bordering-on-idolatrous-communities of up-and-coming-artists-about-to-take-the-galaxy-by-storm! In their own brochures and websites, at least. [sorry, you tripped over one of my hobby-horses.]

Fairly low, I would think. Pretend we are on the phone, type up what you'd say, and either post in the forums, or e-mail to one or two meta-editors (or resource-zone moderators). We're used to working with e-mail. Remember that if there's any investigation needed, those of us with imperfect memories would need to copy down all the information you told us (taking longer to transcribe than it would have taken you to type in the first place, and giving opportunities to introduce confusing typographical errors). If we don't need the information to do the investigation, then save time by not typing it (or telling us.)

What you ask is probably the editors' pick for 'Most wanted enhancement" -- but we haven't gotten it yet.

Renfrewshire? Odd: the address on the website is "Irvine, Ayrshire." Does it move around a lot? It's currently listed in http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Scotland/North_Ayrshire/Irvine/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation

>I have looked everywere in DMOZ and can't find any sutibal catagory for my site at the moment, so I guess a listing of my site is not possibel anywere in DMOZ? For a site with primarily reviews, yes, that was the right place: and yes, now that category is gone, there is no place at all.

Re: Site Status Current queue is short. However, this is not a category that attracts dedicated amateur editors. It's one of many commercial categories that are visited at random intervals by otherwise-very-busy editors. Other nearby categories have long queues. So: no way to predict, but I'd expect a potentially long delay.

>If you strip it off, thats not my site. From the directory point of view, it's not your site even if you leave it on. It's not about you, and it's not by you. It's by Cognigen, and it's about Cognigen-supplied services. They're just using your sport jacket to smuggle their skunk into our wine-tasting party. You can have it back when they're done, but you'll never be invited to a party again.

Re: Site Status Well, I don't see it now. It seemed, though, that something odd was happening the first time I clicked on a link, and there was a gray box in the middle of the screen with technical irrelevancies scrolling through it: the sort of thing I've seen before from broken Java applets. I haven't been able to tell whether the site is an affiliate doorway or an information page about a genuine business. In that sense, no, there's not enough information for _me_ to list (or reject) it. But we do have people that know the market and industry better than I do, and it may make more sense to them.

Before you resubmit, get a friend (not you--you know the site too well) to try to order something. If they can complete the order and know exactly how much it will cost, then it's ok. When you resubmit, mention in the description [in brackets like this: "prices and ordering information now included in site] The reviewer will know what to look for, and it will probably be a no-brainer add.

Re: Site Status Rejected: links broken and/or insufficient content. The links seem to be working now, but there still seems to be something wierd and perverse -- lame java cruft? -- going on. I'm not an expert on the affiliate programs in that market, so I can't speak to the content issue.

The metas have asked for a completely fresh review. You don't need to do anything else right now.

I think part of the problem is that there were too many URLs floating around. At one point the site was listed as http://www.floridavillas.freewire.co.uk: which was aggressively submitted awhile back, but finally deleted for being a redirector (to villas2000) -- in the meantime villas2000 got a rep for having the same content as a listed site (possibly floridavillas.freewire.co.uk, but there are at least two more aliases in the mix. One, which seemed to me the most plausible company name, may not have been submitted at all; and one that had, although not to the extent of the other two. This is not a complete list.) Florida has not always been the pristine affiliate-free tropical paradise it is today (well, may someday become), so current practice isn't a good guide. The submittal guidelines are your friend. (The deeplinks and duplicate submissions irritated a lot of editors, but didn't seem to contribute to the current state so much as the URL mixup. When I see several URLs submitted for the same site, I arbitrarily pick one (well, I try to pick the most "sensible" one, or one that doesn't redirect) and note that the others are aliases. If the company later decides to drop the wrong one, they'll have this kind of tangled mess everytime. But following the guideline about "related" URLs protects you as well as saves us trouble. Reiterate: the original "unique content" problem may have been simply your URLs competing with each other. (That sometimes happens: I may have seen another similar situation happening today.) Now we have to start over with the site review.

Re: Error when submitting site I edited your post to fix the URL: I think it was UBB software rather than your typing that kept it from being clickable. I submitted a site there from outside. It worked fine. The site mentioned has been reviewed and rejected before. The reason still appears to apply: it doesn't have unique relevant content.

I believe what needs to happen here (if it isn't happening already) is that, since very few personal chefs make intercontinental or even international house calls, individual practitioner websites are of inherently and exclusively local interest: the category therefore needs to be broken down into regional categories or (like Real estate agents) totally disbanded to regional. If this doesn't happen, your site is queued with the other several hundred submittals and will be reviewed in the normal course of events. But my guess is that anyone who set out to tackle those unrevieweds would start with a reorg along regional lines.

I believe this one is being reviewed internally. It is safe to say that the massive, manifold, blatant violations of the submission guidelines made review difficult for the editors, and the direct result seems to have been as predicted in the submittal guidelines (although possibly not as a deliberate editorial decision.) More later. Maybe we can make a clear decision this time. It would definitely help if you gave us a COMPLETE list of the names under which this site had been submitted.