hutcheson

Rejected (thrice) The editorial guidelines discourage unnecessary repetition in the category name, site title and description. Since both of the words you want in the title are already in the category name, IMO the request is for the worse (for the directory) rather than for the better. If you can give more details on the trademark issue, we may be able to address any of the concerns that relate to us in a different but guidelines-conforming way.

>Having a TravelNow link sure seems to be a big hangup You cannot even imagine. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> I'd bet they are less popular than vstore.com at the moment.

So long as the main purpose of the site continues to be to drive viewers to other commercial sites, it is unlikely that an editor will think the main purpose of the site is not to drive viewers to other commercial sites. The guidelines explicitly forbid listing such sites. Asides: -- CNN's main purpose is arguably to present news to people, and their situation is not strictly comparable. -- Based on my background as a generator of HTML pages from databases, I would not have described the site's unique content as "100 pages", but as "rather less than half of that behind." Or, to emphasize the user-interface aspect, "several treasures have been hidden in 100 rooms full of twisty little passages." So far as what to do: I do not believe the site can be made into a site listable by ODP rules -- it would be easier to start from scratch. And you need to be focusing on website promotion venues that (unlike ODP) accept paid commercial advertisements.

Re: wonder if these topics are read by the chief admin The forums are read by meta-editors, yes. Sometimes ideas get passed on to Netscape/ODP staff (all both of them.) And, yes, sometimes guidelines get changed as a result. IIRC, there are a several current internal discussions based on issues raised here.

Re: status please http://www.atlanticcityshotels.c Yes, it definitely "exists primarily to drive commercial traffic to another site." And that's the Thing That Must Not Be Done.

ODP search is out of date. It'll be updated sometime, but editors and site visitors have no control over when. Search for "RDF generation" to find more (very little more...) information.

Yeah, this is the "general issues" forum. If we get too many questions like this, we can set up a "technical trivia" forum. Until then, this forum is the place for them.

Short answer: no, and no. Google spiders dmoz.org to build its keyword indexes. (Google also has a copy of the ODP directory, built from the RDF. I don't know how many people use it, but most people certainly use the keyword search first.)

A crowbar can be used to drive nails, but that does not make it a member of the hammer family. The Open Directory tries to make as much as possible visible to the public, and there's no reason to _hide_ the editors' search function. Remember that dmoz.org itself is not "designed" or intended for a public portal or directory: it's an editors' workspace, and the Open Directory concept visualized the general public using hosted copies at licensees (like AOL, Netscape, Google.) If the server load from the public got too heavy, it is possible that staff would add more restrictions (or try to foist people off on official mirrors.)

Read the submission notice in that category.

I'd suggest reading the editing guidelines first. According to them, the site isn't listable. It is far too early in the process of content creation to consider deeplinks. As for linking to the ODP, that's allowed, I suppose. We just don't worry much about it. I mean, our users by definition already know where the ODP is, so that kind of link isn't really useful for them. And it's kind of pointless for us to worry about usefulness for people who aren't ODP users, you know? We'd treat it just like an Amazon link -- if we can ignore it and go on to the unique content, we will.

I should respond directly to the request for an apology. I have reviewed and carefully considered the original two statements, and cannot see any meaningful way to understand them consistently, as they appeared (juxtaposed, without corroboratory detail, in the context of discussing a Shopping listing) other than as I understood them. But the additional information you provided has convinced me that: 1) You were repeating information that was true in the context in which it was originally given, and was given to you in good faith. 2) There was no deliberate intent to deceive us. 3) You were not aware that in this context, the words would necessarily be understood differently than in the original context. I do fully stand by my warning: the appearance of deception, even when innocently obtained, is still hard on your professional reputation. And I emphasize this, because editors are simply not expected to track down and disprove every claim to unique content on a site: in an affiliate-prone area, the first red flag will probably be the last thing an editor looks at. With the number of obviously legitimate sites waiting review, it wouldn't be fair to act otherwise. In this case, because the claims to "have a unique product" and "not to be an affiliate site" were not on the site itself (at least not in that form) and the corroboratory evidence was on the site, there's no reason it wouldn't get a fair review (because we have to review on site content, not on the claims about the site made elsewhere.)

The "normal" rate is that ODP cuts a "release" once a week, and Google picks up one, once a month. The schedule has on occasion been missed by both parties. Lately, as has been mentioned elsewhere (just search the forum for "RDF") the ODP has had problems. But the real answer to your questions is: once we list the site, it's out of our hands, and we can't know. The bread is cast on the waters, and you need to consult your meteorologist to see what the flood predictions are.

No discrimination is involved. No new lead generator sites have been added since yours was rejected. The directory guidelines had changed. New site reviews and old site re-reviews are now using the new rules. You do not have any more right to demand that an editor immediately review someone else's site, as you do to demand an editor immediately review your site. You can ask is that certain sites be re-reviewed. You've done that. It's a reasonable request in my opinion, but I can't promise when it will be acted upon. If you have some reason to believe that sites have been reviewed in a manner inconsistent with the current guidelines, you can file an abuse report. That might result in removal of sites and/or editors -- and if so, we would have apprecated it. But in this case it WON'T result in your site being added.

No, AVERAGE is more like 3-6 months. The actual time varies wildly. I have reviewed and listed a site within 5 minutes of submission (I was working on unreviewed sites in that category when a new site just appeared.) I've heard horror stories of sites languishing for 18 months or more (that usually takes a combination of user error, heavy commercial sites with little surfer interest, AND editor error--but it happens.)

The clarification that you have provided does include verifiable information, and this information appears to check out. There is, of course, a difference in "affiliate-OFFERING" site and "AFFILIATED" site -- the latter not listable at all, the former eligible for consideration. And the difference between "site of unique _manufacturing_ _source_ of product" rather than "unique _site_ _selling_ product" is also critical. Either is listable, but the latter is the meaning that would most naturally apply in the context of discussing a shopping site -- but of course, as several people have noted, obviously does not apply. I had spent a little time in that category, cleaning up some of the obvious affiliate sites; I didn't look at yours, but the queue is not long, and one good session by an experienced Shopping editor might clear it completely. (I have no way of knowing when such a session might occur.)

"my" site == "the site I [created/promote/know about because I visted the business/FOUND on Google/whatever] and am now ready to bring to the attention to the ODP".

It's not everyone, mon, it's just the ones that tell me things I find out aren't true. And, as you suggest, the situation is slightly more complex: you carelessly repeat something based on someone else's statement, and your reputation sinks with theirs. It's not always easy to tell when you need to be careful about attribution. (You may not have seen as many herbal patent nostrum peddlars as we have.) I presume that the bit about "not being an affiliate site" is also based on the word of the site owner? (It's still useful knowing which people are prone to asseverations not strictly consistent with reality.) I'll pass on the more extended character background check. All we need to know is about the website: does it actually contain unique, adequate information about a genuine business? Which is not exactly the same as having a unique _product_: although obviously a unique product creates a presumption of a GENUINE business (although not necessarily unique information about one.)

Mostly, we really don't care where good submittals come from. If there are good sites, conforming to the guidelines, then submit freely. If more than 50% of your suggestions are good ones, you're beating the average, and it will probably be appreciated. I personally think we need LOTS more @links, so I'm in favor of suggesting them also. Getting @links right is more complex than it looks, so (just as with sites) local editors and more experienced editors may modify or even reject suggestions. Bear in mind that the "submit a URL" isn't for webmasters! It's not a "Submit YOUR website". It is "suggest A website which is relevant for this category." And anyone is encouraged to use it for any relevant site.

>the product sold by this company is unique Look, you're talking to HEAVY internet, search engine, and directory users here. We know how to Google. And after this statement from you, and five minutes Googling, we'll know PRECISELY how much credibility to give ANY statement from you. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how you couldn't have known that would happen. >this is not an affiliate site.. No comment. For the passers-by, an object lesson. Honest truth, or well-crafted detail to add necessary verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing narratives: your choice, but at least one is necessary.

>Should I resubmit my web site? No. It's waiting to be reviewed. >Should I resubmit my web site to another directory? Yahoo? Looksmart? Zeal? Yes, submit to all of them, as well as any pet-specific directories you can find. No need to wait on our account. But if you go to someplace like, say, directory.google.com and try to submit, and it says something about the OPEN directory, DON'T resubmit. That just overwrites the submittals you'd already made directly to dmoz.org/ >I don't understand why it is taking this long to get listed. It takes very little time to get listed. It may take a long time for a volunteer to decide to review it.

Hey, beebs, I didn't say anything about you giving away the source of our uncanny psychic knowledge of the category, did I? And I actually meant the editor link, since I didn't expect anyone but editors to click on it. Anyone else is, of course, free to use beebware's link. Otherwise, what beebware says is true. And I'll work on the misplaced "L"'s for awhile.

No, it is impossible for us to tell that you submitted it to http://dmoz.org/editors/editcat.cgi?cat=Society/Relationships/Romance , but it is possible to say that it's too soon to ask. In another month or so, bump this thread.

Re: http://www.newterritoryleathers.com status pl >I was under the impression that this was necessary. No accounting for impressions. (But this was good technique back in the AltaVista days....and a lot of advice-givers haven't bothered to keep up with the world, so it's easy to get bad advice out there.)

>Does this slow down the process? No way of telling. I'm working on a category in which I'm not listed as editor right now: and sites where I am listed are languishing unreviewed.