hutcheson

dfy types faster than I do. But I think we're in substantial agreement. If you can demonstrate that the e-book is original and unique, the only place the site could be considered for a listing is shopping/e-books.

Re: Request status of http://www.depressionremedy. >I was not planning to submit the main site, instead, submit only the "ailment specific" sites that are "sub-sites" that offer unique content to the appropriate category That is incredibly rude of you. Consider how many listings Walmart would have if walmart.com were submitted like this. (This is not rocket science, this is kindergarten manners. Didn't your mother ever say "what would the world be like if everybody acted like that?") If you're more interested in short-term goals than ethics, bear in mind also that you could get your site permanently banned from the directory for doing that.

Having reconsidered, I confirm the editor's action. >Jaipurplus has equity stake in the Indian Trade leads, but else every thing is different, the design, the layout, web application etc are totally different. OK, I'll get technical again. What you've described is not a "doorway" but a "fraternal mirror." (The "doorway" term is arguably also accurate but is less comprehensive, IMO.) This quote from the submittal guidelines is what should have told you not ever to have submitted that site in the first place: "Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory. Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites." You can read the whole document at http://dmoz.org/add.html ; and I believe that we have a right to expect that professional website developers who wish to continue to be submitters will know and abide by it. If you want the site linked from that category, you should seek it indirectly from the admittedly and obviously related and interested site Jaipurplus.com already listed in that ODP category, and not from the ODP.

Now THAT'S a refreshing attitude. Thanks for understanding. I'm afraid we see more of the "In protest I shall not submit my site to every single top-level category" whines, and it makes us a bit cynical. If you see more competitors that slipped through, please feel free to let us know -- e-mailing a meta or forum moderator is probably the best way.

The problem is not the packaging, the problem is: "Content, unique and relevant, insufficiency of." Which is not listed, at the discretion of the editor. Now, the packaging makes it look like: "Content, absolute non-uniqueness of." I can see why that would be labelled "MLM" (it apparently conforms to the standard website for one of the standard pyramid fraud schemes so closely and in so many details). But no, we aren't going to discuss spam detection in a public forum. I can also see why you don't call it "MLM". I agree that it might be more technically accurate (at least from a cursory examination) to call it an advertising-promotional site with no educational or commercial interest(*). And we don't list such sites. -------------------- (*)no interest, at least, to people who aren't getting paid for the affiliate links: which includes pretty much everyone that doesn't already know about the site.

>>If non-MLM independent distributors are listed, but MLM distributors aren't, then obviously the business model does matter. Well, this is perfectly valid logic, so long as the only difference between MLM "distributor" sites and non-MLM distributor sites is the business model. But despite the theoretical possibility that a MLM site might contain information worth cataloging (and I did argue for guidelines allowing for it), in practice we simply weren't seeing such sites. And as I gained experience in that particular neighborhood, I had to agree with the experienced editors. In practice, the MLM sites were always (99.99% of the time at least) completely devoid of unique, relevant informational content, and so we determined that we shouldn't waste time reviewing them. There are other types of sites that have earned the same kind of reputation, and have deservedly received the same kind of response. Independent representative sites have not yet been recognized as being so invariably and utterly without cognitively redeeming value. If this changes, then we'll consider nuking them too. But we won't ask the webmasters for permission.

>I have to deduce that this is a fault with Open as all evidence points to this. A lot of non-programmers think this way: I couldn't count the number of times I've heard this kind of logic. I could count the number of times it's been VALID. On the fingers of one ... foot. And the result is usually (although not invariably) wrong. (As Turing pointed out, an invariably wrong result is useful. A usually wrong result is not.) You might be excused for assuming that the problem is related to some changes in the DMOZ server. (Not that that's a particularly useful or reliable assumption.) But to go from there to the assumption that those changes were the problem is to take a step not at all warranted by the nature of interface protocols. It's always a mistake not to code to the standards, regardless of how big a mistake the idiot at the other end of the pipe is making. (And in this context the IE is one of the biggest mistakes ever made -- lots more expensive than, say, a space shuttle crash or oil supertanker wreck.)

I was having some problems that looked like "timeout" related today (from the editors' side.) I don't believe those are related to the IE-doesn't-know-its-own-IP problem: I wasn't using IE, it was intermittent rather than persistent (as the lost-in-IPspace problem is), and it went away early this afternoon. If that was your only problem, you should be fine to try now.

Re: Request Status http://www.tiffany-lamps-store And (sigh) DMOZ search isn't current right now. (Long story.)

Re: www.feedmypet.com There is unlikely to be a public discussion of this issue. There are two parameters -- the value to the public of such sites (approaching nil for some very small values of nil), and the pain to the editors of the MLM spammers (higher than can be appreciated by outsiders.) The ODP is much more likely to add more categories of "insufficiently valuable and insufferably pestilential" sites than to remove some recognized categories from the list. And so your question about Grobust is worth considering (although the only public announcement of the result is likely to be the removal or non-removal of the category in the publicly visible directory.)

Ouch. Sorry. I cut but didn't paste, I suppose -- it was supposed to have been included as text in the message, not as an attachment. And I was in a bit of a hurry.

Re: Submission status for http://www.UreaSample.co >If it was in there a week ago shouldn't it have been checked already? No. Some sites get listed "within five minutes", others wait for months. It depends on when a volunteer gets there. >Also since the site has been up and then removed, can't you guys repost it a little sooner? No. If you had put in an "update URL" request before it was removed, then it should have just had the URL changed. (editors don't always get this right, however). But now it's just a website review like any other.

Aha, once again the forums pay for themselves. Yes, very nice work indeed. And another human's knowledge added to the pool.

Re: changes & additions www.sunrisewoodcrafts.ns.c >I would be much more patient if I knew when I submit a request that there are X items queued ahead of me. When I check back later and find only X-Y in the queue, I would at least see some glimmer of hope on the horizon. And if the editor doesn't like the submission it would be nice to know that too. Sigh. Perhaps it's a bit of a misnomer to call it a "queue". Because it isn't one. Oh, editors can view the unreviewed "set" in various orders -- including by date submitted, but I don't know which order any other editor on earth usually uses, or whether they're doing anything at all, let alone their "usual" thing, today. I can tell you that when I started out yesterday in "Chamber Ensembles" intending to clean up the backlog, I ended up in Poland/World War II, having listed one chamber ensemble site and several Austrian hotel sites and created a new Holocaust category -- and having cleared out ALL the reviewed sites "that didn't repel me by bad navigation, and really did belong there" in more than a dozen categories. Who'da predicted THAT? And how could they? I've never been listed as editor of ANY regional categories (well, except for a couple that got moved out of Science or Reference).

Remember that a search engine doesn't have to ask permission either to spider dmoz.org, or to download and parse the RDF. We know what Google is doing, because they publicize it -- good publicity for them, they musta thought. We don't know what AltaVista is doing with ODP data -- if they are doing anything special with it, they must think keeping it secret is a competitive advantage. Either way, their choice. Only DIRECTORIES (e.g. directory.google.com) have to include ODP attribution.

Hmm. This is a case where you might get quicker service by proposing a new category. Give us a "charter" -- that is, a one-or-two-paragraph description of what it should cover, and five or six sites that could go into it (including those are already listed in the parent category but should go into the new subcat.) As a side effect of this, there would be a new subcategory suitable for applications from new editors. This is the way we find gaps in our taxonomic coverage. (And this is the way some fairly active editors got started.)

Re: Why not listed in Romance? Thanks, admins. That was getting frustrating for awhile.

Wait no longer! (Please check your e-mail.)

Re: Why not listed in Romance? Yes, but it has technical problems. It didn't work three of the last four times I tried it.

It's not going through. Hold on a bit, someone will look into it.

Not to worry. I'm working on those in a couple of other browser windows. We ship those sites out to the category you requested for review, unless it's obviously the wrong one (like, say, "News" for a very genre-specific site), in which case we ship it to some closer site, or in the worst case to the master jumble heap, where other volunteers sort through to find the best category without the help you could have provided. All those final details are, of course, for general information, and I agree that the category mentioned looks correct in this case.

The triggering event may not have been a change in your browser (although you never can tell -- the IE has, among its many nasty habits, a compulsion to surreptitiously download changes to itself). And it may not even BE the browser -- conceivably the problem is in the website itself. (But comparing track records for standards-compliance, I know which direction I'd bet the farm. I think M$ surgically excises any tendancy toward standards-compliance before they let new employees touch the code. Or maybe they just detect and reject.) All we can say with certainty is, other people having this same problem have gotten around it by either using a real web browser, or tweaking their proxy settings -- and for the average user, downloading Mozilla or Opera is easier.

Anyone who is doing site promotion "professionally" needs to understand the submitters' and editors' guidelines. The former say to submit a site to the most appropriate category, but that the actual listing is the editor's discretion. The latter say that multiple listings is "the exception" (although there are "standard" exceptions, none of which seem to apply here). The editor chose a category which is more specific than the one you suggest (involving a particular kind of domain names.) It is obvious that at least some of the content on the site fits the category. Passing by the question of the first letter of the company's name, and the legitimacy of the company, and several other irrelevancies that perhaps might better have not been raised, the relevant questions are: 1)Is there content on the site that doesn't fit the category it's in? (in which case the listing might need to be moved) 2) Is the site so exceptional that one listing cannot suffice to represent it adequately? (in which case additional listings might be appropriate) Now, the editors' answer to both of these questions was "no". And of course it's impossible for them to list all the possible exceptions and or content types that might have changed either answer to "affirmative" -- and show that none applied. In the absence of information that would suggest that decision was wrong (either that the site is wrongly placed, or is truly exceptional), there's nothing to debate, nothing to decide upon, and no reason to change. This forum, of course, is not a place where such information can be given. But it could, I suppose, be used to point to aspects of the website that were overlooked in previous reviews. So: the answer to your question is: the editor asked the two questions above, and gave negative answers. Other editors looked, and got the same answers. There could be many reasons for that -- the site navigation is very poorly designed and partly disfunctional: the editors might not have been able to find that "exceptional" content, or they might have lost patience looking for it. (The link that _I_ thought had the best chance of being that content was broken. Well, we've listed worse, so you can't call this one "_exceptionally_ unprofessional".) Well, I recognize that you probably won't like the answers, but if you can address the critical issues, some editor will may be willing to volunteer to look at the site again. No response guaranteed -- that is absolutely not part of the non-joblike thing called editing. And the lawyers require you to be informed (although perhaps the expectation of comprehension wouldn't stand up in court) that no site is guaranteed even one listing, before you submit any URL. If you can work within those parameters, the ODP might be one avenue of at least informing the world about your site, although promotion of it will probably require other approaches.

Thanks for the clarification about the "D" bit. Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail about the concept of "selling" as practiced by the entity, and also explain exactly what you mean by "company." I'm not sure what you mean by "clean" unless it means "devoid of information", in which case I'm inclined to agree, but confused as to how it would advance the presumptive argument. It might be more to the point to explain how the company is DIFFERENT from others currently listed in the same category with it, and how it is incompatible with that category's charter.

Aargh.