hutcheson

This site won't be listed: if that were a debatable proposition, which it isn't, this forum would not be the place to debate it. As a more general bit of advice: it is very unlikely that that mode of site development could conceivably generate ANY site that could be considered listable in the ODP. Your time would probably be better spent pursuing other methods of site promotion.

Re: status : http://www.discountedwheelwarehouse.c >The second link on the Javascript always has problems with netscape and alike browsers. Permit me to say that's pretty prime stuff you're smokin' there, and could we all have a puff?

Re: status : http://www.discountedwheelwarehouse.c Don't worry, be patient. The editor who cleans up that category may review in some order other than date (I never review in date order...) Yes, we know that quite often, Regional suggestions get handled more quickly than suggestions in backlogged Business or Shopping categories. It's a matter of editor interest and editing difficulty.

That is the imponderable (or at least unanswerable) question. We'll know, as soon as it's done. Volunteers might work in a category until their brain fries, or the phone rings, or the browser crashes ... and then might or might not return to the same place to continue work. We never know.

Submit the site; volunteer to edit. There really aren't any other options. Legal or social pressure _will_ be counterproductive, bribe attempts may result in permanent bans.

Re: Dates Ah, a Big-Endian after my own heart. There isn't any other way to count.

Well, the pile doesn't have a top as such. But it is smaller: if you took off your socks you could count the sites waiting.

Re: Status of http://www.asmarteru.com/ ... it shouldn't take more time to get listed in here then it does to create life ... Three billion years? Six days? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here, since (1) that was a different contractor in any case, and (2) our clock starts ticking from the time a website is created, not when it is submitted. And there are many sites that have been in existance for more than eight months that still haven't been reviewed.

>What would be my best course of action to get this site into the directory? A very important nuance here. There is NO conceivable course of action that you could take to get this site into the directory. What you can do is request that it be reviewed for inclusion. That's all. And you've done that. In the time before someone decides to volunteer to review that site, you can make sure that its navigation is clean, that all appropriate business information is correct and easy to find, that unique content is prominently featured and identified, ... these are the sort of things that make the difference between "yes, this site looks legit, I'll go ahead and list it" and "hmm, not sure about this. I'd better defer it until I can do a thorough review for the usual doorway-and-affiliate-scams."

>Does anyone know when or if this will be reviewed? We promise it _will_ be reviewed, but since absolutely nobody knows WHEN that will be, you can't base a business plan or build a website promotion program on it.

Hey, I'd move back to civilization in a heartbeat.

>there will be no need for any more submitting! And for that the editors thank you also...may your tribe increase.

Re: status : http://www.discountedwheelwarehouse.c >Professional web designers write code that will work on any current browser, it isn't difficult to do. No, it isn't difficult. But ... "professional" just means you get paid for it, it doesn't mean you have a clue. A competant web designer may not be that easy to find. Now, I'm a Mozilla user, and if your site doesn't work under Mozilla, and you don't warn me up front that your web designer is a Font-Plague-wielding dufus, I will probably delete your submittal with a note "non-functional." If you post the "Intelligent surfers stay back, FPWD at work" message, I'll stay back and leave the submittal for some younger, braver, more foolish ODP editor with less valuable content to risk on his computer. Your choice.

We look at it the other way around. The place is so small, every website is precious.

No, this site most certainly should not be listed. If you'll think about the way the Open Directory works, you'll realize that it doesn't make sense to list it. The Open Directory, like other directories, favors and features "large, stable" sites. More than other directories, the ODP emphasizes the SECOND adjective: we happily list small personal or informational sites. But the essence of a site selling one item -- whether it's a book, car, house, or business -- is that it will immediately become disfunctional or disinformational as soon as that one item is sold. Say we DID list the site. Two days later the car is sold. Another three days later the ODP RDF is cut, and over the next six months directories all over the world pick up and publish our latest listings -- even though they're already out of date! And even if the car isn't sold, how long would it be after it was sold, before we rechecked and removed that bad listing, and how many more months before the evidence disappeared from all the engines. So, no, we don't list severely time-limited sites. This includes News stories (except as archives, of course) and all one-off sales sites. We can't do a good job of it -- we can't even do a mediocre job of it -- and there's no point in wasting valuable time trying. On the other hand, we do happily list the classified ads sites you seem to dislike (if they have content, and there is evidence that they have ongoing content.) Even though one ad or another is removed by the time our licensees publish, other ads will have been added, and so those sites are still likely to be valuable to our users.

True, and as you can probably tell, I'm not concerned at all about submissionability. It is just my experience that most people in the performing arts business do professional things around their home. The ODP is happy to make a contribution to the local culture by making that kind of information visible -- even if we have to kick the performers in question in the seat of the pants to make it available first.

I was only addressing the "Locality" listing. It is absolutely clear to me that the site (whatever its local relevance now or in the future) deserves listing SOMEWHERE in either Arts or Shopping (since it is selling a unique artistic product online.) I'd have to explore to find the best place.

Perhaps part of the problem (of the delayed listing) is that ... I can't find anything in the site relating to Chicago. Oh, I see your contact information, but so far as I can see the site is all about mail-order, and my local (Dallas) Children's Theatre would be no more, or no less, interested in that than someone next door to you. For a business like yours: do you work with local schools or performing groups? A page with content about that _would_ give the site a specific local interest: but anything that would make somebody in Elgin say, "I need to do XXX with a children's theatre, and I'll be in Chicago next week, maybe I should make an appointment to meet this guy while I'm there/get this guy to come out and speak to my committee/etc." would work. (The pictures of productions wouldn't count--they are just as much value -- or as little -- to someone across the country.) The whole site doesn't have to be Chicago-oriented -- there just needs to be SOMETHING on it that is.

>If we were to submit the site to a TOPICAL category at this point - would that submission totally over-ride the REGIONAL submission? No, it's a different category. And a listing in one wouldn't preclude consideration for a listing in the other. (This is an exception to the submit-only-to-the-one-best-category guideline.) >Also, would it be acceptable practice to use the same/or very similar description? An editor would probably give a similar but not identical description. (For instance, the Topical description could usefully mention the location; that isn't necessary in the Regional description.) There would be no problem at all if you suggested the same description for both. (It's the editor's job to check and correct it anyway.)

>Is it true, that a web site which was submitted yesterday can be added to your data base before my web site, which was submitted over 8 months ago. Absolutely true. A website which was NEVER submitted can even be added before a site that was submitted over a year ago was reviewed for the first time.

>What does "overwritten your previous awaiting submissions" mean? It means we got tired of seeing the same site submitted over and over and over again (in some spectacular cases, hundreds of times) and asked the tech support people to automatically eliminate duplicate submittals. And they did. But it is the _latest_ submittal that gets kept, not the _earliest_. (The earlier submittal disappears, or is "overwritten.") What that means is: If an editor is trying to review old submittals first, they won't see your submittal as "old" -- it will look as if it was just submitted recently. [This may not matter much -- I _don't_ usually review submittals in chronological order anyway.] But we still try to discourage people submitting a site "numerous times" -- the software doesn't catch all the duplicates. >To me, this means that editors suppose to review submissions by the date they were submitted! That was not at all the meaning beebware intended to convey. (British is a strange language, but it's not _that_ different from the language my friends O'Reilly, Metzger, Nguyen, and Rosenberg speak here in the U.S.)

Re: URLs With Changed Content: Report Them Here ON Earwig, that's fantastic. Thanks.

Re: URLs With Changed Content: Report Them Here ON Thanks, old crone. I believe they are all taken care of. (Long lists like that tend to cause some synchronization problems.)

Re: Status: http://www.MonotStreet.com/ >just to know what to expect, Expect the unexpected. >Does the category have an editor? That information is available on the public category page. Check it out, if it matters.... >coz otherwise that waiting period could be quite long ...coz even if it has an editor that waiting period could be quite long. There are questions we _can_ answer. But we can't ever tell you how long it will take for some other volunteer to do something.

>Other national parks and game reserves have numerous "dmoz listed sites" about them. Have a look Yellowstone or Kruger!! Sigh. That's like a spammer saying, "you get 20 emails a day already. Why shouldn't I send you 20 more?" Look, one organization, one topic -- WE call it one website. They can put it on as many domains as they want, they can have as many different web developers working on it as they want; they can link all its pages together, so people can find all their content from one listing, or not. All that is under THEIR control. The ODP will list one site. It is not the ODP's job to substitute for deliberately crippled website navigation. Now, if Joe and Fred both, on their own initiative, want to make up websites about Kruger or Yellowstone, we'll consider listing both, even if Kruger and Yellowstone both already have official sites. And if two completely different federal agencies create sites on Yellowstone, we'll list them. But we don't regard that as the same thing at all. One agency. One website. Just link it together yourself. Because the ODP won't do it for you.