hutcheson

Re: Does being listed on yahoo help speed listing First, in most categories the ODP is larger, so in general we don't expect all legit sites to be listed in Yahoo: and second, when Yahoo went pay-to-list, the ODP community's impression is that they got, um, considerably more tolerant of what WE still called "sites devoid of unique relevant content." [The latter may be slightly unfair (just as the periodic public accusations that "all DMOZ editors are corrupt" is perhaps premature), but in short, Yahoo is not considered a useful or reliable guide to what specific sites the ODP ought to list.] But in practice it's very unusual that an ODP editor would even look at Yahoo when reviewing a site from outside. This should not be taken as a criticism of Yahoo in general. It is without dispute still the second-best general internet directory, and still the most comprehensive in some categories. (Google's deal to get THEIR database dump for their spider was a very good thing IMO.) But their goals and guidelines are their own, and ours are different.

Thanks, lrp. Certainly, most of the sites submitted there arguably don't go there -- at least, most don't belong in the same or similar categories.

Not to worry. The editors will fix it. It's their job. Once every month or three, I run across a submitted description that doesn't need changing at all. But that doesn't happen often enough to be a problem.

driftwood, the message you got probably was a generic message mentioning several possible reasons for rejection, and it sounds like you carefully picked out the one that was least likely to apply. Try reading it again, from the standpoint of looking for more plausible possibilities. For instance, did the message say anything about "category too large for a new editor?" A category with over 100 sites and over 100 unreviewed sites AND multiple subcategories, is larger than we'll usually give to a new editor. If you're interested in the parent category, start with one of the children: do a good job there, and we'll be happy for you to take on more or bigger categories.

>However, it seems to me that if I found another appropriate category that had a smaller backlog, or more editors, then the site might be reviewed in less time. Yes. But what then? If the category was "sorta appropriate" but "not the most appropriate", then the editor will probably move it to the most appropriate category....where it will wait for an editor who has permissions there. What often happens is that the submitter will find another category that "seems appropriate" but is (according to ODP category guidelines) not appropriate at all -- not even in the right main category (Shopping instead of Arts or Recreation, Business instead of Shopping, etc.) In such a case the site may go to the Great Waste Dump in the Ether (also called Test/Misplaced). Now, on the one hand Test/Misplaced is evidence of the care ODP editors go through NOT to lose sites that might be worth listing. On the other hand, it is not the best place for a submission to be. Dedicated editors do go through it, ferreting out sites that they might be able to place (or sites that they could move closer to the right place) and moving them back out to the main, well, the main Unreviewed queues. From there the site slowly percolates back down to the "right category", there to take there place in the Unreviewed queue, beside the original submittal. By my estimate, the size of the backlog of submitted sites is very close to the amount of time wasted by such unconsidered and inconsiderate approaches to getting a site to the head of the backlog. Just don't do it, please.

Word to the wise: twice is once too many. The second submittal supplants the first, -- in effect, you go back to the rear of the line (at least for editors that review submittals in chronologial order.) Over a hundred sites waiting review. It, um, does not look like a fun place for most volunteers. Expect delays.

The good news is that the queue is not growing rapidly.

>>What if anne had pages related specifically to England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Surely she could enter each of these into their respective region of the UK? Surely, in fact, not. "We list Web Sites, not web pages." Surely if the website covers all of the UK, it is well represented by a listing in the category that covers all of the UK: and any submitter interested in following the submittal policies will find the bit saying "pick the ONE BEST CATEGORY for the SITE" very easy to follow.

Old Crone, surprising as it may seem, the ODP doesn't dislike affiliate links. One of the slogans that comes up in the editors' forum every now and then is "we don't care about the business model." (What we care about is the information flow model.) What editors do despise and abhor is sites that consist of nothing but affiliate links, or appear to be created as a framework of affiliate links with a very thin, very transparent veneer of content conjoining infelicitous plagiarism and facile misunderstanding. We see a lot of them; and (I at least) simply leave a note like "affiliate spam". But it is not the presence of the affiliate tag that raises ire, but the conclusion that the whole site is nothing but a walking advertisement for one or more commercial off-site links (with or without affiliate tags, although "with" is by far the more common case.) What we especially abhor is sites that pretend to be doing business as "John Doe's Universal Emporium" but turn out to be nothing but "John Doe's Advertisement Page for ubiquitous-affiliate-emporium-program.com". If a site has unique content that is valuable and unique to someone who never clicks on any of the affiliate links, then I'll list it happily. Example: someone published a little "Dictionary of Religion." Later on, they brought out a second edition and created a website that included a complete e-text of the first edition, and a link to buy a printed copy of the second edition. Did I even look at that "purchase" link to see whether it had an affiliate tag? Nay, not so, but far otherwise: I'd have published the site happily without that link, and I published it just as happily with it. A "financial advice" site should be judged analogously. If (in the judgment of the editor, preferably the same editor that's looked at the last 200 "Financial Advice" sites) it has unique and useful tips (rather than the all-too-common general platitudes parodied in the Monty Python skit -- "How to cure all the world's diseases...") AND if the unique content is easily found at the site (rather than having to guess which ONE of the 50 banners ISN'T the affiliate link, like some of the porn doorways do) then the mere presence of an offsite link, even with a disguised affiliate tag, shouldn't prejudice the review. [Note: I have carefully NOT looked at this site, IN ORDER THAT NONE of the details above could be understood as specifically relevant to it; in fact, I'm sure that some aren't specifically relevant.]

This reminds me of that little slogan that the mutual funds used to put in tiny letters at the end of the prospectus: "past performance is no guarantee of future earnings." It's the same here. What you should worry about is not the last three months, but the next month -- that is, the "next date to be edited" tag, which for some technical reason can't be displayed (at least according to the staff programmer.) So: don't worry about what you do see. Submit the site to the right category, wait three or four weeks, ask about it in the "Submittal status" forum.

There are two issues here, really separate. 1) On the site name, I think there is no question that by the _relevant_ ODP guidelines, it should be the company name. 2) On the correct category, I'll defer to people who know the Regional practice much better than I. There may be something plausible to be said for either placement; and the current practice is a good -- but not always the best -- guide to the best practice. You've made your argument cogently, but it may take some time for the editors to consider it (not only with regard to your site, but to be fair to other sites that should be reconsidered, one way or the other, on the same basis) And to be useful to surfers, we really need to be consistent.

This situation is cleaned up; I think no further action is needed. (Your site is still listed in the category, and I at least do not feel an urge to go delete it.) Submissions like this are (in the mass, which is where I've been dealing with them this week) are intolerable, and are individually indefensible ... but not unforgiveable. I at least try to cut self-promoters with at least one legitimate site a bit of slack -- less powder in the pipe, mostly dehydrated spores in the envelope -- because a lot of people pick up bad advice from somewhere. Contrition covers a multitude of first sins.

Sometimes these threads seem to be one long litany of "I'm always rejected, and I don't have a clue." It is always truly refreshing to hear about someone who found the clue and got in. The application gives us a very brief check on your taxonomic and grammatical acuity, and an even less tangible indication of your honesty, but we really need editors who are still capable of learning new tricks without a dog trainer....and therefore we're glad to have you. Sometimes people think a second, improved application will be rejected out of prejudice....but our prejudice runs altogether the other way. Thanks for illustrating that so well.

I should add: Sometimes the first situation I mentioned (and occasionally even the second) can arise out of carelessness; and all three situations can arise out of ignorance -- the "Submit URL" page doesn't REQUIRE you to read the guidelines before submitting a URL. And in fact all could be done out of malevolence by someone else. So although the mere situation may range from irritating to outrageous: before we start stuffing pipe bombs and filling envelopes with toxic chemicals or pathogens, we really do try to check the circumstances to see whether some lesser reaction might be more appropriate -- or at least we try to get the right address on the envelope.

While this not be directly considered in the guidelines, it happens often enough to be repeated (and this does apply to you, but don't take it personally: I'm emphasizing it because it applies to so many other people as well: Do you want to be considered a spammer? It's very simple. You can do it anytime, anywhere. Just submit two different URLs for the same website to a single commercial category. That's all. I may not call you "spammer" to your face, but I guarantee I'll think it. And, read the submittal guidelines as many times as you will, I also guarantee they WON'T say "pick the ONE BEST CATEGORY to submit several pages of your site to"! Do you want to be considered a DECEITFUL spammer? Then use two different domain names for those two pages. Now not only do I think you're a spammer, I think that YOU know you couldn't get what you want honestly, and you're therefore trying to sneak it in. Again, I may not say it, but in my book you've earned the reputation. And, finally [FTR, this part certainly doesn't apply to the website under discussion]: Those spawn-of-rabid-dogs that repeatedly submit every single page of a site to a category -- nothing vile that ever happens to them will be undeserved, nor can fail to cause great rejoicing among society at large. I'll say it again: one entity, one topic, one listing. Any entity that wants more content visible from (and perhaps described in) its ODP listing has a real simple solution--they can link to anything they want: and "update URL" to add mention of significant new content, is allowed and even appreciated.) If you see any exceptions, I'd almost say "please report them as potential abuse." There is one kind of legitimate exception that I know of, but it applies only to "highly valuable reference" domains. Project Gutenberg might have one listing in an author's category for each e-text of a book by that author; the Catholic Encyclopedia and similarly authoritative sources might under very unusual circumstances have multiple listings. Even in those cases, we'd prefer to link to, e.g, the "author index" on an electronic archival site, than to each individual work. (PG didn't have them, last time I looked.)

Good news: it's under 2300 now, and much faster. I can hardly keep 4 windows busy.

don't submit again. the site is in the mill for review.

It disappeared with all the other "MLM rep" sites. It won't return; one of the recent changes in our evolving sense of what is worth doing -- is that listing MLM rep sites wasn't.

I'm having a hard time telling. How fast does it _usually_ run in categories with 3000 unrevieweds?

Are you using any strange 'net filters? enthusiastic proxy server (anonymizer?), intrusive spyware (Gator, etc.) -- anything that interferes with the natural IP sort of flow?

This is probably the kind of deeplink that will not be accepted. Please feel free -- make that please feel urgently requested and encouraged -- to rat out the doorways. Pick any editall or catmod (preferably one who is listed on some UK Business categories) and send the dirty details.

The site is listed, with the appropriate URL. Please read the guidelines. Your submittal practice, suggested URL and description all flagrantly and blatantly violate them, and cannot be used. Please stop. Thanks.

For organizational layout ideas, might I suggest looking at the Christian Classics Ethereal Hymnary ( http://ccel.org/cceh/ , which contains 1000+ pages of sheet music: but the navigation is designed so that there are 4 obvious ways to get from any page to any other page -- in 4 clicks or less. [Caveat: This is not altogether a blatant attempt to add link pop to my own site. Site review is _much_ more pleasant when sites have transparent, efficient navigation.]

The status is as it seems. No review so far.

Yes, jazz is right: there are "unexceptional exceptions" to the one-listing guideline, and that is one of them.