hutcheson

Call in? I don't think so. Give us a sample of your work -- fill out the "become an editor" form. No long distance calls, no pressure interviews -- take as long as you want, just do a good job (that is, as if you were already an editor. You read the editors' guidelines while you're working on it.

>>...Who is the editor of this category? For every category editor, the category editors are listed at the bottom of the page. Note that editors of parent categories, and editalls, and meta-editors, can all edit there. Some of us, perhaps including some of the listed editors, don't edit there all that often, however.

Submit to DMOZ, then: Don't submit to Google Directory (it's a copy of DMOZ) or search engine (it feeds on DMOZ) Don't submit to AOL Directory (see above) or search engine (it either is now, or will soon be, feeding on Google.) Don't submit to Netscape Directory (ditto). Netscape doesn't have its own search engine.

You have a slight problem, in that the "primary" language is not English, and the site has already been sent to a World category for review there. If you just submit again, the editor may see the history, see that it's already been reviewed (and found wanting) for English content, see that it's still waiting review in World, and (quite reasonably) reject it out of hand. What to do? At the end of your suggested description, explicitly say something like "[content in Turkish, English, and Tocharian.]" This may suggest that, this time around, the editor could expect to find English content, as well as the foreign content that may have caused it to be overlooked before.

I'm sorry, I thought the response was clear. The site has been reviewed and rejected, multiple times, by multiple editors entrusted with abuse investigations, and the consensus is that it should STAY rejected. The reason is simple: France-hotels.net is listed. You can create as many vanity domain names as you wish, for portions of that content; but linking to them is your responsibility. Anything you want on a listed domain, you can put on France-hotels.net; and anything you want linked from a listing in French Hotels categories, you can link from there. ODP has no interest whatsoever in superceding your own links.

>>If I submit it twice though will I not be at risk from it looking like I have spamed ODP? I dont want to risk not getting listed. I don't want to encourage double-submitting in general, but when the first submission was in a not-remotely-right category, there's no problem at all (in fact, it might even help the editors) to hunt up exactly the right category (or even almost the right category) and submit again. Twice to "remote" categories isn't really spam--in fact, I think I'll say it is hardly ever spam. (Of course, most of the time you probably won't get two listings out of it.) Half a dozen times to "nearby" categories WOULD really be spam.

>>Do I simply submit it again to the regional category even though we're already listed? Yes, yes! And you should submit exactly the same URL. Often editors will look at the "already listed" sites first -- they are often "quick reject" or "quick accept". In a case like this (business already listed in Topical) the site has already been judged appropriate for listing....and all that remains is to verify the local relevance (that looks like a quick accept) and polish the description. Note that because the relevance is "locality" and not "business", the description could reasonably be less specific than the business listing. I'd probably trim it down to something like "Manufactures industrial rope and wire netting products." And no guarantee, but many regional categories have short backlogs.

It appears to be a directory that was finally mined for links and removed.

#1) IMO, you're trying to stuff too many keywords into the description. It should be a general description, not a product list. (caveat: not every editor is as passionate about the need for concise descriptions) #2) If there is any content on the website related to the locality (say an address for prospective employees), then yes, please do submit the site to the proper locality.

1) My site is making so much money that it has to be listed. 2) My site has to be listed because it's not making enough money, and a listing would solve all my problems. 3) I spent so much time on my site design that you owe me a listing. 4) My site design is so much better than other sites', that you can't not list it. 5) If you added my site, you wouldn't be the only editor who's made abusive edits or stupid mistakes. 6) I'll give you [money/promotional links/hot sex] if you'll list my site. 7) I'll sue if you don't add my site. My lawyer will be in contact with you, your family, the ODP, AOL, Time/Warner, and the United Nations. All of these are ways of saying, more or less subtlely, "You're corrupt. You don't care about the web users or the goals of the ODP on their behalf, but here's some consideration, totally irrelevant consideration that may sway you -- and therefore I'm hoping to hear you say, 'though I fear not God, neither regard man, yet will I avenge this supplicant, lest she weary me by her incessant importunity.'" Well, most of us don't appreciate being called corrupt, no matter how subtlely. And we have multiple ways of handling incessant importunity. Like Google, ODP has a lifetime ban, and even one use of the most blatant of the above lines can cause staff to invoke it. A word to the wise: most editors don't want to be unjust judges. And the ones that do, aren't going to want to reveal it in a public forum. So stick to the facts: tell us what manner of content surfers would be looking for, and can get at your website and no other. Help us find the ONE category that best fits that content. (You may also try to convince us that there are other unrelated categories that would not be complete or comprehensive without that content.) Your site may still not get a listing, but it certainly won't lose a listing which it otherwise might have gotten. [Edited in order to add a linebreak /images/icons/smile.gif ]

Sorry, no. Resubmitting seems reasonable at this point.

In the normal course of events, one of the submittals would have been deleted quickly ("duplicate/spam filter"). I don't see the other one; are you sure you submitted to that category both times?

There seems to be a typo there, but ... are you saying that there are two mirror sites? What are the URLs? (Send the information to any meta or editall that visits here regularly. Send to a moderator here if it's not fixed within a week.)

>>Currently ODP has more than 50,000 editor, do you think they still need more editors? This is not my opinion, this is the unanimous opinion of staff and meta-editors: "YES, ODP needs more editors!" >>Is it difficult to be accepted as an editor by the ODP? Depends. Is it difficult to look at a 50-page website, and say in 5-15 words what it contains? Is it difficult to use plain, clear English (or other languages in World categories), following style guidelines? Is it difficult to pick the one best category for most websites on some subject you're interested in? Is it difficult to take the time to find websites that would fit best in some particular category? For the vast majority of people (80-90% is probably not a bad estimate), one or more of these things is difficult: and so editing would be difficult, and filling out an application (partly consisting of samples of editing work) would be difficult. But if you find all of these things easy -- or are willing to work hard on the ones that are hard for you -- then it probably won't be too hard to get accepted as an editor.

>>It has been removed from the directory since it is a mirror of (or uses the same system as) http://www.onmymob.com/ >Would there be any room for it in another category ... There is NO room for mirror sites anywhere in the directory. If you ever see one that slipped in, please report it, and we will both remove it and ensure that it does not return.

Re: Luxury Hotels submission problem. This may not be applicable to your site, but one very important consideration in submitting Hotel sites: If you are NOT providing your own online booking system (merely providing an affiliate link to one of several systems that are already listed) then submitting your site to an "Online Booking" category, or even mentioning online booking in your suggested description, will put you in the "affiliate booking spam" category. Our general assumption is that your description is at least what you think is most significant about the site, and what we should look at (or look for). When we find that "most significant content" is really "affiliate links to some other site," we may justifiably adjudge that the site really doesn't contain much significant content. And reject it without further investigation. Worse yet, "hotel reservation" sites get looked at especially closely, because of the massive, malicious, mendacious, submittals that we've experienced. In short, we have to assume that all "hotel reservation" sites submitted are affiliate spam. This results in extended delays in site reviews -- because, if we can't see how the site is doing its affiliate links, we _know_ that, most of the time, this just means that the spammers have come up with another, more deceptive technique of hiding their affiliate links. So the vast majority of the time, there are only two actions taken on "hotel reservation" sites: 1) reject for cause 2) delay for further investigation. In fact, even if you run your own reservation system, it might be better not to mention it in your suggested description. (Remember that this regrettable situation -- overworked editors and the culture of suspicion -- has risen through the actions of unscrupulous webmasters; and aim your curses appropriately.

Hint: Engine/Fuel: less than 25 unreviewed sites. Engine: over 150 unreviewed sites. I've removed your duplicate submission (and a few others) from the parent category. This will not (much) prejudice your original submission.

No, none of those things can be assumed. We'd have to review the site to be able to answer questions like that. The question is whether it's been reviewed. It hasn't.

>>They've done site upgrades so we'll remind them to submit. Hint, hint....From the (suppressed, heretical) FAQ: Q: Who may submit a site? A: Only its webmaster or accredited representative. If you do not share at least 50% of your genes with the webmaster, please include a notarized statement of your affiliation before submitting the site. You know where it is, mon, and you know where it goes, right? So, submit it already!

Re: www.feedmypet.com Deleted. Unlikely to return.

>>we contract it to a specialty plant I saw...Is the specialty plant listed? -- It should be.

>>I realize that they look quite similar to www.point2.com ....we are in the process of changing their look. Could it be for this reason that these pages are not being listed - because they are similar to www.point2.com? No, it's not the look that bothers us. It is the fact that they are all just doorway pages for access to the same database schema. Changing the "look" of the pages will mean that they would be no longer considered "vanity doorway domains" -- they would then be considered "fraternal mirrors." Fraternal mirrors are less popular among editors than doorway domains, because to the aroma of spam they add an appearance of deceit.

>>will I be told? 999+ times out of 1000, NO.

In this particular area, IIRC, the "Regional" category is @linked from the "Topical" one, so the site would be listed only once in Regional, but people browsing the directory would see it from either side.

Sorry this one slipped through the cracks. Health patent nostrum are not every editor's cup of tea. >>We produced a ... sold at facegum.com (in the queue at shopping/health/beauty/skin_care/anti_aging). OK, that is probably somewhere close to the right neighborhood. >>We incorporated Andrea Abbott Cosmetics to help find business partners "andreaabbott.com". >>We'd like to submit keracell.com to "health/beauty/skin_care" and the company site, "andreaabbott.com" to "business/industries/manufacturing/consumer_products/health_and_beauty/cosmetics" The latter is entirely inappropriate (you are a (retail) "business" but by no means a "manufacturer.") Since it is an online retail business, the right place for it is Shopping (where facegum has been submitted.) The other is IMO also inappropriate. Its content is best described as "product information for facegum.com." I believe our users are best served by a single site for the product. It is your choice how many domain names you want; you surely know that big companies often purchase multiple domains for each of their brand names. (That's necessary and valuable, for various reasons.) But -- the ODP is not a domain name catalog; it's a website directory, and after reviewing the sites I think it would be most appropriate to consider them all as one website for one retail establishment (that currently happens to promoate and sell one product.)