hutcheson

No, there is not a rule like that. The submitter's written guidelines do mention that no site has an inherent RIGHT to even one listing. (Certain kinds of sites are systematically excluded; and there's no category where even a relevant site is guaranteed a listing.) And they DO say: "submit a SITE [only] to the ONE most appropriate category." And they DO say: "don't submit mirror sites or doorway pages." Editors would probably call two sites about the same company "fraternal mirrors" or "vanity doorway domains" -- that is, either they contain the same information in a different format (and thus can't both be unique) or they contain different information from the same source about the same topic, and should logically be considered part of the same WEBSITE even though they have URLs containing different DOMAIN NAMES. The EDITOR'S guidelines say "multiple listings and/or deeplinks are the EXCEPTION." There are, BTW, a few customary exceptions that have been mentioned in these forums. Aside from those, you as a submitter (or even as an editor working on a site with which you're affiliated) should not ask or hope for more than ONE listing.

Perhaps we should add that the "reinstatement request" feature is fairly new. You wouldn't have known about it a year ago, or even seen it if you'd tried to log in six months ago.

Re: No Unique Content >>Regardless of which way round it is there is still lots of unique content. ABSOLUTELY NONE of which is related to the category you submitted to. >>At the end of the day if you only allowed 100% unique then there would be about 200 web sites in total as all sites are similar in there subject matter. You may be right. Come to think of it, that may be why NewHoo didn't really catch on until they dropped the "100% unique" rule. >>This seems to be singled out victimisation ... LOL. You suppose, do you, that you're the only ringtone affiliate site ever rejected? Did you every wonder why? Could it have anything to do with the black helicopters that follow you around? Look, I'll take your word for the helicopters. But you don't have to believe me. You can test it for yourself. Find a couple or three other ringtones affiliates sites, and submit them. See if they get listed. If they DO, you MIGHT have been singled out. If not, you CERTAINLY WEREN'T singled out. But until you've performed this simple experiment, my recommendation is not to make rash accusations. >>on a site which I have spent a lot of time building, Oh, that's the problem, you forgot to fill in the field on the ODP submission form "How long did it take to create this site?" [added: that field was omitted from the form, because that information was irrelevant] ... some of the other sites under this category, some of which have about 2 pages in all....hardly high quality. Um, the issue is not quality. The issue is not number of pages. The issue is unique relevant content. We actually LIKE two-page sites. >>I have a hard enough time trying to make a living in this market... Completely irrelevant. If you want to sell your own ringtones, we'd LOVE to list your site. You don't need hundreds of pages of gratuitious graphics or irrelevant fluff. You don't need professionally-worded hype. A single page of HTML will be sufficient. It doesn't have to be tastefully designed. It doesn't have to be grammatically correct. You just have to sell ringtones. But, you see, your site in fact does not sell ringtones; it merely advertises the fact that some other site sells ringtones. And the ODP already signifies that fact, by simply listing the other site.

I read the last post and at first thought kujanomiko was quoting me. Suffice it to say that in most weeks, there are several days of which I _could_ say something like that.

>>...if not listed in shopping then where? This seems to presume that the ODP lists all sites. The submission guidelines explicitly and categorically deny that: "We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites... Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed." The same page tells exactly where to submit sites that consist primarily of affiliate shopping content: "Don't submit sites consisting largely of affiliate links." [to the ODP, that is: there are a world of other site promotional opportunities out there.] If a site consists primarily of unlistable content, a submittal to an ODP category in which the only relevant content is that unlistable content, will receive a quick rejection and probably an expression of the editor's attitude toward spam.

>>Regarding competitor names, all of mine are already signed up in your directory but if a new one that i know of arises, i will notify you. >>Now another topic not yet adressed would be: "Organic and GMO-free related"... the fastest emerging segment of the beverage market (at least in USA/Canada/Europe) as contender sub-category of beverages category itself. The point is that another categorie in your directory already propose that sub-segmentation. ie: Shopping: Food: Organic >>Why not beverages too? >>I have been very pleased to help. I wonder if the "Organic" category would cut across some of the other categories -- you might have 'organic' fruit juice, for instance, maybe even 'organic' tea, coffee, wine or beer? But I'm getting distracted from my real point. You're sounding a lot like an editor. Had you considered being one?

Thanks, that's most helpful. Your point about repeating "drink" is well taken. and before reading your post, I would have put "Carrot Juice" in the "Juice" category without compunction: but your taxonomy seems reasonable and useful. I don't think it's quite the full answer yet. I'm not sure "Leguminous" is going to be widely understood, and the "B-word" is still repeated in the title (something we try to avoid.) I'll take this back to our forums with a view toward creating a category like this.

We see a lot of such sites submitted. But for most such sites that I have seen, the answer is, "no." It's definitely not "Literature" -- it's "book promotion (advertising)." It's definitely not "Shopping" -- there isn't unique sales content. (The book is available from Amazon.) Other content typically included is the blurb from the book jacket, a promo bio from the author's publisher, and excerpts from glowing reviews (if any) from newspapers, etc. (Think of a full-page ad in the NYTRB, cut up and pasted onto several webpages. But no matter how you cut it, it's still just an ad.)

Re: Why were so many of the sites I do SEO for rem >>each site has its own URL and its own IP address. And the IP address is irrelevant -- many sites have hundreds of IP addresses; other single IP addresses host multiple sites. And, for that matter, the separate "URL" (I think you meant "domain name") is irrelevant -- the ODP lists websites, not domain names. The problem is not that each "site" doesn't have its own domain name; it's that each domain name didn't have its own "site." They are all views of one database schema generated by one template and maintained by one entity. But why would each view need its own IP address? I can think of only one reason.... "extra layer of deception." Look, this site started out looking like a real, legitimate site. But legitimate sites doesn't need this kind of smokescreen! yahoo.com and directory.google.com can handle hundreds of thousands of categories under one domain name. They even make a virtue of it: "branding", I think they call it. But by engaging in these dubious (and transparent) deceptions, you raise doubts about the legitimacy of the site itself. The editors are going to have to ask whether a spammy submission is for a spam site (the answer is usually "yes", of course) ... but is that the kind of question you want them to be asking? Or would you rather them be thinking , "I know this site -- it has good content in several areas. I'll spot-check to make sure some content is there, and quickly move on to wondering what category it should go in."

The current guideline is, sites that offer web design and any other (internet or computer-related) services are listed ONCE under Computers/.../Web Designers, with a description summarizing their services. If your "Media Production" is sufficiently unlike your computer services, and you do offer that work throughout a large (worldwide or at least national) region, then ONE listing under Media Production may be considered. But submitting to multiple subcategories of one category will inevitably be considered spam. Submit to the parent category, if the site has significant content appropriate to several subcategories; or submit to the single subcat that best fits the primary content of the site. (Note that if the site focus doesn't exactly meet your business focus, an editor may choose a category based on the site focus.) If the site gives information to people who might want to do face-to-face business, it can be considered for listing in Regional under your locality. But the basis for a local listing is the presence of a local business: one business, one listing -- even if it looked like "John Doe Enterprises: offers well and posthole drilling, bassoon and competition ballroom dancing lessons, and dental surgery."

Re: Why were so many of the sites I do SEO for rem It was a violation of the ODP guidelines to have listed the redirector URLs. It is a violation of the ODP guidelines to list search-result URLs. That is completely independent of whether, or how, the site is listed elsewhere. I'd suggest that it might be shortsighted to redesign a site whose primary content is web-navigational information, based on the theory that poorer web navigation is the way toward better listings.

I know that I, at least, have worked in there since February. Let's just say that it attracts a lot of submittals of sites that obviously don't go there (which is not a big problem) and a lot more sites that subtlely don't go there (which is a bigger problem).

Re: Why were so many of the sites I do SEO for rem Three niggles: First, in the normal course of events, nobody is notified when a site goes in or out of the directory. We're "volunteer directory editors," not "corresponding secretaries" and are, for good experiential reasons, discouraged from combining the two callings. If there were a reason, you wouldn't expect to find it -- except through a forum like this. Second, lists of links actually can count as content, which is why the site is still listed (under a URL that looks like a business name). In fact, among the many low-content "directory" sites that are submitted, this stands out as unusually comprehensive. Third: deeplinking is truly "the exception rather than the rule," and submitting deeplinks deprecated, but (more to the point) both redirecting URLs and search result URLs are "expressly and specifically forbidden." The "vanity-domain-names" (or "keyword-stuffed" domain names mentined are all redirectors: and they further appear to redirect to a search result. (Whether that search result is incorporated in staticly built pages, or rebuilt on the fly for every page access -- is an irrelevant implementation detail.) I look at this site with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the use of redirector URLs to hide the fact that the pages are deep links -- is the sort of deceptive submittal practice that is fervently unappreciated among editors. On the other hand, it does appear to pass the "usefulness tests" (comprehensiveness, freshness, and focus) that make it a useful adjunct to a large general directory like the ODP. But the final decision is (IMO) simple. We place service to users above justice to pestilential or deceptive submittors. And we do include comprehensive directories (like ODP, Yahoo, Looksmart, and IQS -- which in its niche may even be more comprehensive), but we simply don't deeplink them as directories.

>>Currently there are 48 unreviewed entries to be processed in that category, including all subcategorie there are more than 400. When you asked the question there were twice that many. But that is not as good news as it sounds. Surprisingly, most webmasters can't differentiate between sites about the beverage Industry, sites that sell beverages, sites about attempting amusing oneself with beverages, and sites that attempt to persuade people to buy particular beverages. (Industry, Shopping, Recreation, and Spam, respectively.) Most of the other sites were obviously misplaced (or worse.) Your site appears to be sort of correctly placed, but ... perhaps you can help us here. Perhaps we should have a category for "Soy and related drinks" -- could you suggest (from your knowledge of the industry) what such a category might be called and what it might include? (It seems to me that there are two or three other similar sites.) As an incentive, if you can provide a category name and charter, the name of a competitor or two, I think that would probably inspire an editor to found the category (and review several sites, including yours, in the process.)

>>It's there. Here are examples of unique content: >>Product Reviews: >>Collecting and displaying hundreds of thousands of reviews IS in fact unique. Nobody has as many fresh reviews constantly accumulating.... This sounds like "unique content." >>Honest Store Reviews: ... The Good ... The Bad >>Unlike our competitors, we don't try to send people to the highest paying merchant... Nobody on the web has a system like ours. Again, that's the kind of answer you need to be able to say. >>Product Comparisons: >>We automatically pull together similar products for comparison. This is less likely to be seen as unique content. >>Savings: We see way too many sites, all looking the same, all with affiliate banners disguised as online coupons. The mere presence of anything looking like that, can make a whole site look like more affiliate spam. Site design plays a part in the expectations editors have, and when an unfavorable initial impression is confirmed by spot-checks, a site will get rejected quickly -- as has happened multiple times here. ---------------------------- If what you say above checks out (and a spot-check seems to suggest it is plausible), then perhaps the parent category (simply Consumer Information) would be a better fit. Thus, part of the difficulty has arisen from pushing the site in the wrong categories; part also may have been in not emphasising its truly unique aspects in either site design or submissions. One source of confusion: It is never the mere presence of affiliate links that condemns a site! It's the lack of unique content. When an editor describes a site as an "affiliate banner farm" or "affiliate links", another editor would recognize that as a shorthand for "the only, or nearly the only, content on the site relevant to the subject is the affiliate links." The shorthand is based on editors' experience is that the vast majority of sites that prominently feature affiliate content simply do not have other relevant content. This is how a site can "conform to the pattern of an affiliate banner farm" -- it prominently features affiliate links and advertising banners, while not having conspicuous links to the other content. And this is why citing another site that also has affiliate links is not to the point at all. The PR of 8 is not an infallible guide, but links from reputable sites in the CI area (which this site apparently does have) will be taken into consideration.)

You're asking how the site differs from some that have been listed. What you don't seem to realize is that question can't possibly lead anywhere. If the answer is "not at all", then the site isn't unique and should be rejected. If the answer is "in these ways" -- then the site is different, and there's no reason to suppose that it shouldn't be rejected. On the other hand, you're answering the wrong question. You've told us how much money you're already making from affiliate links -- x thousand victims at y cents a pop. Sorry, we can't verify that information, and wouldn't consider it relevant anyway. ("don't know AND don't care!") What you need to answer is how the site DIFFERS from all those that have been REJECTED. The guideline that you need to meet is "prominent, unique, relevant content". That guideline is not lowered by every borderline site that is listed; quite the contrary. The standards are based on the sites that are already listed -- the first price comparision site was by definition unique. The second by definition isn't. Yours isn't the first or second -- and the bar must have been raised by every listing. What, based on all the sites we already have listed, can you ADD to the value of the Open Directory? What, in short, is your unique content? Note that the capability of accepting user feedback is not unique content -- it is merely the potential of future unique content. (If all those x thousand daily visitors actually give feedback, the site may someday be worth listing (perhaps in consumer information/reviews), even if it isn't now (or even if it isn't ever listable in price comparisions). If not enough of them have so far, then you need to show some other unique content.

I believe there are also a couple of metas that can review them now.

tomasz, the syntactic distinction you make isn't really justified, since it's trivial to set up a webserver to treat the two classes of URLs exactly the same. As is often the case, human judgment is necessary.

>>I don't think that used to happen .. That didn't use to happen. dmoz.org: Not a bad website for one programmer, eh?

>>... had to change category as the original cat had no editor. Sigh. No, you didn't have to do that. The submittal guidelines said not to do that. It will not help the site get listed faster. Can you tell, please, what (in your opinion) the RIGHT category is?

The site is not appropriate for the Automotive category. It also contains NON-automotive classifieds! Submitters' guidelines say "Pick the ONE most appropriate category for the SITE." The site is in the most appropriate category.

Welcome to the Remedial Language and Literature Forum, sponsored by the Open Directory. The technical term for use of "swank" in this context is "collocational clash." It's not hard to find examples of this sort of transition anywhere from Dave Barry to Aristophanes, and of course check out Aristotle's analysis of it in Attic Greek literature. In literature predating the Greek comic poets, the difficulties of identifying the connotative verbal distinctions upon which the irony or humor depends become daunting: but I suspect the phenomenon is nearly universal.

>>... certainly [spelling correction] emphasis ... All right, wayfarer, that does it: dictionaries and phrase-structure grammars at dawn. Name your second. I'll see if hotpink [founder of the ODP spell-Czech team] is available, and I'll bring my OED just for the swank of it, even though it's overkill. You're welcome to bone up on verb accidence in the Indo-European languages beforehand. [ROFL]

The site had been reviewed, more than several times, already. But I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality to say that we are reconsidering it. As indicated before, such reconsideration is not done in a vacuum, and the decision may not be quick. -- I'd particularly call your attention to the submittal guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.html , which actually responded to some of your questions before they were asked here: "We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted. Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed." "Identify the single best category for your site.... You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed." "Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites." Your, um, inattention to these guidelines will inevitably be a factor in the reconsideration of the site. I've spent some time going through the site and its history; and give a few of my own immediate reactions: -- I think I see what you were describing as "unique content." It is, um, not one of the site's more prominent aspects of the site. -- This site is not particularly friendly for the surfer: it definitely caters to the ad-banner-pushing folks. (A "shopping" site makes it easy for surfers to find the page that sells what they are looking for; a "marketing" site makes it easy for advertisers to display the page they want the public to see. It is easy to characterize this site on that scale.) -- The site is not particularly useful for the shopping surfer. I tried areas that I frequently shop on the web, looking for some items that I knew existed...with little or no success. -- Some categories have absolutely nothing useful...just a single affiliate link to another affiliate site. If, in the process of sampling the content to verify its uniqueness, an editor looked first or primarily at such categories, they ought to have rejected out of hand. This may well have happened more than once. (Bear in mind that the editor is not expected to hunt down the three sentences of unique content in the footnotes of the 438th page in an exhaustive breadth-first traversal -- a truly useful site will prominently feature unique content directly relevant to the category. This site certainly doesn't do a GOOD job of that. -- I was surprised to eventually discover that the price comparisions do sometimes work. Again, a typical reviewer may not try comparing price on more than a couple of items -- if both fail, it is reasonable to guess that feature doesn't work at all. It would be very irrational and inefficient to keep trying these database probes, hoping that the 101st would succeeded if the first 100 failed. It would be much more responsible to reject the site and go look at one of the many other submittals that showed less lack-of-promise. -- At times I had the feeling that bizrate.com was little more than a (fairly close, but partial) knockoff of smartshopper.com's categories and listings, and in that context the argument "it's no less unique than smartshopper.com" sounded especially, um, curious. -- I am not surprised that wayfarer likes the site: understandably so, since it certainly emphasises the issues with which he is most concerned. But everyone will have concerns that the ODP cannot, or by design does not, address. My own conclusion is that, when I am buying something on the web, I would appreciate not having to navigate or circumnavigate this site on the way to the site that really sells it. I suspect that this will be most shoppers' reactions. But in this case I won't make the final call -- we'll see if we can actually get some other shoppers' actual opinions. The site has worked hard to give a number of obvious good reasons for a quick rejection; acceptance may not be so quick, and is certainly not certain.

>>Am I a lost cause? Quite possibly not: at least you've demonstrated some ability to read category charters and learn the taxonomy. Try again...no prejudice, if the prior application is remembered, the fact that the new one is better will be all the more apparent.