hutcheson

This is, in the nature of things, not something for which a quick positive response can be given. Patience is required. Remember that affiliate spam is the single most serious problem for EVERYONE that tries to find information on the net -- search engines, directories, surfers. Some of the perps will generate dozens of new sites a week, all with the same perfect-lack-of-uniqueness of content but possibly wearing different fright wigs and glorying in distinctive aliases. It takes time to track these down. Patience is needed. It is nearly always true that the ODP editing community is discussing old and new forms of the pestilence, refining the rules to restrict forms that are going epidemic, cleaning up the deluge of unreviewed sites, and some reviewed sites in categories that have been buried deepest in toxic waste, etc. This takes patience. Now, you have a site that in many respects fits the profile of an affiliate site. One of the respects in which it fits the profile closely is: that it purports to have some bit of "unique" content -- even though its apparent purpose is to induce surfers to traverse its affiliate links. This is not the kind of site most editors enjoy reviewing -- in fact, it takes a great deal of patience. If this site is reconsidered, there are a number of considerations. You can easily see in these forums, how easily, and with how little excuse, the shrill cries of "his affiliate site is in, why don't you go add mine right now, you unfair monopolists, it's probably owned by an editor, etc., etc., etc.?" Would adding this site trigger a new round of expostulary importunations? Can we really justify it? That kind of discussion will take place in the editing community, not the affiliate-site-generating community. So you won't see it here. Patience is called for. What the public most needs to understand about this is that of the hundreds of thousands of sites waiting review, sites like this will not be the easiest to list (if they are listed at all -- they are among the easier to reject). Patience seems indicated. And if, after reconsideration of the community, it is determined that new listings won't be added for ANY class of sites, it is VERY unlikely that the conclusions will be debated with the persons who are considered the source of the problem. The basic problem is that, whatever form the discussion takes, the issues spammers are concerned with are not those which concern the editing community: one wants profit to go to a particular site, the other wants information to flow most efficiently. And we know, from experience, that the spammers will, lawyer-like, introduce utterly specious arguments from religion, philosophy, politics, economics, statistics, biology, and quantum thermodynamics -- even though all that matters is "YOU HAVE TO UNFAIRLY PROMOTE MY SITE RIGHT NOW!" A lack of understanding of this difference of issues, and a lack of appreciation of the time it takes a diverse volunteer community to come to agreement on even necessary changes of direction, will, whatever the merits of the site in hand, make the site owner look like the prototypical spammer. But even a spammer can look like an honest person, given enough patience. If the community can agree that there really IS some issue here besides "I don't want people to get where they want to go without paying roadtax to my affiliate program", it will address it. (That still doesn't mean that this site, unlike all others on the web, is GUARANTEED a listing.) But remember that the ODP's reputation for nonresponsiveness to spammers is a significant part of its quality control effort.

I fervently agree with the 42nd hedgey. Computers/Tutorials is for sites about technical aspects of the computer techniques, not about any specific style of music. And Directories is really for sites that don't fit into any more specific subcategory -- many styles, as well as other Music subcategories, have their own "Directories" category. This actually exhibits two VERY common mistake that submitters make: 1) Look for media first, then topic. (It should nearly always be the other way around.) In this case, your topic is "Trance Music" so you should start by looking there. Not at "directories," which is only one type of information you have about that topic. Not at computers, even though your website is almost certainly on one. 2) Look for the most specific topic first, and work out from there. (So you are using computers to create a community and/or assist in your performances -- but who isn't? So you have a links page -- so do 200 million other sites!) The _specific_ topic is "Trance", which is a style of music. So start there. It's not that different from a library. If you went looking for a book about the trance music business, would you look in the card catalog under "Books"? Surely not.

This is close enough to the right forum, if that's what you meant by "category." The site appeared to have disappeared by mistake. It's back now.

OK. As for no response, that is what you will get -- basically always -- whether your suggested site is listed, rejected, or remanded to another category for the same treatment. Oh, VERY occasionally an editor will contact a very interesting-looking site that (due to easily remediable technical reasons) isn't listable. But 99.75% of the time (in my experience, and yes, this is an actual calculated statistic, not invented for effect) there will be no editor contact. Editors are building a directory -- from their point of view, they are not helping you list your site, they are letting you help them find appropriate sites. (If your submittal is not useful, you're no help, and they're NOT going to want MORE contact with you.) The only way to get a response is by directly contacting the editor (but ... because of experience with harassing webmasters, most editors won't directly respond to this either) or by ... using a forum like this (which is the best way.) So, a quick response is: Business has a large backlog of submitted sites, and this category had over 90 submitted sites when I looked (that's bad news) and no local editor (that's not really significant either way). Most submittals probably belonged in that category (that is, the category is not a major spam target, which is sort of good news.) I'm hardly an industry expert, but it looks to me as if that might be the right category for your site (that's always good to hear.) Remember that if the company has a factory in a particular location, then its site may be listed in a Regional category, in the relevant city. While you are waiting, consider submitting it to the appropriate category in Regional/Asia/Taiwan (I presume?) which might help it get listed more quickly. I know the guidelines say "pick the ONE most appropriate category," but (trust me on this one) we editors will NOT mind if you pick one appropriate topical category and one appropriate Regional category. (Obviously, for some kinds of sites, there may not be any appropriate topical category; for others, there may not be any appropriate regional category. But this site doesn't look like either of those.) Also, if you have a site in Chinese (or other languages), it may be listable in a World/Chinese category. Again, we really don't mind if you submit a bilingual site to categories in two different languages.

The first site is already listed in Games: Gambling: Consultants: Online. The second site: in the submission guidelines there are multiple reasons, any one sufficient, to NOT submit it even once.

Hi, the second question is perhaps beyond the scope of the forum -- an editor who can give a good judgment as to whether the site could be listed ... um, would best spend their time by exercising that judgment editing the category. (So if you get answers, don't base your retirement plans on them.) As for the first question, it would help get quicker, more accurate answers if you read the forum guidelines, then added all the information requested.

No, the profile is not a sticking point. The official answer is that the profiles contain "anyone who contributed to the Open Directory", whether or not currently active. (reinstatement happens sometimes!) The issue is, I think, that the ODP is not yet willing to consider any but the largest few hundred categories (and some Regional "template-based" categories) fixed. And in particular, sites' location in categories is certainly not fixed -- as a category grows, it is subdivided, and sites moved into the subcategories. The weekly RDF dumps do provide versionization; but I don't think "moved categories" are tracked there. So if you want more, ODP staff (or perhaps editor-hackers) will have to be involved. At this point, there doesn't seem to be an interest in publishing the "category-move tracking" that you would need.

>Should I be concerned that it doesn't have an editor? No. As it happens, it's about as up-to-date as any category.

>>I didn't realize that the number also included unreviewed entries. There isn't a fixed number (whether or not including unrevieweds.) The "rule of thumb" is more like "not too large for 20 edits to make a real difference, not too difficult, not too complex." Lots of unrevieweds is a difficulty: most submittals are to the wrong category, and you are immediately faced with the problem of recognizing and handling the misplaced ones. Lots of spam is a difficulty. Lots of subcategories, or collocutional clash of subcategories, or lots of closely related categories, are complexities. And so on. >>Is the number of edits needed to get another category standardized, or subjective ... Subjective. No "brownie points" system. No "editors protecting their own turf" either. >>...depending on the new category you are requesting? Depending on your own work and reputation (generally, and in related categories), the difficulty of the new category (size, complexity of taxonomy, abuse potential, etc.) >>There are a couple that I can easily find 20 sites or so to add. If I could just add other subcategories as I got one in order, then that would keep me occupied for a good while before I would need to look up the hierarchy. This is a common and acceptable approach. Pick one of the categories you have 20 sites for: adding those sites will certainly be enough of a track record to apply to the other one. (I presume we're still talking about Themed Jewelry subcategories, or perhaps related categories under, e.g., Arts/Crafts or Business/Industries/Wholesale/Jewelry. For unrelated categories, you'd usually begin with another small category.)

That might depend on what you thought was wrong with the current listing. <added>I don't think Shopping/Office Products is the right place anyway. The listing is in the much more specific Shopping/Travel/Luggage/Business/ category.</added> <edited again>"Supplies" are basically consumable goods -- paper, red tape, etc. I think "Equipment" would be the better subcat. (No sites are listed directly under Office_Products). So...I added a @link from Equipment to Business Luggage. Again, a user's confusion about ODP's taxonomy points up a previously unnoticed hiatus in the structure. And we get to make the structure better for everyone. Thanks.</edited>

Yes, there is. Oh, and, no, the site's not waiting for review there.

Not a bug, it's a feature. We've just executed a new automatic anti-spam filter.

>>There are 135 submissions waiting for review in the mentioned category. ... most of which obviously do not belong there. Yours is not, so far as I could tell, one of them that very obviously did not belong.

Our usual answer is, "don't worry about it. Nobody uses the dmoz.org site search except editors looking for spam, or webmasters looking for their own sites. What really counts is real search engines (Google and, um, Google) at major portal sites (Yahoo, Google, AOL/Netscape, the M$N Gulag)."

This deeplink will not be listed. The main site is listed in "Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Designers: W" -- see the discussion in http://resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=status&Number=3247 for how such sites are to be treated. Also see http://resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=3591 for a discussion of where that site might be moved soon. These threads mention several legitimate ways of improving the main site's current description -- I'd recommend reading them, and then submitting an "Update URL" request with a better list of the services you offer. [Also, if you deal with customers face-to-face, make sure that the contact information is on the site, and then submit it to the Business&Industry category in your hometown.]

Mr. Newton is right, in general and (so far as I can tell) specifically regarding this, um, case. An ODP editor might (depending on the circumstances) see one submitted URL but list a different, "optically equivalent" URL. But in fact rtinnovations.com seems not to have ever been listed. I am speaking cautiously now, because I am very far from imagining all the evil that lurks in the heart of affiliate spammers, and there might be a very good reason why neither of these sites can be listed. But ... the existance of rtinnovations.com is NOT adequate reason to NOT list PAAC.com. But if you want to make sure that rtinnovations.com doesn't supplant PAAC.com, then do the following: -- On the home page of rti....com, put a big notice like: "We've expanded our site -- please visit our new digs at PAAC.com." (It would be best, though perhaps impractical, to put that on a header of EVERY page, to capture the old visitors for your new site.) [This will let editors know that given a choice, you'd prefer to have the new URL listed. It will also make it very clear that there is no URL-hijacking or page theft involved between two sites with similar substance.] -- Make VERY sure that all content at the old site is also available from the new site. [if this is not done, an editor MIGHT make the very reasonable assumptions that RTI.com is the corporate site but it has subsites with vanity domain names for each of its product lines. In that case, we might list the corporate site, for the sake of our users, regardless of the webmaster's preference.] (I don't see a reason for that to happen

Re: submission denile I'm not clear what you are asking. Note well, though, that when an editor says "not enough content" that may be shorthand for "not enough useful, relevant, unique content." If the problem with a site was that it did not have enough UU&R "blue chiral widget" content to get into the BCW category, adding "handcrafted helical gadget" content will not help. In the face of the fact that the ODP publishes its own directory of gambling sites, it will be hard to ever establish that any site has UU&R "gambling directory" content. What is UU&R GD content? Why, it can only be that you list gambling sites the ODP doesn't list. And what would happen if we saw that your site listed one such site that you listed but the ODP didn't? We'd simply add that one such site to the ODP, and THEN delete your site, for lack of uniqueness of content. What it comes down to, is that the more carefully a "Directories" category is looked at, the harder it will be for any sites to ever qualify for that category again -- not because they are competing with the ODP but because they CAN'T compete with the ODP. And "VERY hard at the Gambling Directories category" is EXACTLY where LOTS of editors are looking. Editors are not going to be considering the amount of profit a site makes (they don't know, and vicemeisters often lie about it anyway) or where a site is advertised (since the ODP doesn't carry advertising anyway) or how much a site spends on advertising (none of which comes to the ODP anyway.)

>>It’s amazing to go through the categories and wonder how some sites get every keyword put into their description and others get a four word description. Each editor approaches descriptions differently, and undoubtedly this is part of the difference, but the submitters have a major effect also: "A pharisee and a publican went up to the marketplace to advertise. The pharisee stood on the street corner and shouted, "We're not like all those other firms! We have a one-stop shop for all your needs. We fully optimize your paradigms while ensuring your needs are met with only the highest quality services with a smile! You can be sure that every contact with us will leave you fully satisfied! We have been in business since 8:45, and can demonstrate the flexibility needed in today's marketplace!" and to this he added yet more, to the same effect and point. The publican sat down in a corner of the market where the poorer tenant-farmers congregated, and laid out in a row in front of him baskets of leeks, garlic, cucumbers, dill, barley, and figs. Which one of these, think you, would get more keywords from the passers-by? I'll tell you, the pharisee found few customers, and some of them only because they thought he was a pimp. But the publican sold all of his produce and returned to his hovel with enough money to pay his rent." I start by deleting all the hype from a description. (From many descriptions, there leaves nothing left, not even a clue as to the nature of the business!) I also delete the from the list of services whatever could be assumed from the category, or inappropriate levels of detail. Then I add back what seems to me necessary to describe the services offered (which may be less than what the owner would have given, and is almost certain to be less than what I would have left in place in step 2, if the owner had said it. Thus, the presence of hype and over-specification on the submittal directly leads to less specificity in the description on the actual listing. On the other hand, some poor editors simply click-through to accept drastically over-typed descriptions. Those stick out, as you have noticed, like a sore thumb. When I go through a category and notice such a description, I usually edit it to whack the hype (but may not re-review the site, and skip step 3 above, thus not even adding my own description. It is a matter of priorities -- while hype-whacking is critical to the directory's credibility, listing new sites is more valuable than adding fulsome descriptions to sites that have minimally adequate ones.) But as a result of all this, these descriptions will probably be the briefest and least-descriptive of all the sites I edit. Your editor, and their mileage, may vary. But trying to get as many self-gratulatory or key-words as the WORST description already in the category is not a good idea. If you succeed, it just means your listing is palpably the first to get hype-whacked.

You guys are fast. I was still looking for the site in the hundreds of backlogged Travel Directory submittals.

You really can't. However, a past reputation as a spammer won't necessarily prevent a site from being listed. It is only the most egregious and contumacious spammers, or sites that couldn't be listed anyway, that get panned and nuked. (Example of the latter: you submit aardvarktravel.net, aardvark-travel.com, and fun-aardvark-tourism.co.us. Any two of those could be immediately banned forever -- the third could still be considered for a listing.

Not yet demonstrably "couldn't get into." Just "hasn't been reviewed yet." Directory categories are not only spam magnets but missubmitted-sites magnets -- you'd be amazed how many people all over the taxonomy seem to "want to get into the directory" -- so they submit their site to the "Directories" categories. Aargh.

As an editor, I personally would not consider this site a good candidate for that category....it is a "directory" site (and perhaps a good one: it takes a lot of work to determine whether it has good content, and I didn't go that far) but so far as "information" about either the industry per se, or the mortgage process, it really has very little. If you look at the description of the sites already there, I think you can see a big difference in the type of content they have, and what you have. (this is not to say whether your site is listable or not -- just to say at least it doesn't look like it belongs in the same category as those others.) Wanting your own site in the wrong category isn't a good start on an editor application.

(after reading yklaw's post: That used to be correct, but I think I'll stand by my story for CURRENT RDF dumps. If I were you, I'd not bet large sums of money on it, though, before getting a third opinion.

Not included in dumps. There were several reasons for this: honest editors were creating lists of spam sites for their own reference and didn't want that to be published; dishonest editors were creating lists of spam sites for their own remuneration and DID want them to be published.) In any case, the ODP dump so loved by Googlebot (together with the Yahoo equivalent, forming the core of the seed of its web traversal) does not include Bookmarks. Are publicly visible at dmoz.org (so they might have pagerank; and you could pass pagerank to them by linking to them--but you could do the same to any publicly visible page anywhere) but are NOT part of the Open Directory itself. dmoz.org itself has, so far as I know, no particular privileged position among search engine spiders -- they do visit its pages -- including submitter guidelines, editor profiles and bookmarks. I could, for instance, pay Inktomi to visit my bookmarks daily; and Googlebot already spiders them in one way or another, including "mirrors" at some "ODP licensee" sites that merely use hidden redirection to fetch pages from dmoz.org. You can see how this works by looking at the bookmarks page for some editor, and searching google.com for some characteristic text from it.

Your company is listed. That should be enough to prove to any unbiased observer that you are not in a black list at ODP. As for the explanations: they seem clear, consistent, and coherent to me. ODP does not owe explanations to anybody. We promised our surfers a good directory; we promised site submitters a site review. I'm satisfied that those promises have been fulfilled for the site in question.