hutcheson

If editing in the neighborhood, I would consider those two "Banners" categories as "related" -- I'd put "see also" links between them, and I wouldn't list any sites in both categories.

Now that you've done those scripts....Ya wanna 'nother listing in the ODP? Put the scripts on your website, submit the page, [wait for an editor:(] voila!

>>Here, i have a question, if i reply...to the automated reply...will it reach, without bouncing back to me...and what actually should i add in my reply...just a thank you note...and hoping for the best types..?? We use this a a test to identify people who can follow instructions. It would therefore be inappropriate to give a more specific answer... [running for cover]

>>I did not want to risk a revue penalty if for instance the site degraded (but still functional) in NN4.7 I think it's safe to say there is no review penalty for "degraded" but functional sites in (whatever the editor is using.) The editor probably won't know about the missing functionality (whatever it is) -- and will just review based on what works. But -- the same will often be true about "crippled" sites. A non-technically-astute editor may see the site not work, and suppose that it is (like so many submissions) just another example of brain-death raising its ugly head on the internet. So your so-spiffy-on-IE-versions-6.14159265345-6.14159265346-but-broken-on-HTML-standard-3.0-and-HTML-standard-4.2 site may well get deleted. Don't expect editors to go looking for a browser that renders your stuff. If they need a particular product, you'd best put that in the description yourself.

>>you have to submit 3 relevant websites which are not listed elsewhere in the directory, and one of them can be your own. Be honest about your business affiliation, tell them which site is your own! All true. But, look, you're trying to persuade us that you're going to do a lot for the directory--not just list your own sight, right? The best proof is to start doing it before you're accepted. The note says give "two or three" sites. Two is OK. Three is excellent. Are you, or are you not, going to be doing a lot of this kind of thing? If you are, go ahead and do as much as possible. Further, suppose one of your sites is (by ODP standards) a bad mistake. Wouldn't it be better to have two other examples to fall back on? The note says that one of the three sites can be your own. True. But--again, you have to mention your own site in the "affiliation" box anyway. Why not say something like "I have a site, http://myownrelevantsite.com, that belongs in this category also, with a description like "Hype, hype, hype, hype, and lots more hype! Come here for all your needs of every kind! You are feeling drowsy...CLICK HERE NOW!" Well, maybe the description could be improved. You might do better to make it as much as possible like the other three(!) examples in style and content. What I REALLY like to see is a note like: "My site, http://relevantportal.com, has a links page including 2000 more links, most of which fit the ODP criteria for listing in this category. Over the next few months, I'd like to add them also." Of course, all of this has to be true to be any use.

>>That I can do... spent a lot of time at Zeal lol Definitely mention volunteer experience building directories. If you have a good links page on your website, mention it. We have a lot of current (or former) Zeal or Go-guide editors. Caveat: ODP's editing style is different from Zeal's or Go's. (This not to criticize either: within a project, any kind of consistency is better than chaos. These are all supposed to be _organized_ directories.) Read the ODP guidelines first, and demonstrate that you can write ODP-style descriptions. Once accepted, you'll find some of those cross-pollinators ready to help you with the stylistic (and cultural) differences.