hutcheson

Waiting. With over 500 other sites.

It's too late, the black helicopters are on the way. Discard all electronic devices immediately, and get away from the house and into low ground -- a ditch, culvert, or cave for preference. Actually, you may not even have committed an offense yet. Some sites are listed twice (e.g. Manufacturer that hires people to work in its Podunk, New Jersey sweatshop but ships its product worldwide.)

Re: Status of http://www.master-of-writing-resumes >I don't think that there is an editor for this section, does that typically increase the time it takes to get listed? There really isn't a "typical" time, so this is one of those imponderable questions like "is a piece of string longer?" I'd hate to spend all evening looking at resume sites, but you never can tell what some volunteer will be willing to put up with -- today.

A "celebrity" basically has to have at least one fan site. This site is somewhat like an unofficial home page, and somewhat like a fan site. I'm not sure which I'd call it. (This is not a criticism of the site, BTW; one of my favorite SciFi authors has a similar arrangement.) If you can find and submit OTHER fan pages to the sane ("L") category, it's much more likely that a subcategory will be set up for her. And then, of course, this site could be considered for listing no matter how official it is (or isn't). And also, of course, you could apply to edit that category...

drool, drool....

Have you checked their Computers and Internet subcategory lately?

Well, the ODP is a directory, so basically in order to be unique you should offer something that the ODP doesn't (and couldn't even if they copied your links.) It should be apparent that this is not easy, and as the standards get higher, you should expect to see more "directory" sites REMOVED from the ODP (for no longer presenting unique content) than you'll see new ones added. A newly submitted site should be _significantly_ better than the poorest site in the category (which, of course, would probably be removed if it _were_ re-reviewed today) as well as significantly better than what the ODP category could be within the "expected review time" (that is, the next six months or so.) A generic shopping category without a very large staff simply will not be able to put together something like this. The only way for a small project to meet the current standards is to focus tightly on some topic not well served by the ODP or other directories. (The first copy of something is "unique", the next isn't.)

>Hopefully the reviewer will be satisfied with the deletion of the application rather than the site itself ... ? Truth? Sometimes not. But it's _usually_ all we can do. Usually.

>Does this mean adult sites can only be found/searched if you are already in an adult cat? Yes, or if you use a "recognizably adult" keyword, (neither ADULT nor LINGERIE are "RA", and I'm not sure anyone has published the ODP search's complete list of adult words -- porn, xxx, etc.) >Although I'm not really interested in the traffic from DMOZ (main interest is the benefit to our search results in Google), ... Quite right you are in that. ...but doesn't this mean adult sites are hidden from the vast majority of surfers including those searching for adult sites? No, because Google search has its own rules. They do know about the ODP adult categories, but what pagerank they give them is their own business.

Nuances here. "May be considered for" -- not "may have." A site may have regional focus, topical focus, or both. The guidelines for regional submittals are considered, regardless of whether the site may also have a topical listing, and the guidelines for topical submittals are considered regardless of whether the site already has a regional listing. The same URL (usually the site's home page) can (and should) be used for both. A similar qualification applies to bilingual sites, which may be "considered for listing" in both languages. Doesn't mean they'll actually get listed in either language...just that one listing won't preclude the other. Deeplinking is a separate issue. It is reserved for "exceptional" cases. Someone has calculated that only about 1% of all sites are listed more then three or four times. It is courteous to ask (as indeed you are doing) whether a site is in that 1% before proceeding to submit lots of deeplinks.

If the company is "holding businesses" then we'd ask what product or services the businesses provided. In some cases, we'd firmly refuse to list any of them anywhere. For example, a freelance webspammer develops fifty seven varieties of affiliate doorway pages. In his own self-promotion (and perhaps in what passes for his mind), he's a proud president of fifty-seven separate and distinct businesses. In our book, he just has a different fright wig for each signboard he wears, For another example, each business might be listed separately, Ford Motor Company makes Aerospace equipment, cars, tractors, in fifty-seven different countries. Each country subsidiary could be listed separately. There are some categories just for "Really really big companies." BTW, "conglomerate" is usually reserved for RRBC's, and a company calling itself a "conglomerate" but turning out to have a dozen employees is likely to have all further self-claims treat with maximal skepticism. Obviously there are more of the first class than the second, but we'd try to be consistent within companies of similar size and breadth.

OK, several issues here: 1) Part of the procedure as set up ensures that your submittal can't be blocked by an abusive editor (hence staff claims the right to make a final decision.) In practice, that right is seldom exercised; the meta-editors deal with most editor abuse. (So it's reasonable to ask for a meta to review a case, if you think abuse is involved.) 2) But in this case, there really isn't a hint of abuse -- simply that an editor put in fewer words than you would have (or that an editor in another directory would have.) So all that really doesn't apply. Most of the editors, and especially of those active here, are interested in making a more valuable and usable directory. If you can show how adding particular words to your listing makes it easy for users to find your unique content quickly, quite often they'll add them. But if the words are already in the site's title or the category name, or they would generally characterize most of the sites in the category, then they WON'T add them. (Note, by the way, this means that the same site may have very different descriptions evne in two different ODP categories!) So check the words from that standpoint -- do they really correspond to an otherwise unsuspected feature of this site, and do they really provide useful information to a directory surfer? Most of the time when people do this carefully for their own site, they'll find that most of the words they wanted WEREN'T applicable, but there were several important words they HADN'T asked for that SHOULD have been added.

[edited: this doesn't respond to the last three posts. I hate removing posts, so I'm not going to edit it. But I'll respond again to the direction the topic is turning.] no, qh7, YOU are missing the point. You are not entitled to an editor response. You are not entitled to site review within two weeks. And .. you are not entitled to your choice of descriptions. You are entitled to a site review (that's the ODP social contract.) And you are, as you noted, allowed to submit a "change of description request." And ... um, that's it. Oh, not quite. Some of the editors thought we could offer a bit more, hence these forums. HERE (well, actually over in our "Submittal Status" forum) you can ask about your submittal (whether for review or for update) if you haven't seen any evidence of it after a month (not two weeks -- dunno where you got that figure, but it is fantastically unrealistic.) You aren't entitled to an answer, but IIRC, so far everyone who has asked has gotten one within 48 hours. Quite often you can even get additional insight as to how to get unique features of your site included in the description. You don't need a meta or editall for that either, but some of the metas moderate this forum, and at least one meta will certainly read (and act if necessary for the sake of the ODP.) Check out the other forum. Read the rules, wait another two weeks if necessary; then give all the information (site, suggested description, category). You'll find out what the status is. If the current listing makes the ODP look bad, or occasionally, if it's just a no-brainer editorial decision, editors will just accept or reject on the spot. But it is very important for everyone to understand that THAT is not only not an ENTITLEMENT, it is not NORMAL or even COMMON practice.

Not "hey, buster, stay out of _my_ category?"

>It was an example. But consider a 'business' website that lists their websites, and also offers 'web solutions' to other clients. We've got failure to communicate here. Nobody writes programs anymore, they all produce IT solutions. Nobody treats sick people, they only provide healthcare solutions. Nobody sells groceries, they just provide solutions to world hunger (one person at a time), well, you get the picture. There are many kinds of web-based services, just as there are many kinds of products that may be used by a company which runs a website. The question is, what material good or actual service does the company provide? Do they develop websites, maintain servers, run cables, write software, design logos, ... When you've got past the marketroids at the gates, and speak to someone with a clue, what will he say that they DO?

Re: Editors Hoarding Categories are ruining the OD All right, I'm beginning to feel like an echo. Can somebody hobble enarra's keyboard or network connection or something?

Re: Editors Hoarding Categories are ruining the OD >I know for a fact that they will not assign a new applicant to a category if there are already many other editors signed on to it. Which, if true, would be irrelevant if she were the only editor listed under those categories. Moving on to the next point, >tell me why she is the only editor listed under those categories? These guidelines ( http://dmoz.org/guidelines/subcategories.html ) are probably the best place to go to understand how editing permissions work.

Re: Editors Hoarding Categories are ruining the OD No editor can hoard categories. It simply isn't possible. Editors will throw rocks at you in the internal forums if you even USE the expression "my category". First of all, the metas, not the category owners, review new volunteer applicants. And _they_ do accept multiple volunteers in the same category. Second, every "editall" (and there are dozens of them) can edit anywhere they feel competant to edit. Finally, "inability to work with other editors in a category" is grounds for removal of editing privileges. As far as rejecting applicants, that's mostly done by the meta-editors, the same folk who moderate this forum. (Staff does very few applications, and doesn't post in these forums. In any case, your application was probably reviewed by a meta.) While I don't edit in Adult categories, I can say that Adult is a highly-abuse-prone area, and the reasons for rejections aren't always obvious to someone who hasn't spent a lot of time dealing with problems inherent to the category.

Do you mean "develops graphics and/or sound for websites for hire"? (I'm not sure what else it could mean, but that seems a funny way of describing such a common function. Ask again if this is not the answer to the right question) That would be something like "Web Developers." And unless it really specializes in a niche, it would be listed in one of the main (Basic Service/Full Service/Bad Service/whatever) categories. An entity that is best described as "making websites for musicans (or: for pet-owners, or churches, or NPOs, or whatever)" might better be categorized in a way reachable from Arts (or Recreation/Pets, or Christianity, or whatever). But note: that specialization is with reference to the ENTITY, not the WEBSITE.

>How do we change it... 1) On the expiring domain, make sure that it says "we're moving to newdomain.com" or redirects to the new one, or shows other clear evidence that the webmaster considers the other domain the primary name. 2) Make sure the new domain is up and running, and doesn't redirect to the old domain (old domain redirecting to new one is just fine...) 3) Submit an UPDATE URL request for the old domain (in all the categories where it appears), listing the new domain. 4) As always, you can check back here in a month if nothing happens.

Re: What Happened to our listing? No, that queue is empty.

Re: What Happened to our listing? I see the problem, I think. We NEED a generic sport/bags category, because you guys aren't the only folk that figured out that, say, football and basketball bags could be made in the same factory. That's not just a quick move, and it may take some time (a few days, to a few months -- you know how volunteers are ) to get straightened out, and all the scattered links and sites pulled together. In the meantime, I put the site back in the category where it was listed before, since you _do_ have a company that could be listed somewhere, and it _does_ make a lot of cycling gear. Please don't let this drop, though--check back in a month if there hasn't been visible progress toward building the appropriate category.

Not to worry. I've got three windows open right now, checking that stuff. It will be a little delay; on the other hand, there's a guarantee that there will be a sanity check on the submittal. So if your description really describes what's on the website, it won't wait for some indeterminate time in an obviously wrong category.

Re: DMOZ DNS PROBLEM revisited Yes, it's a known problem. The connectivity issue is that the server is hanging up on the public (at random) in order to keep the editors happy (well, busy, at any rate.) It's doing that because it's overloaded. Very frustrating, even for editors (since we sometimes use the public port, and we always know that new submittals come in from outside. I hope that the public CGI scripts will eventually go into the faster queue: it is frustrating not to get a page view, but VERY frustrating to lose form input. But I don't know whether the DDOS hackers are hitting the main pages or the CGI scripts, nor do I know whether their main purpose is to deny service, or to grab all of the services for their own nefarious purposes. So I don't know whether my hope is at all realistic.

Still waiting. (I can't absolutely say it's listable, but it's not obviously non-listable, for whatever that's worth.) While you're waiting, you might want to check your facts on the origin of hard disks, the actual source of MS-DOS, and the neurological ramifications of the notorious 1995 chess match.