hutcheson

Our concern is with the site's content, not its ownership or developers. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. (If English is not your native language, feel free to check out the other forums.) If you are asking--can just anyone (not the owner) request that a site be reviewed [again], and can that cause the site to be rejected or removed? The answer is YES. Anyone can report a good site that isn't listed; anyone can complain about a bad site that is listed. If your question is: Suppose someone else buys the domain name from you, and places other content on that site, will there still be a problem? The answer is YES. Anyone who takes up that domain will take on its reputation. Since it is a bad reputation, they'll have to spend more time and money cleaning it up. Do we see this (whichever you meant) as a problem? No. Should people who like to buy secondhand domains see this as a risk? Definitely. The ODP is not at all the only place on the web where a site can develop a reputation that affects the site owner.

>Better to send feedback to the editor than using that "Update URL". I don't agree: you don't know how to find an active editor. The Update URL will get done "eventually". But for simple domain gone/page gone type (-1, -4, 404, 403 statuses) there is no reason to report them -- we have a robot that catches them (right now we're still working on the robot's last report, and the robot is busy building a new one). What we could use help with are the pages that have changed content -- and THAT counts as "abuse", so please post in the Abuse forum, or alternatively sticky-mail a moderator here.

>I am chanting over opium incense for the category approval. Ahmmmmmmmmmmmmm An aside which may not be relevant in your case, but seems to be a widespread problem: Do NOT, repeat do NOT do this at home UNTIL you are sure you have completed the site submission status. Beginning to chase the dragon BEFORE submitting the site can cause poorly placed submittals which take longer to get the appropriate category to be reviewed.

It's not a problem (from the directory user's point of view.) There's no need to repeat words from the category name in each site description -- in fact, the guidelines deprecate it. You should not think of it as a problem either -- every directory user will know you sell yo-yos, and no search engine uses the ODP description as keywords for your site.

Not an editor, and still the police? Some people would say we need outside auditors. I just say, "thank you."

Probably not. In the future, expect to see more sites removed from those categories, and very few if any sites listed. The reason is the same as in other categories -- the editing community is in the process of deciding that their value to end-users is not worth the pain of editing them and the shame of seeing how much spam gets into them through all the barriers. (Remember Gambling/Directories? Remember MLM/Individual Representatives?)

>The url,title,description and content type have never changed. What did you think the nature of the contents were? Apparently, because of the category it was submitted to, it was thought to be a site offering the services of a particular real estate agent. Many real estate agents include content about listings on their site (although there is no rule that they have to, it is good business), and many of them submit titles and descriptions similar to yours. It is an understandable error. >If the target is around the world ,how can that be diffuse. That's what "diffuse" means -- "no particular place, anywhere" >If people did not find the site useful,could you please tell me why properties listed sell? Nobody suggested that a listing on the site could _prevent_ an owner from selling a house. >Are you saying that when I have a certain number of property listings then i will have a site that you deem worthy? Yes. That is the definition of "content". >Are you the editor that removed the site? It was done by an editor that has more knowledge and experience in that topic than I do. >Could you give examples of your sites? Sure, that information is all public knowledge. (Hint: I'm a programmer but not a marathon runner.) But I should warn you that for my own listings I set a benchmark of 5 to 10 times the content that I'd accept from an outside source. It wouldn't be fair to judge your site by that. You would be better advised to look at the other sites in FSBO categories. Compare their focus and quantity of content with yours. If your site has obviously more than the average number of listings for sites with comparable scope, it is likely to be accepted. If it has no more listings than the smallest listed site, then it is likely to be rejected -- because the other site may have been accepted when it had more listings, or when there were fewer competitive sites.

Re: B4 I submit how many cats can i submit this si Beebware speaks truly. The cool graphics that the advertising agency can sell you with smoke and mirrors on their 2Gigahertz laptop running off a fast local hard disk in the conference room, become inconscionably rude delays when fed through an effective 5KBPS-share of a cross-continental internet backbone. Sure, put that Flash'y glitz on a promotional CD that your CUSTOMER can run off HIS fast local hard disk. But don't inflict it on people whom you ever hope to have for customers.

>Why was it listed? It was a mistake. It was listed under a misapprehension of the nature of the site contents. And "around the world" is the exact opposite of "focus" -- diffuse rather than targeted. Now, if a site had that many listings for Podunk, New Jersey, we'd list it in a flash (well, in a Podunk Business category, at any rate). That would be focused content -- and for a small town, two dozen listings could also claim to be "comprehensive." But to be useful, a site needs content commensurate with its breadth. This site clearly doesn't. So, is it worth listing at all? And where could we list it so that people could go to it with any significant chance of finding something useful for them? Those are the questions that need to be answered. The site is waiting in review, in a category where it has a better chance of being "on topic", for an editor to do the necessary research.

"In queue" here means "in the UNREVIEWED queue", that is, waiting to be reviewed. Not yet approved or rejected.

Re: Help - developer quit - trying to find submiss OK, _that_ seems to clear things up. If I understand you correctly: One website is intended to promote the services of Your_Friend_The_Anonymous_PI (and he pays you whatever you all agreed for keeping that website up and running.) You may be running the WEBSITE business, but YFTAPI is running the PI business which the website is all about.) Another website is an entrepreneurial effort on your part financed by various parties, some of which are not the same as YFTAPI, and the various parties including you plan to split the loot in some undefined way. The COMMONALITY between the two sites is that the same organization (i.e. you) acted as developer for both, and the TOPICAL connection is because you chose the topic of the e-marketplace based on knowledge that you'd picked up from unsavory associates (PIs, not SERP perps.) Right? It may seem strange to ask all that about the financial details, when in fact we keep saying "We Don't Care About Your Business Model." And I wouldn't have asked, except that you said: "separate general ledgers." Now we've seen a lot of "affiliate site farmer" who creates "separate websites" with "separate balance sheets" for each of 57 varieties of, oh, say, handcrafted widgets. And he wants 57 listings in our Shopping/Widgets/Handcrafted category, one for each site, even though all of his widget stock is stored on the same shelf in his garage (or worse, in the same Florida warehouse as all the other klitch in the VSTORES catalog.) When we notice the similarity in site design and ask, "what is the relationship between these sites", he will always answer -- no relationship, no affiliation between them, they're completely different sites. (and of course, not mention that they all are affiliated with VStores.) So "oh, we have separate balance sheets" was an, um, unfortunate response (which is something you may not have been in a position to know.) Or, to get even closer to home, we have Real Estate Spammers who set up one site for themselves, and another site loudly flaunted as a "Comprehensive Real Estate Directory For Mytown" which includes listings for "I, myself, and me" ... and nobody else. But again, if I understand you correctly, for INFORMATIONAL purposes, one site is run for the benefit of YFTAPI and contains information about his business; while the other site is open for customers to find out about any participating PI, and vice versa. If I have all this straight, the first site is almost certainly listable, at least if YFTAPI, Inc. doesn't have another web presence. The second site could be reviewed on its own merits. It might be listable; but it might be considered "currently not worth listing" if in the editor's judgment there wasn't yet enough actual content about PIs or customers. If the latter is true, then it might be listable in the future if activity (and content) builds up.

>The category it was in was relevent to the site. From our point of view, it is the site that must be relevant to the category. And that was what was not the case. In fact, the site is, face it, not so palpably content-rich as to be an obviously valuable addition to _any_ category. Apparently, at the time the editor felt it was more important to fix the mistake of listing it in the wrong place in the first place, than to do the full analysis of determining whether it should be listed at all, let alone _exactly_ where. (It hardly exhibits a clear, incisive topical focus.)

OK, followup. 1) It's in the queue for the new category, but with the original submittal date. This matters if the editor looks at it, but many editors (like me) never do. For all practical purposes, think of it as a heap that each editor shuffles differently before starting a solitaire game. 2) The answer is the usual, and almost invariable: no, no way at all of telling when any editor will login, where he will go or what he will do there. I'm not even sure what _I_'m about to do.

Looks like you made a bunch of submittals. Two of them ended up in the Antique Silver&Flatware category (which looks like the right place to me, and where the queue is under 50 sites.) I moved one of them over to New York (since it claims to have a storefront there.) The other submittals will probably be tracked down and destroyed in due time, but watch for it somewhere in Regional, as well as under Silver&Flatware.

>>The reason why I submitted to:Shopping/Food/Confectionery/Chocolate/Personalized is because competing websites are there.' We hear this a lot. It's not entirely wrong, but it is always wrong. Searching for competitors is really one of the best ways of finding plausible categories for your own business. But ... don't forget the submittal policies still say "pick the ONE best site." As an extreme example. Suppose I sell Hot Wheels or Matchbox cars. Last week in the grocery I noticed that Pillsbury was including a toy car in their boxes of biscuit dough. So ... Pillsbury is now my competitor, and I should submit to every category they are in? Shopping categories are for sites of companies that sell directly to consumers. These companies are listed here not because they compete with you, but because they do something (relevant to the category) that does NOT compete with you. No harm done this time. Your site is listed properly, and I don't think you're going to be spamming every category that, say, Walmart is in, just because Walmart sells chocolate. But we'll save a lot of ODP editing time, and serve all honest businesses better, if we can get the message out: Read the guidelines...pick the ONE best category.

>>The web sites are two separate entities run independently of each other (like Chevy & Cadillac). Do you mean headquarters in different buildings, completely separate corporate officers and employees? Or did you really mean "not at all like Chevy and Cadillac". >They have completely separate accounting budget, P&L, GL, etc. This isn't an argument for their independence... >>The same corporation handles credit cards processing in order to gain economies of scale in fees. ...and this isn't an argument for their relationship. >>They are operated on separate hosts, with completely separate full web sites independent of each other. This is completely irrelevant to us, except that it is such a common concern of big-time spammers that it raises red flags. (The opposite situation, multiple unrelated sites hosted on the same ISP's server, is too common even to notice.) >They are not affiliates of each other in any way, shape or form. Sorry, but we've had that conversation before. It always ends up like Bill Gates trying to scramble out of one of his lies with a "well, it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." There isn't an affiliate spammer in the world who can't find a definition of "affiliate" that excludes his own sites. Let's just skip this part. >>I hope that clears it up.... Not really. See, the question about "relationship" is not at all about whether the sites are on the same server, or on the same domain, or have links to each other. Maybe an example will make it clearer. John Doe, hacker extraordinaire, decides to offer his many technical skills to all parties. He goes over to dmoz.org and sees subcategories for Web Development, Flash, Consultants, Graphics Design, Website Hosting, Domain Name Registration, etc. So he cobbles up a home page with all these services listed, and submits it to all the categories he can think of. Now his middle name is "Spammer", and we know it. Well, Mr. Doe finds that out, and now he creates a separate page for each kind of work he's willing to do. He links them all together, and submits the separate pages to all those categories. When he doesn't get listed, he goes over to some SERP perp who tells him: "No, you aren't allowed to do that, BUT IF YOU DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE EDITORS ARE TOO STUPID TO CATCH YOU. It is very important that you NOT link between the pages, you must NOT have them on the same domain, or even on the same server. Of course, these are concerns that no honest person will have: but if you are going to cheat and get away with it, you must conceal ALL, not just part of the evidence of the relationship between the sites." Well, Mr. Doe takes this advice. And he may find an inexperienced editor and get away with it. Or he may get caught again, but now his middle name is "sneaky lying spammer." We have seen this scenario played out over and over again. So what happened today in this forum? You assure us that you have carefully made preparations that, in our experience, are useless to an honest business, but essential to a sneaky lying spammer. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't know that you are in fact conspiring to deceive -- you may have received advice from someone whose previous experience was with sneaky lying spammers, or who got their advice from a public forum frequented by those sort. And I'm not going to prejudge the site. But you need to know what impression you have made, in order to repair it and address the real questions, as well as the NEW questions you have raised. So, please explain: Why aren't the sites on the same server? Why aren't they on the same domain? Why, since there is so evident a relationship between them, don't they promote each other with links? What information on one site must, for the sake of the other site, be absolutely concealed from visitors to the other site, and why? What are the actual differences in ownership, personnel, and management between the corporate entities owning the two sites? What business relationship do those corporate entities have? To what extent are those busisesses OPERATE independently? Do they have separate auditors? Do they have separate places of business? Do they operate in fundamentally different businesses? [side note: I once worked for a man who owned a Telecommunications Equipment Sales company and a technical recruiting firm: different offices, different operating manager, slightly different ownership, hardly any overlapping business -- except that I think the Telecomm firm got white-gloves recruiting services. But the WEBSITES were on the same server (different domain names, though) and that was no bar at all to their both bing listable in ODP (I don't remember if they were both listed. One of the companies has since been merged.) But the important facts were -- non-overlapping unrelated line of business, different employees, different operating manager. That's what we're looking for: not that you may have gotten advice from a very stupid and crooked SERP perp (which we will not hold against you -- we also know from experience that there are LOTS of apparently-honest folk in that same boat.)

I don't know whether this got dropped or not. One suggestion: Apply under a new name. Mention the old name, and such details as you remember. (old e-mail address, categories, etc.) If the old name can be revived, it probably will be; otherwise the new name may be accepted.

>Please consider putting a rush on getting the site listed as I really woudl like to stay on here and make this project a success. This is not a request that we can in fairness grant. If you have a site that needs immediate commercial visibility, then you need to deal with someone who does that -- Yahoo, Looksmart, Overture, etc.

>BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category? >Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available? If there aren't two or three sites out there the ODP doesn't already have, then that category may not need an editor. Check on the next 'burg down the road. >In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion? If you suggest three, and you've been slimed by a shotgunning hotel-reservations-affiliate-spammer in one of them, you might well be accepted with a warning, if the other two are good. >IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling. Almost right. True, any good editor is a good knowledgeable editor, if they know enough about the subject. Some people can't spell. Some can't gramm. Some can't taxonomize. And some simply don't know enough about the cactacae to know whether stapeliads belong there or not. And some that are good at spells and grammars, and know all about xerophytes, are too busy teaching botany in Botswana to have time to edit. Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified volunteers.

Agree that if you've been submitting good sites, it's a positive. Also agree it might not be noticed. So mention it in the application. "I've been submitting sites on this subject from e-mail address me@myisp.com." Then it'll be noticed. It's like any volunteer organization -- you give good help, they want more of your help. Submitting good sites to the right category is good help.

No. It's what we call an "affiliate banner farm", so you can expect it to be rejected, wherever you submitted it, whenever it's reviewed.

>>If your site doesn't work in the browser they are using, it is likely to get deleted for being incomplete or having no content." >Ouch. I can imagine some category out there with a Netscape 3-using editor just deleting everything that comes his/her way. Your imagination is limited. Think Lynx--text-only. Think visual problems. Think old, tired eyes. Think the Exploder, 5th Circle of Inferno when you tested from the 6th Circle--or vice versa. Think about what descent through the next Circle of idiotic product differentiation will do. Then think standard HTML without reference to the browser, and leave the cutesy spinning menu buttons and inane color-changing effects to the Boy Band Fan sites. >And heck, there isn't a FULLY standard-compliant browser out there far as I know, and most likely there never will be. This is probably true. >After all, if you had 98% of the market share, would you listen to some group telling you how your software should deal with code or would you implement whatever nifty things you wanted to in order to continue to separate yourself from the pack? This is also true. And it would be even more true if, being a fairly stupid capitalist pig, you really couldn't understand what people were wanting from you. [As a compiler writer, having taken several compilers through U.S. Department of Defense standards compliance testing, and as a user of Microsoft C/C++, I can assure you that sometimes the latter is true.] But most importantly, as web developers our overriding economic interest is in NOT being economically enslaved to any one product vendor: and avoiding the weregild for the rest of our lives (or being reduced to being unpaid content-providers for the Great IP Thief himself.) >As much as we may dislike it, Internet Explorer IS the standard. No, it's a series of industrial accidents. every single version is broken differently (with respect to every single other version.) There's no documentation for any of them. Since Microsoft has never written down what dialect the Infernal Exploder takes, or what it does with it, and since with every update it changes randomly, it is not and cannot possibly function in any sense as a standard. >Wouldn't it be nice for DMOZ to include or exclude web sites based on standards? You wouldn't like it. Very few sites contain HTML that's valid according to any available standard. And "it looks OK on this week's patch of the Infernal Exploder" isn't a statement anything like "it's compliant." That's like saying "why bother with a Underwriters Laboratories tested appliance, anything is fine as long as it hasn't yet burned your house down." The point is, you need to think of the future. And we need to think of the future. And for both of us (although, I agree, not for Microsoft) the future is better with standards. Real standards, with specifications and testing and everything. Not some perjuring con man saying "trust us, we'll never broach your security...again...in the same way...this week...unless we need more money..."

bump

Arrogance? I'll grant you, it's a known problem of mine, but I'm serious about editing. If you have a problem with English, I didn't notice it; and I really do think anyone who can follow the stylesheet for a newspaper or magazine can easily follow the ODP editors' guidelines. Of all the problems that keep people from being good editors, the two most common are (1) inadequate grasp of the language, and (2) belief that they are perfect and therefore don't need to read guidelines. We have a few professional writers or editors -- obviously they are fluent in the language; they're also used to dealing with whatever stylesheets their employer or customer uses. You're an editor (I just assumed it was for an English-language publication -- but the ODP also has categories in many other languages), which answers issue #1. "Admittedly imperfect" suggests an ability to learn (issue #2). We'd already established a subject knowledge. I can see where my post might have appeared sarcastic, after my deconstruction of the original non-site-description. But I was sincerely expressing my belief that you had the skills to be a good editor [in English, even.] I can't know whether that is something you'd _want_ to do: many people deliberately choose hobbies very different from their day jobs, and this might be too much like your work. (I'm a programmer, but hardly ever edit in the Computer categories.) Now, the suggested site description was truly awful, by ODP standards, but it wasn't awful grammar or spelling, or incoherent. It simply didn't descrbe the site. It was a site _advertisement_, which is a very different thing. It wasn't an attempt to follow the ODP editing guidelines, possibly because you hadn't read them. (Unlike Zeal, the ODP doesn't require submitters to read the editors' guidelines.) This has nothing to do with whether the site gets reviewed. And even if it doesn't get listed now, you can add more content (as you seemed to be planning to do anyway) and submit it again. [do give a description that mentions what content the editor should look for, though.] Generally, if a site is not obviously a "marketing-doorway", and it's rejected for "insufficient content", a second submittal a few months later will be reconsidered.

Re: photography site For very simple menu items like "color" and "black and white", it is reasonable to use the "bilingual _page_ approach: just include both French and English terms on the same menu button.