beebware

Since I tend to use Internet Explorer, I've found IEspell extremely useful. It's free and all you need to do is right click and select "Check spelling" to check your spelling in any Internet Explorer window. Personally, I don't like the "correct as you type" systems as sometimes there are words I type that obviously won't appear in dictionaries...

Yes, the main dmoz.org server has been under heavy-load recently, but new hardware is on order and will be installed as soon as possible. There is a "near live" mirror available at http://ch.dmoz.org/ (usually a maximum of 24 hours out of date) which may be of assistance to you.

Re: our site has been removed It'll be restored as soon as the "public page" is regenerated. Normally this is an near-instantaneous process, but occasionally it can take a few minutes (sometimes, if the server load is high, even a few hours). Your site will automatically reappear in that category shortly (if it hasn't already).

Ok, here's a few things to think about: - The ODP cannot change the catids in the RDFs. This is because several downstream partners may use the catids for a unique identification field (which is why it is in there). Changing the catid may break downstream users. Ok, the ODP doesn't "care" if a downstream user uses the data or not or in what format (as long as they follow the licence), but since the catid was put in the RDF for that reason it'll be pointless to change it. Co-incidentally, this is why the RDF production stalled last September as the catids were mainly inconsistent. - It'll be a reasonable idea to map, say, Regional=6, Regional/Europe=6.3, Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom=6.3.12, Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England=6.3.12.2 , but what happens if you have an @ link such as in the UK dependent areas. Would the "Isle of Man" be Regional/Europe/Isle_of_Man 6.3.26 AND/or Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Dependent_Areas/Isle_of_Man 6.3.12.5.12 ? - If you are doing this "privately" (and I think it'll be an innovative use of the data), then you may have to decide how to copy with a "catmv" (category move). What happens when category 'X' from R/E/UK/DA/X is moved to R/E/X - what happens to the relationships and does it get a new 'tree id'? I'm not saying you've got a bad idea (I actually quite like it), but I'm just pointing out some of the reasons why it may not have been done before.

Re: DMOZ mirrors That may be an idea for ODP staff once we have multiple mirrors: since the ODP only currently has one proper mirror at the moment, it probably wouldn't be worth it... If you are interested in providing a mirror, please see this thread for details: but be warned, the bandwidth is massive (IIRC the current mirror uses around 20Gb a week, but I'm not able to confirm that figure at the moment, so take it with a pinch of salt).

The main ODP server is currently down so editors are unable to give site submission statuses at this point: unfortently the mirror site at http://ch.dmoz.org/ doesn't provide access the submission details, so it could be a couple of days before a status can be given. However, it would be helpful if you could provide the category path in clickable form, i.e. http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/ as it would make it a lot quicker for an editor to check your status that way.

I think he means something like change to DNS for dmoz.org to point towards the http://ch.dmoz.org/ mirror site. But with staff hoping to get the site back up as quickly as possible, waiting for DNS propagation could cause problems...

Re: Creating static HTML from a small portion of R Not really, if you read the details about the RDFs, you'll see the link to the license agreement which details the terms and conditions of the data usage and makes clear in steps 2a, 2b and 4 that you have got to use the appropriate attribution. If you don't read and agree to the license conditions, you wouldn't be legally allowed to re-use the content (I'm not a lawyer yadda yadda yadda).

> inclusion in ODP should be considered a privilege not a right, < Sounds like something I would say (some editors who know my editing history and old "pet categories" and one of my favourite films will probably be able recognise why I think it's one of my statements <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ). If I did say it, it would have been in line with the "no site is guaranteed a listing" ODP guidelines - mainly because I know in the past some web masters have complained that "you have got to list my site, it's my right under the 1st amendment and if you don't I'll take you to court" sort of rubbish. ODP is owned and operated by a private company (hence I believe the 1st amendment wouldn't apply anyway, but I know nowt about US law) and a listing is a priviledge.. I've now got into the "thought-mode" that the next person to complain about us not listing their site "because its our right", I'm going to turn round and say "well, then it's my right to insist you link to sites X, Y and Z then" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I'm not saying this post's applicable to your site nor even to this thread, but...

If you are using something like TopDog or other automated tools, be aware that occassionally the ODP search servers can't keep up with the number of requests (especially those from automated systems such as TD) and may respond with something like "Search system overloaded. Please attempt your search on _Google_..." (I forget the exact phrasing now) - your automated reporting tools will show "Not listed" (it should, in all fairness, report something like "No search results returned" to be accurate). [add] Oh - and it might matter exactly which search terms you are using to search for. If you want a simple "yes listed"/"no listed" status, it's usually best to search for example.com instead of "Internic example site", "Example domain sites" or www.example.com .

It should certainly get an editor investigating whether or not they are unique companies, whether they are just affiliaties or whether neither, either or both sites are worth listings - in a worst case scenerio, it'll be the "latest submitted" site that's likely to be rejected as there's already a site offering the same contents listed in the ODP. Have you got any specifics at all? Feel free to Private Message (PM) me if you don't want it to be public (i.e. your competitors etc)

Your editor account was suspended in Feburary and you have been denied to reinstatments. The size of a category or a categories unreviewed queue is not a reason for removal of an editor - the main reasons are listed on the account removals section of the guidelines, and it worth bearing in mind this sentence: >> Editor accounts may be removed by meta editors only after careful discussion, evaluation and consensus agreement << Reasons for removal are not given publicly, but I am aware that meta editors do try and work with an editor to improve editing except in blatent abuse cases. However, if your email address on your editor account is invalid, then the metas had no way of contacting you. I'm not saying this was the case (I've got no way of telling, and if I could find out I wouldn't be allowed to say), but I'm just helping to emphasis that editor removal is not taken lightly.

Typically the guideline is "If a site CAN be reviewed be an editor, it WILL be reviewed". Obviously, if a site cannot be reviewed (as it's not accessible by an editor), then it will NOT be reviewed (and, therefore, not listed). If a site is submitted that requires authentication (quite a common situation under the Adult section), then the editor is meant to ask the webmaster (or submitter) for a temporary login to allow them to review the website. If, however, it's a "geographically specific" restriction (say, for example, the PGP distributions that are only available to Americans and Canadians) then things could get a little bit more complex. If the site is submitted in the appropriate category in Regional/ , then there is a very strong likelyhood that it will be reviewed by someone from the country with an appropriate country-based IP address (baring in mind that if someone is using a multinational ISP such as AOL, they will appear to be coming from the States anyway) - and hence will be listed. But if it's submitted in one of the topical categories (such as Arts, Recreation, Shopping) and it doesn't indicate that "This site is only accessible to people with a USA based IP address" and it reviewed by (for example) a Russian editor, then they will be more likely to delete it as they are unable to review the site. Hope it helps!

>> Fairies World is a NON profit making web site << It doesn't matter to us if a site is profit making or not. >> Fairies World is currently the subject of Radio interviews and a Television programmes. << Ditto. >>Incorrect - A search of ODP for Fairies World DOES NOT return a result for Fairies World or The Fairy Shop. << Have a look at http://ch.dmoz.org/Shopping/Antiques_and_Collectibles/Figurines/Fairies_and_Fantasy/ (aka http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Antiques_and_Collectibles/Figurines/Fairies_and_Fantasy/ ) at: Fairy Shop - Fairy items include figurines, dolls, stencils, garden ornaments, and toys. >> NOWHERE on our sites (except in one or two instances in the Fairy Shop) are there banners.. << We don't care. Maybe if a site was more than 25% adverts, it'll be a candidate for the "instant delete" bin, but that's not applicable to your site. >> How can the ODP justify removing what is considered by most people to be one of the most important web sites regarding fantasy and fairy information, fairy artists and fairy pictures from their directory? << Because it either doesn't meet our guidelines, doesn't have enough unique content (i.e. content that can't be found on any other site) or because it is a duplicate of another site.

Re: Site status check. http://www.escortspalace.co Believe me, once you've edited Adult/ for a while - you kinda lose the "shockability" you once had - i.e. from "What sort of sick deranged person does/likes _that_?" to "Groan. Not yet another amputee midget transexual being f---ked by two men whilst peforming oral sex on a horse - why can't they come up with something original?" (I *wish* I was joking!)

I did wonder where all my underpants went! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Very obscure joke, but some submitters do think that their website marketing should ONLY go: 1) Submit to ODP 2) ? 3) Profit Unfortently, that just ain't true!

Re: Suggestion to help remove stale links from DMO And don't forget you'd have to watch what sort of link it is - if it's a straight forward a href="reportbad.cgi?url=http://..." style one the first 'bot (such as Google) will come along and mark every site as bad!

You'll have to excuse Neil - he's probably drunk <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> He intended to say your site is in the unreviewed queue of that category and has been since that date. There's over 100 other sites awaiting review though.

>> Is this an appropriate question to post here? << Nope, it isn't. This forum's for Open Directory Project ( http://dmoz.org/ ) related questions only. You'll probably find a few good forums in http://ch.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Authoring/Webmaster_Resources/Chats_and_Forums/ though. Most of the time you don't need to "inform" a search engine as it'll find the new content on its own - but how long it'll take is a different matter. Altavista can do it within 48hours IF you've paid for a listing, Google sometimes does it within 48hours IF you are a popular/frequently updated site (usually a month if not) yadda yadda yadda.

Nope, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't touch the wigs category now - and that I personally doubt that any other editor involved in this thread would go out of their way to help you now. Of course, if a "third party editor" (i.e. one that hasn't seen this thread) wanted to review your site, we wouldn't stop them - but... How you can interpret it as a threat I dunno - but I can only speak for myself and look forward to any papers from your attorney as all posts that I make are my responsibility and not those of AOL/Time-warner (see this forums guidelines where it states "Editors do not officially represent Netscape, its parent company, or ODP Staff"). Oh, have you got a link to "XYZ Wig Makers Inc" on your site? Nope. Ok, you never say on your site that you'll list every wig maker on earth - but neither did we...

And I'll just like to add the following quote from our Add URL page: (Emphasis mine). In fact, "accusing" editors of bias is probably one way to slow down the review of your site - I know that I'm personally going to avoid the categories your submitted to like the plague in case I start being accused of something: therefore that's one less editor available to review your site. Civil, polite and understanding messages MAY get your site reviewed just that little bit faster - whereas allegations will make editors loath to assist you.

Are you sure that's were you submitted? You aren't in the unreviewed queue of that category NOR are their any notes to indicate your site has been "touched" elsewhere by an editor.

It's awaiting review in that category with between 100 and 150 other sites.