beebware

We would class http://www.video-visions.org a redirect or 'cloaked' URL as it 'redirects your browser to a completely different URL'. There are a variety opf reasons while redirect URLs of any type are not included in the ODP: ranging from helping cut down spam to ensuring that our automatic link checker 'Robozilla' can correctly check the status of the page. An editor should have made a note that http://www.video-visions.org is a 'vanity/redirect/cloaked' URL for the http://www.video-visions.addr.com - therefore if the latter is ever marked as 'dead' by Robozilla (or discovered dead by an editor) then an editor can easily visit that URL to find the new URL. >> This way ODP is promoting their domain name <<. ODP doesn't promote anything, we are just a listings directory <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Many thanks for the heads up, but it was deliberately done like that for a reason. Cheers <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

It could be in the next hour (well, it might have been if the ODP editor side was working - it's currently b0rked), or it could be in the next couple of years - it just depends when an editor decides to tackle that particular area of the directory.

The editor side of ODP is currently unavailable - and hence any editor that attempts to login will receive the "Login incorrect" page (eventually). It should be fixed within a few hours though. It is also advisable for you to post in the editor member title? thread so that you can be elevated to the 'editor' status on this forum. This will give you access to the 'Editor hangout' where alerts+notifications like this are posted.

Ok, your site was listed in http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Movies/Free upto June this year when it was moved to the unreviewed queue of http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Movies/ as it didn't appear to have sufficient free content to warrant listing in the original category. It was then again deleted from the unreviewed category for http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Movies/Free in August and the start of October by 2 seperate editors for the 'lack of free content' reason. Do not resubmit as your site is awaiting review in the more appopriate category of http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Movies/ and additional submissions to the 'Free' subcategory (as I have just deleted 2 from there) may start to make you appear as a spammer. You may find the ODP adult guidelines useful to read. Contacting editors ================== Please do not go to an editors private homepage (indicated by 'Home Page:' on their editor profile to contact them. Instead, if you do feel a need to contact an editor directly, use the 'Email: Send to xxxx' link on their profile. This has a few benefits, mainly so it tags the email as ODP related so it can be automatically sorted by the volunteer editor (I personally have a special email address just for ODP mail and if I receive any email sent from an unknown sender to one of my other addresses it has to sit in my 'spam-trap' until I get round to checking it). However, some editors are reluctant to respond to emailed questions/queries from submitters due to past experiences (the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" comes to mind) and therefore I recommend any questions should now be directed via this forum where any editor can answer. You never know, the editor who you directly sent your 'very important mail' to could have gone on a 3 month vacation to the Arctic and will be unable to check their mail during that time.

The thing is, the list of editors would be huge! For example - this category does not have an editor, but can be maintained by editors of this category, this one, this one, this category, that one and Regional, but also all the people on the editall list (that are marked 'root', 'editall' or 'Catmod:Regional'). That's 35 editors without counting the editalls. I can see what you are saying, but alas, without making things look 'strange' it's difficult to implement things. Plus the 'This category has no editor' message may encourage somebody to volunteer to edit there - if they see a long list of editors they may think 'Hmmm, obviously there are enough people already working there so they won't need me to even volunteer an hour a month to the ODP'.

It is still awaiting review with between 75-100 other sites.

It's still awaiting review with over 200 other sites. Unfortently the 'Weight loss' category does attract a large amount of spam (mainly a certain MLM distributing company with the initials 'HL') so it may be sometime before your site is reviewed.

That categories unreviewed/update queue is currently massively backlogged... If you can give me 10 minutes I'll be able to give you a status update. [edit] Hmm, I looked in the big big unreviewed queue but didn't see your site. I had a look at the main category and your site is currently listed as "Fat Loss Tips by caloriesperhour.com - Tips to help you lose fat to look better, feel better, and live a healthier life. Includes Calories Burned, BMI and BMR Calculator." with the last update being in April this year: therefore I'm not quite sure where you got the old description from.

http://collector-connection.site.yahoo.net/colstor.html is now awaiting review in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Children/Baby/Blankets_and_Bedding/ with around 20 other sites. Personally, I think it may be declined a listing (as it's a deeplink to your main site at http://collector-connection.site.yahoo.net and you've already got a listing for your Pez dealers page) but I'm going to leave it for an editor more experienced within the Shopping/Children branch to decide. It may be advisable for you to read our editor guidelines on product listings .

I don't know about this because I'm UK based myself <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> And, shall we just say that if you don't want an argument about very very close relative(s) with long-term terminal medical conditions - then you've picked the wrong person... Especially since some of conditions are herditary... (in others words - let's avoid this topic as it'll just end up in a mud-flinging style fight which won't really aid anything to, what seems to be, a currently civil conversation and discussion: agreed?) Unfortently, it does matter to the ODP as we are not allowed to list sites like this according to the guidelines set up senior editors and staff members. We have had webmasters in the past say 'well, can't you just make an exception for me?', but failure to comply with the editoral guidelines is reason for removal from the ODP: and for those of us who have developed an addiction to ODP - that's a very very scary thought, therefore we follow the ODP guidelines as 'lore'. We are not denying them a choice - only if (for example) ODP was set as their homepage and they could _only_ visit sites listed in ODP would we be denying them a choice (and probably those smaller businesses are already listed on ODP anyway so surfers would still get the choice of those sites). I know what you are probably trying to say, but I'll give you the 'flip side' to your argument. Small webmaster XYZ with an Adult orientated site comes to you to get their site listed on your shopping directory - would you accept their site for listing? If you don't, you'll be denying your visitors the choice to visit that website... (and, yes, I am aware you do do some work within the Adult industry). Oh, you may find the"Add a site" page of interest: especially concerning the sentence "We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted" and the section entitled 'Editorial Discretion'. Alas, to ODP editors, there is plenty wrong with hidden affiliate links - see above. Yep, and ODP does just happen to be the largest web directory (with over 3.8million sites listed and reviewed by humans), so I think you're preaching to the converted here (and quite an apt phrase for 4pm on a Sunday <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ) Actually, I can't see any reviews like this on your site. I can find a few from webmasters, but none from actual shoppers... Have you considered adding a page of quotes from 'happy shoppers' at all? Oh, you might want to have a word with Debenhams as I went to their site via yours and even though they have you 5star graphic ("This 5 Star Site graphic simply indicates shops that have a reciprical link with QQQQ") but they do not link back to your site and to me reciprocal links mean a 'you link to me and I'll link to you' sort of thing. Just thought I'd inform you of Debenhams not quite playing fair to you <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Hmm, so MegaCorp should be happy that they are having to pay 5% or so commission to a webmaster then? Yes, it can work - but if I were MegaCorp, I'd much prefer the money I would pay to affiliates to stay in my back-pocket as profit and for webmasters to link to the MegaCorp website 'out of the kindness of their heart' sort of thing and not for financial gain. Hmm, does the following quote sound familiar: >> I strongly maintain that 99.9% of the links on QQQQQ are independant sites << ? (devils advocate mode cancel) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Plus have a look a bit higher up this thread where I took a category of yours at random. Anyway, good luck with your site and I'm sorry that we are are not able to list your site at the present time for reasons that I hope have become clear. If, however, you really want to get your site listed, then please feel free to have a good look and read at the ODP editor guidelines so that you are aware what we are and aren't looking for in a site.

It's ok about the descriptions David - it's what ODP editors are paid for... Apart from the fact that we aren't paid *sob* <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Oh - don't ask about the insomnia bit - it's a long story <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you can post the category (for example http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/ ) that you submitted to, then we can see how big the unreviewed site queue is.

I'm agreeing with giz here. While I'm not sure if having a 'general critique' forum is a good idea - maybe once a Site Submission Status has been given and it's negative, then perhaps we can give the submitter 'ideas' on how to improve their site. I know most of the time it will be quite generic ("make sure it validates to W3C standards so _any_ editor can review it", "try and ensure it's got more unique content", "many people suffer from color blindness so green text on a red background is probably a bad idea") but it may help the poor suffering webmasters (there there) that want their site listed...

It's no longer in the queue (where it had been since 30th August), it's been listed. It was the only site awaiting review in that category so I decide to give it the 'once over' and since it required very few changes to the submitted description (many thanks for that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ), I decided to list it straight away.

Ok, >> Is it important how many sites like to a site? <<. The point I was trying to make is that - "No, it isn't important". I just used the 'I can make 10,000 of sites link to mine' as an example of that. >> I'm not under the impression that you all don't work ever so hard for no money, you do it for ego or self fulfilment or some other high aim << Well, you'll actually be surprised. Why do people work in Charity shops and the like? (I've actually spent 3 years working for charitable organisations btw). No 'ego or self-fulfilment' there. Why do people spend time helping others? Just because they like to be helpful. The ODP's aim is to be the largest and most useful web directory in the world - an aim it has already achieved in my eyes - but editors are so committed to the whole project that we want our "baby" to be even better than it already is. >> I was merely saying that ..how many sites link to a site.. should be taken into accoount, surely. << Nope. Or, if it _should_ be taken into account then the editors were never informed of this fact. We abide by the editor guidelines which have been developed over the years by editors and ODP staff alike and "outline the principles and standards governing the ODP's editorial content and community activity". >> And a site that has millions of uniques a year is not in your view considered useful to a surfer << We do not have access to most sites visitor logs (we don't even have access to those of the ODP). Why? Well, it's not important. We have listed many many sites when they only had a few visitors a month and now they have millions. For example, http://www.google.com/ has been listed since the start of 1999 and it's only really been in the last year or two that Google has increased in popularity. We do not discriminate between 'large multinational businesses' and 'Fred Bloggs' style sites as the 'business model' does not matter to us: only content filled, worth-while listing sites do. >> Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. << This is what I, and other editors, have done with your site. I did it and the content was greatly reduced. For a good random example, I got the front page of your site and then spun by mouse wheel three times. It ended up at the 'Fitness' section so in I went. I then edited the page to remove affiliate links. I ended up with _32_ unique links and _33_ affiliate links. That's more than 50% - and doesn't include things like Amazon links etc etc (or stuff that's automagically blocked by my firewall). And contining on the same portion of the guideline >> If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, << This is the section your site falls down on. What original, valuable and informational content does remain on your site? No reviews of the sites in question - no ratings system - nadda. _That's_ the reason your site was denied a listing: lack of original content. >> We link all shopping sites not just shopping sites with secure servers, this makes us unique << I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. Quite a number of sites on that list have secure and non-secure listings (not that I would personally trust a non-secure site to do any sort of shopping from but...) Oh, your site does say >> Best Shopping Site : QQQQ is ranked the most popular UK Shopping Directory << but I've managed to easily find another site that says >> Welcome to UKXXXXX, the most comprehensive, popular and easy to use shopping directory in the UK <<<. Two sites being the "most popular"? Oh, and a nice Google search for most popular shopping directory helps reveal that most of your 'inbound indepedent links' are actually from what we refer to as 'FFA' pages (Free For All) - where Fred Bloggs can just add their site to a long list of other sites on the page without much human intervention. >> Now you are simply being flippant! << You started it! <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> As other editors tell you, I'm the sort of person that loves a challenge like you offered, so I took a bite at it - now are you brave enough to take a bite of your own hat or didn't you think somebody would be brave enough to "call your bluff"? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I presume you really mean: http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Children/Baby/Blankets_and_Bedding/ . If so http://www.kids--bedding.com/ was rejected for listing as it just seemed to just be a redirect to http://collector-connection.site.yahoo.net . Sub-sites/redirects and 'product listings' should not be listed according to the ODP editor guidelines.

*sigh* I wish you'd wait for me to finish composing my reply before you post again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Give us a straight question and we'll give you a straight answer. Give us a roundabout-style loaded question and you'll get nice fuzzy answers back. Well, I did attend college a few years ago, but at the moment, I'm running my own small business (which I've been doing on a part-time basis for many years now, and while I haven't yet made the 'big-bucks' I do make more than enough to cover my costs). Do you mean the No Submit Button, Editors E-mail link not working thread? If you _were_ webmaster45, then, yep, we are more than aware of your URL - and you were told that your site was rejected for listing for being, what appeared to (now several editors) to be mainly affiliate links. If you weren't webmaster45, then my apologies. It's just that webmaster45, when told their site wasn't appropriate for listing, tried to deceive the editors by stating things like '99.9% not affiliate links' and when an editor showed them that it was not the case, went quite off the deep-end of things. People are more than welcome to have civil conversations about just about any aspect of the ODP here, but once it starts going into mud-flinging style fits where accusations are flying about - then a stop must be put to the conversation. I, personally, think (and hope) we are all mature adults here - but sometimes people do lie and attempt to deceive even when evidence is presented in front of them and when they can't "get their own way".

Why should it matter though? Is it important how many sites like to a site? Does it increase the 'quality' of a site? If I wanted to, I could stick up an advertisement on LinkExchange/Bcentral and have over 10,000 sites linking to mine (I do have the credits on LE/BC to do that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ), but it wouldn't make my site any 'better'. Erm, no - it actually takes quite some time to do. I think you are under the impression that the ODP is some sort of conveyor-belt where editors just go 'yes - let it in', 'no -dump it' in under a minute per site. Wrong. We look at a site and then we spend time (which we are volunteering remember) to give the site a good review. Sometimes this can take an hour (it has happened where I've spent 3 hours reviewing a single site as I could tell it had content that was worthwhile listing and therefore I spent the time reviewing it). If, however, we do come across a site which seems to offer 'nothing unique worth listing', then we aren't going to spend 3 hours hunting down for a single page of the site worth listing - we'll decline it a listing and move onto sites that _are_ worth lisitng. And we do. All the time we think for the 'view point' from a searcher - Joe Public. We think - "if a searcher came across this site - would it be worth spending the time on this site. Erm - have a look at our editor guidelines if you want. We have nothing to hid. You may, however, be interested in the following paragrah entitled 'Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links' where it states : >> Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory << Oooh, I like a challenge <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> . http://www.hometown.co.uk/ seems to have quite a large number (and a quick view of the site failed to show any 'affiliate tagged' sites in the directory results. http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/ also has a large number of independent sites listed. If you give us an exact number of the number of indepedent ones you have on your site (i.e. that you _don't_ get paid money for), then I'm sure we can find many many sites which will enable you to have a nice hat-meal.

The chances of getting listed in that category in the next few weeks in probably very remote at the moment, but there is always a chance a random editor would feel like tackling the backlog tonight and you could be listed tomorrow... _All_ categories are maintained by editors (there are no true 'editor-less' categories), but since we are just flesh-and-blood humans there are only some many categories and sites we can look at and review during a day (especially since we are volunteers and do it all out of the goodness of our hearts <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) It _may_ be an idea to submit your site to another category - but please try and ensure that your site is appropriate for the category - submitting to a category 'just because it has a listed editor', as this will just lessen the chance of your being listed in the future (all 'activities' against a site are logged and if an editor sees quite a few 'Deleted: Inappropriate category' style remarks, then they will be more reluctant to spend the time needed to review the site).

Actually, quite a few have similar agreements to this. Those ODP editors that have been on the internet for many many years are aware of all sorts of agreements like this - from the LinkShare one-way agreements (small directories linking to large sites by the way of affiliate tags) to specific 'partner sites' pages. I admit, not all 'major international stores' do this, but it is not unknown for it to happen. And, I'll have to back up fellow editor glynis and ask >> It's not so in this case! <<. What case? Is there a specific site you are on about (if so, why not disclose the URL unless you've got something to hide). Sometimes ODP editors know a lot more about certain industry sectors than we let people believe. We've got editors who have dedicated their whole lifes to specific industries (from bricks-and-mortar stores, to education to 'Adult-orientated' areas) and therefore know how certain 'segments' of people 'work'. Information is exchanged on internal forums and other methods of communication and, therefore, editors are aware of many many 'tricks of the trade' that are employed by unscrupulous webmasters who just want to get their site listed under any circumstances (some even resort to threats of legal action, which is quite funny as it is made clear at the ODP that no site is guaranteed a listing: it's a standing joke amongst editors that we haven't yet heard of a successful court case against Google or Yahoo for not listing a content-less spam-filled affiliate site).

It is impossible for an ODP editor to check every single page of every single site - therefore most of the time, we take a random sample. We pick two or three sections of a site and see the content. If those randomly chosen sections are 'under construction' or just filled with affiliate links, then we would take that as a good cross-section of the site. Ok, a site may have only 3 out of 10 categories dedicated to being just affiliate content, but without spending hours upon hours on each site (and letting the already quite large backlog of unreviewed sites grow even larger) it is not possible for an editor to do that. If a section is marked 'Under construction' or 'The following pages are provided by sponsers/affiliates' then we _may_ avoid those sections (dependent on the editor). Each site is judged on it's own merits. Just because 1,000 other sites (which could just be by the same webmaster or by getting their 'button' on the bottom of each page by some sort of link-agreement) link to one site, doesn't mean that the content is good. You'll be surprised at the number of times we (the hard-working volunteer editors of ODP) hear this phrase and then, when we look into the sites 'in-depth', we find out that they aren't quite as 'totally independent' as first appears. Take, what seems to be this thread's 'token example' - a shopping directory. You may say a web design orientated company that specialises in GIF images and Adult websites is a 'totally independent site' which links to the shopping directory - but editors have, due to experience, know where to look for 'links' like this.

This sort of question is probably more suited to sites such as http://searchengineforums.com/ or http://www.webmasterworld.com or one of the many other chat and forum sites dedicated to generic search engine optimisation and the like. This board is run in an unofficial capacity by volunteer ODP editors, and while it has not 'official' connection with ODP we do aim to keep the topic of conversations ODP specific.

We don't. We differentiate between search engines that are _all_ affiliate laden links and sites which have a degree of advertising. If an editor can not tell what is advertising and what is 'real content' (be it proper search engine results or just a review), then the site will get rejected. Unique content is the name of the game, but if we can't see the content due to heavy advertisments or affiliate links - then it's doubtful it'll get listed. Especially if a webmaster tries to hide the affiliate links using 'onmouseover' events and the like - it just makes an editor even more suspicious that a site has something to hide: and, hence, make them even more reluctant to list it. If, for example, a shopping directory site had a large number of affiliate links - then it would not be listed, but if it had reviews of the majority of the sites, then it _may_ be listed. No site is guaranteeded a listing, but if you can "show the editor" that it has content which is useful to the third parties, then it probably will be listed. [edit: corrected spelling of suspecious to suspicious]