beebware

Re: http://www.treasuredlocks.com/ It's still in the queue for review (around a dozen sites awaiting review now, down from around 20 half-an-hour ago: yep, I've been reviewing a few). It may be listed in the next 24 hours or so, but if it hasn't been listed within a month - feel free to come back here and ask again. When it is listed, it will be listed under the "real URL" of http://store.yahoo.com/treasuredlocks/ and not the "vanity" URL of http://www.treasuredlocks.com as per our editor guidelines.

(previous thread) Your site has not been rejected - it just hasn't been reviewed yet (along with less than 75 other sites). There is no need to resubmit your site, it will be reviewed by an editor in due course. A category does not need to have a "listed editor" for the entries in it to be reviewed: editors of the "parent categories" and editalls, catmvs and metas can all review those sites - however, we are always on the lookout for new editors (hint hint)... "Good things come to those who wait" - unfortently, you've just got to wait a little bit longer: sorry!

Your site is awaiting review in that category with less than 75 other sites.

Your site is still awaiting review in that category with less than a dozen other sites.

You submitted on the 28th of November and your site is awaiting review in that category with around 200 other sites.

Your site was moved on the 13th of October from http://dmoz.org/Business/Business_Services/Translation/Multiple_Language/Asia/China/ to the more appropriate category of http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Basic_Service/S where it is awaiting review. Your other submission to http://dmoz.org/Business/Business_Services/Translation/Multiple_Language/North_America/Canada/ was deleted as editor notes showed your site was being moved to the appropriate place for review. There are around 850 sites awaiting review in http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Basic_Service/S so it could be some time before your site is reviewed.

Your site has been listed in Regional/Caribbean/Jamaica/Localities/Negril/Travel_and_Tourism/Lodging since 13/December/2002 17:36:04 GMT as "Visit Negril : Accepts room and rate enquiries and features property profiles and image galleries for Negril-area villas and hotels." Congratulations! (and, next time, please check the category before asking again <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Ok, since I'm not willing to register on yet another board and that 'proposal' sounds mainly like a rant, I'll answer it here: >> Submissions are not processed in a timely manner. << > When a website is submitted, it ought to be reviewed and either rejected or listed in a timely manner. Many ODP editors disagree. Many ODP editors do not think that it matters when a website is reviewed. < We try and review sites are quickly as possible, but with (and this is NOT an official figure but mearly a 'guesstimate') over 800,000 sites awaiting review (with new submissions coming in all the time), 6,000 active editors (some working on 'quality control', some working on remove 'dead sites', some investigating abuse etc), and taking around 5 to 30 minutes per site (I've once spent over 2 hours reviewing a site before) - then you start hitting problems. 800,000 sites taking 10 minutes each spread over 6,000 editors still involves nearly a day of continual editing for EACH editor... It just isn't possible. >> They are there to find something, and that is why websites need to be listed; so that the information can be found << We list nearly 4million websites already - plus include links directly to Altavista and Google and many other search engines: somebody searching should be able to find something close to what they want. The way I use ODP (and my 'technophobe' relative) is to first search on Google (which actually "indexes" or spiders the entire content of the page) and then "click-thru" to the relevant ODP category to find 'More information of interest'. Try to think of a 'card index' to a library. If you know what you are looking for it can point you towards the right 'area' (say the dewey decimal code), but if you are looking for more in-depth information about a very vague term then you better hope they've got some sort of very detailed keyword listing system... > Request a passport and you'll get it in 6 weeks. < Last year, it took around 4 months to get a new UK passport... > And no legitimate organization in the world processes data two years after it has been submitted. < Well, web.archive.org (part of Amazon) processes data 6 months after it has been submitted, Yahoo isn't exactly renowned for it's quick listings (especially of the 'free submissions') etc etc. I'm willing to admit we could be faster, but then again we could be a lot slower... > All websites submitted to the ODP will be reviewed and either listed or rejected in 8 weeks. < We'll be happy to oblige - just find us nearly 140,000 extra 'man-hours' of high quality editors and we'll get the backlog sorted... >> Web sites are arbitrarily rejected or deleted from the directory << >> Four editors will be appointed to review any complaints dealing with deletions or rejections << We have the entire meta community to deal with any complaints like this, and any editor that can edit in that category (i.e. parents of the same category, editalls, metas etc) can look into the issue. If a complaint is lodged against an editor or category, then the entire meta community can investigate and VOTE on the outcome. The opinion of at least 3 metas (IIRC) has got to be in favour of taking action before any action is taken. Therefore, if you get a dozen metas taking an interest in the matter, and the split is 50/50 then the matter obviously needs more investigation before any "real" allegation of abuse can be 'charged'. Try and think of the meta community as the 'jury' - the 'police' (fellow editors or the public) find a 'crime' being commit, report it, the jury weighs up the evidence and then action is taken (with the 'judge' - ODP staff - having the final say, but being 'swayed' by the jury). > If the deletion/rejection is found to be justified, the URL will be added to a list of URL's that will not be reviewed by the ODP. < The content of sites change quite frequently. I've heard of occassions where a site has been changed from an apparant 'good site' to a spam-laden affiliate linkfarm within minutes of being listed. Likewise, a domain that is 'hijacked' could become available to someone that is willing to use it for a 'good purpose'. >> Link rot << We actually have an automated system called Robozilla which goes round and checks EVERY single listed entry in the ODP. However, due to the system demands of checking nearly 4million links - this is only done every month or so. "Rob" goes through all the links once and compiles a list of those that flag up errors. Once "he's" done that, he goes through the list again - if they still flag errors then a 'Red Mark' is placed against the site. These 'Robozilla Reds' show up to editors of that category and above and we do have a team of editors that purposly go and hunt these 'reds' down. FYI: Robozilla is running at the moment and is marking a number of sites 'red'. As he does so, editors then investigate each 'mark' to see if the site has moved (i.e. by checking the home page, Google cache, Google itself, the Web.archive.org and many other methods) and ONLY if they cannot find the new location of the site is it removed. This ensures that valuable content is not lost unless it has really 'disappeared' from the net. > Links to sites that have changed and become inappropriate will be deleted < This happens anyway. If any editors notice that the contents of a site are no longer suitable for the category it is listed in, then the site listing will either be moved to another category or deleted. > Editors who do not edit will be removed. < Editors are automatically removed 3 months after their last edit. Therefore, if you just 'lurk' at the ODP - then your login will be automatically deactivated after the 3 month mark. >> Corruption << > As an editor I often saw editors affiliated with one site purposely lose a competing site. < True, but did you actually bother to do anything about it - like inform more 'senior editors'. As with ANY organisation - corruption/fraud/theft/etc DOES take place, but if anybody notices it then they should inform someone else. If nobody notices that "stocks of paper" are slowly disappearing from the storeroom, then the 'thief' will continue to get away with it. > Abuse reports need to be posted in the Resource Zone, and investigated, and answered in the Resource Zone. < First of all, Resource-Zone is an "unofficial" forum. It is NOT sponsored or directly supported by Netscape Communications (the owners of the ODP). It is run by senior editors and contributed by editors for the assistance to the public. Secondly, the 'meta editors' (who investigate abuse reports) would obviously like to 'keep quiet' how they locate abuse. If people that join the ODP to be 'abusive editors' knew how they could be caught, then they could "work around" the ways they could be caught - causing abuse investigations to take even longer. >> Unresponveiness of Editors. << Editors are not forced to do anything - it's like any volunteer organisation in that aspect. Imagine if you freely volunteered your time to a local charity and then they said "You have GOT to do X, Y or Z" - you could just walk out if you wanted to. Yep, they may say "Arrange the items on the shelve in THIS order" and you may comply, or you may walk out, OR you may arrange them in another order and - since you didn't follow the organisations guidelines - be refused permission to continue to volunteer for them. > Editors should be encouraged to reply to submitters in the openness of the Resource Zone forum. Resource Zone moderators should be encouraged to refrain from deleting all posts they do not like. < Editors are aware of the RZ forum and are encourged to volunteer to assist if they want to - however, this is not compulsory and only certain editors are willing to give up the additional time and effort to do so. I'm sure the moderators do not remove posts for "fun of it". This forum does have its own set of guidelines and if people don't follow them, then their posting priviledges may be revoked. If I came to your forum and posted links to pornography - would you then delete my posts since you didn't like them? Likewise, if I came to your forum and just posted rants with no proof, no 'real reason' or just slander - would you delete them? I'll guess that in both situations you would - just like the moderators here. >> Paying for the ODP << This has been considered before (and, I believe, there is currently a similar thread going on in the internal editor forums) but Netscape has not yet commented on this matter so we don't know what they think about it. On one hand, you've got further allegations of abuse ("The ODP only lists your site if you donate whha wahha!"), allocation of resources problems (what if Regional/ needs the most work, but most of the donations go to Business/ - do you get an editor for Regional or Business) and the training issue. I've worked as a paid employee for a web directory before (I'm not naming names, but it was/is a major player in the UK web directory stakes and was owned by another large media organisation) and we had the same problems as ODP suffers (only so many 'man-hours' to do so much work, different areas needed different 'guidelines' etc).

>> Are we as site developers and business owners going to be given a very clear definition about which sites are appropriate? Or is that still going to be left up to the editor in charge of that category? And by clear I mean just that. Very specific guidelines that can be checked by anyone. << I may be sticking my head out by saying this, but there are currently discussions going on at some of the highest levels within the ODP editor community about revisions to the Editor Guidelines ( http://dmoz.org/guidelines/ ) which will stipulate exactly what 'lead generator' sites are and the fact that they shouldn't be included. Whilst it is currently known to the editor community that this sort of site shouldn't be listed, this thread has alerted the senior editors to the fact that perhaps it needs to be put down in "black and white". However, changes to the editor guidelines are not made on an "ad hoc" basis - so it may be some time before the formal document is changed (IIRC most of the guidelines have been 'constructed' by the 'common usage' method: if editors have all agreeded to work in way X, then when the guidelines are revised put that information in there for 'new' editors). Oh - and the editor guidelines are targetted at editors: not the general public. Yep, they are publically accessible, and, yep, we do quote them on here: but this is to help show people what editors can and cannot do and to help prove we do not have much to hide. >> Since lead generation sites are a major industry on the internet, is there going to be a category established for lead generation sites? << Personally, I doubt it. You could say "Multi-Level Marketing" is a major industry on the internet (several resellers selling the same items) and, yes, we did have a specific category for those. But it was decided a few months ago that that sort of site did not add any worthwhile content to the ODP and therefore wasn't really worth listing: the category was then disbanded (IIRC actually by ODP staff editors). Why list 100 sites offering the same information? >> the DMOZ has a category for information for rcreation drug use. To make a judgement call that lead generation sites are to not be included, but to include sites that offer information about taking drugs is a strange stance to take. << Not necessarily. We also have categories that cover race supremacy, suicide, pornography etc etc. Our "Site Selection Criteria" and "Site Specific Guidelines" help document which sites to include and exclude: but when reading those remember that they are now around 6 months out of date and the ODP and the Internet has moved on - whilst there have been 'new guidelines' addressed in the internal editor forums, these have not yet made it to the 'main guidelines'.

We recommend leaving at least a month between requests.

Re: adding to topic I've been using ZoneAlarm Pro for nearly a year (mainly on Windows 2000, but a little bit on Windows ME) and haven't experienced this sort of problem (and I've got the "Privacy Settings" to high).

I've just moved it to the more appropriate category of http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Internet/Clients/Mail/Windows/Tools/Anti_Spam/ where there are only a couple of other sites awaiting review.

Staff are eager to get an working RDF dump out as soon as possible and it's my thoughts (i.e. not necessarily fact) that staff may have tryed changing the RDF generation system to try and automatically eliminate the problems that have been plaguing the system for the last few weeks: each time it failed, it required human intervention to manually correct database errors. Hopefully, we'll know shortly - I've heard that the current RDF has just gone into to "integrity checking" phase: if it passes, yipee! If it doesn't, well, looks like we didn't get out Christmas present after all...

>> understood to be dmoz guidelines about submissions << You mean the guidelines which are displayed when you try and add a link and it states: http://www.autoloans.us/ shows 44 submissions, http://www.carloans.us/ shows shows 6, http://www.dealerlink.us/ and had 2 rejections: total of 51 submissions in a few months. I've also found http://www.auto-loan-direct.com/ which is quite similar to your site. >> no one ever made an honest error? << I know there is a saying "once is an accident, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action" - we are a little bit more forgiving than that, but 51 submissions for the same site is regarded as spamming. >> I couldn't afford to pay a pro to do this submission << I would guess that a very small percentage of the sites submitted to the ODP have been made by people that have been paid to do so: after all, we don't charge a submission fee PLUS the instructions for submitting your site are clear, concise and easy to understand (and we even have the submission guidelines in French, German and many other languages).

Re: Multiple Listings in sorted order We do also have a similar system at http://dmoz.org/edoc/addurl.txt which lists all domains with more than 100 links (however, as you may be able to tell from the list, it includes all listings in all parts of the directory - including some 'editor only' areas).

Anything for 5 minutes to a year or more. We are all volunteers and give up our spare time to edit the ODP. Because of this, we cannot and WILL NOT give status reports such as "Your site will be reviewed in the next 7 days" as we have no way of doing that. Sorry.

Hmm, I think there are a few problems with "how your site works" which has caused editor problems. I've sent you a private message regarding this matter as this isn't really the forum for "Site Reviews". I've also added your site back to the unreviewed queue of that category with a brief summary of my findings.

Your site was reviewed and listed in http://dmoz.org/editorsRegional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/Warwickshire/Stratford-upon-Avon/Business_and_Economy around mid-November. We have no record of you submitting to Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Shopping/Music_and_Film/Instruments .

Your site is awaiting review in Arts/Music/Styles/Dance/Trance/Psychedelic_Trance along with around half a dozen others. 2 months is "no time at all to wait". Yes, it is possible for a site to be listed in under 5 minutes of submission (sometimes if I'm checking my editor "dashboard" and a submission to one of my "pet" categories comes in, I review it straight away), but then again it is possible for a site to go a year or more without review: it just depends on what the volunteer editors "feel" like reviewing. Of course, if we had more editors we can review more sites...

It's still awaiting review in that category with around 40 other sites.

Re: amazing-hgh.com - wrongly charged >> Could someone bring in some kind of senior editor that truly understands the meaning of MLM and affiliate sites; << The most senior editors we have are "metas". hutcheson and donaldb have already made little comments here (and I'm reasonably sure that they are probably watching this thread - other metas may also be lurking). Editalls, catmvs, catmods are practically the "next level of seniority" and quite a number of those have been lurking and posting here. Usually if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - you can usually be certain you've got a member of the family Anatidae on your hands... Basically, you appear to be selling products that are "normally" sold (in ODP experience) by MLM distributors, have (as another editor has pointed out) copied content from other sites (as MLM distributors tend to do) and then look of the site makes me, personally, think that it could be MLM.... Since you are quoting our guidelines >> sites which sell products or services provided by another company and make a small margin on the sale are affiliate mirrors << Can you answer 'yes' or 'no' to the following question: Do you make a small margin on the sale of products provided by another company? If 'yes', then maybe you can give us your drugs manufacteurs licence number (or whatever legal thing you have) and the address of your factory - if not, well, can I claim my $1000 <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Continuing on that paragraph from the guidelines, it does state >> In general we do not list affiliate sites unless the affiliate has strong, high quality content of its own that end-users will find really useful. <<. This is where it's been noted that your site is "lacking": original, high-quality content.

Re: amazing-hgh.com - Award increased to $1,000 >> Can someone at least please bring the editor of the category I am trying to list into this discusion. << FYI: A note has been attached to your site which will point ANY editors reviewing your site towards this thread. We prefer to use these "editor only notes" than emails as they are visible to everyone (your site "could be" reviewed by an editall or meta editor who doesn't necessarily spend a lot of time in that area-hence the email would have been worthless).

Please DO NOT ask for site submission statuses more often than once a month. You have asked twice so far this month - just please be patient and wait...

It's still awaiting review with around a dozen other sites.