dajeffster

Re: Status of http://www.AstrologySoftwareShop.com Dear Mark, Please read the forum guidelines. Noting the part about "If your site has been rejected, please keep in mind that arguing about the editorial decision will not be tolerated." This forum is not intended to be a platform to debate the merits of a site and why it should be included. You asked about status and I answered. An editor familiar with the area and product has reviewed both sites and has rejected AstrologySoftwareShop for identical content. As far as changing current locations of sites, please follow the update guidelines. This forum is intended to check status not to get a submission, category change or anything else done faster or before those who have submitted sites in the usual fashion. I again request you read the guidelines. Please note "Good descriptions are concise, informative, and objective, to let end-users know what they will find when they visit a web site." And "...do not read like online advertisements and sales pitches. Avoid superlatives such as "best" "most" "greatest" "cheapest." The ODP does not advertise web sites, and such terms are irrelevant to users." Sorry, I'm sure this is not the answer you were looking for, but what you are requesting now is beyond the scope and purpose of this forum. Best regards, Jeff -----------------

Re: Status for http://www.AstrologySoftwareShop.co The site is the same as AstroDatabank which already listed in Society: Religion and Spirituality: Divination: Astrology: Software. Creating a "new" URL doesn't change that is the same. According to ODP Guidelines, this second site is not eligible for a listing. Sorry.

Re: dmoz Feedback Form scormie, You do have to realize, anyone can say a site should be removed, but that doesn't mean we will remove it. Scenario: My site competes with your site. I contact ODP and say your site is "unofficial" and "damages the reputation of x." It doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that ODP should remove your site. From an editor's persepective, how do we know? An editor will look at a site and if that editor feels the site has enough content and is useful, it is listed. Anonymous people saying a site should be removed could be trying to be helpful, just as easily as they could be someone trying to get their competition removed. So please don't think we aren't hearing your requests.

The link you provided is not a dead link. The site is active.

Kristopher77, I think in this case "spam" was a general term. Your answer may lie in the Shopping FAQ. I think Question 2.1 covers it. "A company should be listed under its primary line of business - so a site that sells 75 kinds of chocolate, and 2 kinds of nuts, would go under chocolate." In your case your product is "tickets." So 15 sporting events and 5 Broadway shows, the product is still tickets. Listing each event is not proper procedure, regardless how many URLs are involved. It is this way to discourage submitters trying to submit a page (or URL) for each product they carry. We are not supposed to be an online catalog. I hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

Just a test... <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hi, Just a comment on why an editor would use the true company name. Many times a company will create multiple URL's and site names so they can try to have multiple representations through a category or topic. Using the company's legal name helps to halt such a situation. I am not saying this is your intent, but Yesco Realty could submit http://www.timesharesoutheast.com/ and once listed, submit http://www.fairfieldtimeshareresales.com/ . Since both sites are from Yesco Realty, using the "real name" makes a potential duplicate listing less likely. I hope this makes it less confusing.

WLauzon, I think the point was that a newer editor may see a yahoo shopping site and "think" it is an affiliate and errs on the side of caution. (I am not saying it's right, just saying it could be happening) I think a reason for an editor thinking it is an affiliate is because it carries a variety of products. Unfortunetly, this is something common among affiliate sites. I agree with thehelper, I thought I could spot affiliates and this sites doesn't seem to be one. Jeff /images/icons/laugh.gif

Hi hemsell, I would suggest you consider your hobbies and interests, and start with a category in one of those areas. Find a cat with a low nuber of sites (new editor will be accepted to a large category) and apply. If you look at your hobbies or recreational interests when choosing, it is more enjoyable finding, adding, and editing sites. As you gain experience you may then want to apply to a wider variety of categories. Good luck and find a niche you'll enjoy most! Jeff /images/icons/laugh.gif (ADDED) I noticed I didn't answer your question. No, there is no search for that but having an editor listed does not disqualify additional editors.

I would like to add something... I couldn't tell from your examples if you are using the same index or intro page. I would make it almost "over obvious" that the subject matter is completely different (other than the URL). The reason, if you use a similar "welcome" page text and merely subsititue "checkers" with "dominos" it may appear that the content is the same and an overworked, short on time editor may think it was the same site. Thinking the site was already represented and unaware of this thread, s/he may inadvertantly delete the other submissions. Just my 2 cents... Best of luck, Jeff /images/icons/laugh.gif

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ? Brain, >>I challenge dmoz to create a precise ruling pertaining affiliate links. Dont leave it up to the subjectivity of an editor e.g. make it fair for each and every submitter.<< I understand your frustration... but editors need to exercise their judgment when it comes to sites with affiliate links. The only way to make a hard and fast rule would be to say "no affilate links." Anything else (other than any affiliates with no regard to content, which would never happen) would require editor judgment. To make a concrete 75% or more content required, or any other ratio, would need some sort of breakdown to equate X number of lines of unique lines of content by Y number of characters equal one banner of 267 p x 65 p (or whatever the size of the banner). You think it takes a long time now to get a site reviewed, I would hate to see how long it takes to get sites reviewed under such a system. I won't even go into content/banner placement! I think you will find some excellent advice as to how a site with affiliate links would be accepted in this and other threads. If you follow them, as well as, the submission guidelines, you stand a better chance of getting listed. Just remember "no site is guaranteed a listing." If a site is all affiliates first and the weath of content is burried so deep one would need to hunt for it, it stands little to no chance of being listed. Best regards, Jeff

Hi Tony, Just a couple of comments. It seems many have this idea that editors are somewhat evil and seek some sort of "vengence" on people that irk them when submitting sites. /images/icons/laugh.gif It really is nothing like that at all... but we are all human and as such, have days when we are not as happy as we would like. We may grumble under our breath /images/icons/wink.gif, but action beyond that is basically non-existant. Just so you know, removing a perfectly acceptable site (as per guidelines) that is already listed for a purely personal reason is considered a form of abuse and is grounds for editor removal. As far as "spamming" is concerned, the bar is set much higher than just submitting a site to a couple of possible categories. It is not uncommon for someone with a bi-lingual site to submit to a topical category, (English language) regional category and a World category covering the language. This is by no means "spamming" and in some cases the site is acceptable in all three. In way of an example: a bi-lingual site for a museum located in a Country in Europe. It is a museum (topical), in Europe (English laguage Regional), with a "mother tongue" version (World). Just some thoughts... Jeff /images/icons/laugh.gif

>>It would obviously mean that the vast majority of the people coming to ODP would be looking for the Christianity category<< Incorrect. The number of sites in a category has nothing to do with popularity in regards to the visitors to ODP. It is the enthusiasm of the editors adding sites to a category. Sites are added in two ways via submissions from site owners and editors actively seeking out sites to add. >>Because of the pyramid structure no lesser tiered categories can be larger than the upper tiers that they belong to.<< ODP is not a pyramid structure, if anything it is more of an umbrella. Sub-categories fit "under" a more general category. There are numerous examples where sub-categories out number the parent category, but it does not justify making them independent of the parent. Music with over 100,000 sites still fits "under" Arts. Bands and Artists with over 46,000 sites still fits under Music. So Christianity fits "under" Religion regardless of how many sites it has. Medicine and Alternative Medicine co-exist on an equal tier just as Christianity co-exists with Agnosticism. Each are different means to the same end. One is finding Health, the other is finding Spirituality. Putting Christianity on a tier with Religion would be the same as putting Alternative Medicine on a tier with Health. What you are suggesting, to follow it out logically, means we would also move Catholicism out from Denominations. Since Denominations has 42,000+ sites and Catholicism contains 22,000+ sites which far out numbers all the other "types" of Christianity. Doing this in no ways follows the entire directory layout. I hope this helps in understanding how ODP currently organizes its categories. Jeff

Just to add to what wladek said, also included in the guidelines. "Product Listings ... The purpose of the ODP is not to replicate the individual listings of an online shopping catalog..." This includes sites offering services/products on different pages of their site (not just huge shopping sites). Jeff

Hi all, ThomasAJ, I agree with you it would be great if submitters had a rough idea how long a review will take. Unfortunately, the human side of the ODP makes it very open ended. Speaking for myself, I know I can never predict how much time I will have for editing. Some weeks I can go through a few hundred sites and other weeks it could only be 10. Once you put a "date" on when a review will occur, missing this deadline only leads to disappointment, regardless of disclaimers attached. In many businesses, an estimated time is usually longer than the time they feel they will need. A contactractor once told me a job would take a month, he was done in three weeks. I was thrilled because he finished a week sooner. If he had taken a week longer then his estimate, I would have been disappointed, his crediblity would have diminished, and I would never hire him again. As you pointed out, and rightfully so, with non-urgent tasks, it is just to have an idea on the situation, but many submitters don't see getting their site listed non-urgent. An example mentioned in one of threads in these forums: in the shopping category submissions peak in October and November with sites hoping to be listed for the Holiday season, while at the same time the volunteer editor has more demands on their time away from ODP. Unlike a store, there is no "seasonal help" to assist in busy times. Since it is all a volunteer effort, the only thing that would speed up the time would be for more people to volunteer. I know if a system were implemented to require (not the best term to use in a volunteer project) an estimated time, I would be hard pressed to come up with a date. The more requirements implemented, in the long run, may do more to discourage editors and make the wait time much longer. I know this is not the type of comment/answer you were looking for, I just hope it helps you understand that while it is a great idea, in practice it would not be very feasible (IMHO). Jeff

Re: How can I change my sites title and descriptio RiffRaff, Your site was probably found by an editor and added. To change the discription go to the category where it is listed and use the "update URL" link on top of the page. Best regards, Jeff

Mel, I hope I can help with your confusion in this matter, All the information you need for submitting sites to ODP are available at http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html and http://dmoz.org/add.html these links should help with understanding what ODP is about and the policies employed. There is no charge to submit and ODP doesn't accept money for premimum placement. I would like address the search engines. I do not work developing Web sites or as a SEO and I don't have a tech background. But in an effort to help, to my understanding engines use crawlers, algorithimins (sp?) and a number of factors and determin "popularity" from the number of links to the site, meta tags, and keyword placement through the text of the site. Add and divide. ODP is a directory it is not a search engine. ODP uses editors checking submissions for site content to add sites to the listings. No Crawlers, no Meta Tags, no mathmatics to place sites. As for the three searches you listed, I am unfamiliar with Fast, but if it is fast.com it doesn't load, "Server not found" was the message my browser just gave me. MSN... well you can see for yourself, but it is far from free to submit. When you run a search the first 2 links are "featured links" and the next 5 are sponsored links (these vary depending on how many submitted sites spend the extra money on top of the money just to submit) Google across the top and top right corner... "sponsored links" So these are not really good examples for saying that "paid listings" are not happening. ODP is the Open Directory Project - not a seach engine. Some serch engines use ODP as their base directory and then use crawlers for their searches. All information about this can be found at http://dmoz.org/rdf.html and http://dmoz.org/license.html I hope this information helps you with understanding the distiction between ODP and search engines. As I said, since I am not working in the field, I only know what I read and what I learned while in college, but that was many years ago. I hope this has helped. Jeff

Mel, It's great to see civil discussion and it is something this forum was designed to provide. Sometimes posts are as subtle as a drive by shooting. I don't have much time under my belt in ODP, but I can say it is nothing like I expected. I would like to add my opinion to this discussion, and please take it in the friendly, and hopefully, helpful manner I intend it. I am not speaking for ODP, I am speaking for me and how I see my responsibility to ODP, our users, our site providers, and my fellow editors. From reading your posts and subsequent responses a few things jump out at me. Your experience with the development and marketing of sites is evident, but I don't think you completely understand how ODP is different from search engines. As Lissa was explaining, ODP is designed to accommodate Web users (or surfers). It is a directory, not a search engine. Other search engines are not as concerned with the results the user receives, they make their business the Web site owners. They assume users are sheep and will jump on whatever site is listed first, so they raffle off these higher spots to the highest bidders. They charge for placement, they charge for keywords, they charge for "sponsored links." ODP does not. ODP prides itself on providing useful sites with dynamic content to the directory users (not Web site providers/owners). Nothing circular about it. It just seems to me maybe this doesn't fit what you are calling a directory (when they are just a search engine). One of the reasons this forum is here is to educate people about the differences. With most search engines, if a user is looking for information and plugs in some keywords, the engine will return 4 or 5 pages of "consumer based" sites before 1 information based site. Again, this is something ODP, by its nature tries to avoid by not keyword loading descriptions and taking payment for placement. You commented about a library and books, well most libraries have one copy of each book. Not just the same book with different covers. A library with 1,000 copies of "See Spot Run" serves no purpose. This is a closer example of the situation we, as editors try to avoid. Many commerce sites offer nothing more than identical products, so we look for sites that offer a little more. When a site provider has actually brought something to the table, as you suggest, with well researched, well presented information, we welcome it and add it to the directory. As far as "Any good university library will have many commercial items in its collection." I beg to differ. I have never seen a University library filled with Sears and Robuck's catalogs. Finally, you said, "I would like to suggest that the ODP should consider that the users are more important than the directory." Here I agree completely. We consider the USERS most important. We go through all the provider's submissions by hand, with nothing but the user in mind. Will a user find this site helpful? Will the user find this site beneficial? What makes this site unique for the user? I just ask that you not confuse the "user" of the directory with the "provider" of the site. The last thing that jumps out at me is that you have your client's sites listed. You said yourself, that you have gotten sites placed. So, if your sites are being placed why would you want us to lower our standards? Would you feel better after all the work researching and building your sites some other site being listed ahead of you but did not have the same level of quality within the site, it was able to belly up the cover charge? If you are providing your clients with a quality service, as it seems you are, the sites are getting placed, as you said they have, why would you want us just to throw the doors open for sites that can place keywords more times than you, but make no sense and offer nothing substantial to the users of the directory. I can tell by your fervor you take pride it your work. I can say with confidence the editors I have meet in ODP are just as proud of doing the best job they can. We, as a community of editors, donate our time because we want to provide quality to the surfers that use ODP. Mel, I hope you find this forum helpful. I'm sure you will appreciate the job we do as much as we appreciate when we review a site that is well planned and well built as yours. Thanks, Jeff A volunteer editor proud to provide his time and service helping to build the best directory for the Internet community.

Time varies, took a long time for my acceptence, in fact I hate to adit it, but I forgot all about applying and was suprised when the acceptence e-mail arrived! Jeff