giz

DC tags, are Dublin Core meta tags, and they make no difference whatsoever to your site review. General Comments: Another thing that makes absolutely no difference is what version of HTML or XHTML you use for your site, or whether the coding is actually any good; however if it is so bad that people cannot view the site, then it doesn't get reviewed very quickly.

* DUFF THREAD POSTING * Continue in: http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=tus&Number=17951 Of course, it would have been possible to just edit this one.

It would be the quickest way of telling spammers that we deleted their submission, so they'll immediately resubmit. Should we write to the submitter, the web page author, the web host? It is all extra work, that slows editing down. Editors are free to write to submitters if they want to but Communication by email with submitters is a rarity, as many submitters have been abusive in the past. Once bitten....

What I assume Hutcheson means when he says he "does not review Flash sites" is that he does not add them to the public listings, and so they then languish in the unreviewed queue for someone else to take care of at some (much) later time. Just for the edification of newer editors here who might be tempted to simply just delete such sites, deleting such sites from the unreviewed queue would usually be labelled as editor abuse, if I have correctly read all the stuff that rdkeating25, skrenta, enarra, and others have written over the years.

The search at dmoz.org is supposed to help end users find the correct category within the ODP, or, more usually, find several related categories that contain the information that they are looking for. When the user then looks inside the category it should list a whole bunch of sites that cover the topic of interest. The ODP is a directory, not a search engine.

MULTIPLE POST. CONTINUE ONLY IN: http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=status&Number=17609

I understand that some people get in on their first application, while others have to try several times before they really begin to understand the way the ODP works, and what is required to get the job done properly. Don't take it personally. The advice above looks like good advice as to the way that descriptions should be done now; and yes, there are many old descriptions that no longer conform. A rejection is just that, a one-time rejection for that application, not a ban on applying again. Have another go, reapply in a few days or so.

I guess that it is supposed to be a list of poetry sites that you can submit your poems to, not actually be the place that you submit the poems. [imagines dfy foaming at the mouth, expecting that he found a place where people submit their poems to the ODP] <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Heh, all 11 sites! It only had 4 sites in it when I joined, so my three sample sites in the editor application virtually doubled the category overnight. This is an area of the directory that receives a figure of nil tending towards zero submissions from the outside (except some strange Brazilian business parks, or real estate spam {yeah, really!!} from time to time), so most of the categories in that area have been built by editor suggestions, and from submissions from the inside. Of course, if anyone has any useful standards related stuff they want to submit then note that the "submit to listing time" is usually measured in days rather than months; however, sites really do need to be on topic with the category (just like in the rest of the ODP), but as a category will contain at most 3 or 4 unreviewed sites anything wrongly submitted or trying it on is blatently obvious; hint: there is nothing selling anything anywhere near there.

There are multiple problems that have occurred but it seems that some sort of bug may have been introduced when some upgrades were done back in September. It has taken a lot of work to trace the origins of the bugs, and to clean up the data that the bugs affected; there are nearly 4 million web sites, and over 400 000 categories where problems may lurk. Since the RDF takes a week to produce it has been a long process of - run RDF - fail - look for problem - fix problem - run RDF for another week - fail - and then the same thing over and over, again and again. It looked very close around Christmas, then some other problem cropped up and clobbered it again. There are multiple threads about the problem here on Resource Zone, as well as in many external fora and boards.

>> Your submission has been redirected to the misplaced submissions folder << ... where someone will look at it within a very few days, and direct it to the correct category. No need to resubmit.

The January 20th date is a glitch. The last update to search was truly way back in September last year. The most recent RDF generation failed again on that (2003 January 20th) date, the file has errors. It looks like search has seen that there is a new file, and has updated the "last updated" date, but as there are errors in the file it isn't actually using it, and will not be using it until a good RDF is pushed out. A new RDF is attempted approximately weekly, but other processes or restarts can add a few days sometimes..

Mine took less than 4 hours, and that was a little over a year ago.

>> So are we looking at a 7 day wait, or has it increased to 12 days (like the last one)? << I believe that it was only 12 days as it "died" after a few days and had to be restarted. An RDF run that fully completes (with or without errors) should take about 5 or 6 days I do believe; though this is subject to other server load as well.

Accessing from the UK, I have had no problems at all in the last week or more.

Even without the ODP RDF dump to update external directories, data does filter on down. The Google search engine still spiders the dmoz.org site on a regular basis, and picks up new listings. The ODP does not have any control over this schedule, nor what is done with the data that is found.

The public pages show live data withi minutes of the data being edited. The search function relies on the update to the RDF file, which (according to multiple threads in this forum) has not been updated for several months.

You are correct that there has been no new RDF for downstream directories to download, since September. However, even if the RDF did return to the old weekly update schedule, we still can't force any downstream user to actually take a copy of it. What any downstream data user does with the RDF file is their business, just as long as the correct attribution is given for the data source. Google used to take a copy towards the end of the month, but some other sites still have a copy that is two or three years old that has never been updated by that user.

The ODP is in no way affiliated with Google. Of what interest is this supposed to be to us? As for providing resources, there are already countless sites, guides, newsgroups, boards and fora dedicated to this. What is this about money? You want to pay us? What for? I don't understand your posting here. It looks like a solicitation to do some sort of business; and totally off topic for this forum.

What about using all lower case for the word image ...... http://www.resource-zone.com/images/odphead.gif

The Search facility at dmoz.org has not been updated since late September. It relies on the weekly RDF dump, which has failed every week since that time. See http://dmoz.org/rdf/tags.html for latest status [Currently "RDFs NOT pushed"]. There are several other threads currently open with further information on this topic.

Re: adding to topic >> Your submission has been redirected to the misplaced submissions folder << ... where someone will look at it within a very few days, and direct it to the correct category. No need to resubmit.

Re: Multiple Listings in sorted order Is there any merit in having the list that is currently sorted in numeric order by the number of published listings, to be also made available as a straight alphabetical sort by domain, ignoring (but still quoting) the numbers? I can think of a few uses for that, looking for similar domain names, but where one may be listed 10 times and the other some other number of times which currently makes it harder to find.

I can't see a Galleries category under http://dmoz.org/Games/Miniatures/ There is no such category: http://dmoz.org/Games/Miniatures/Galleries

Accounts timeout if you do not log in and edit within a month of approval. You will need to use the reinstate form to get the account reactivated. Make reference back to this thread in the notes part of that form. Only a META editor can action your request.