Are redirects to an eBay store allowed?

I didn't think so...
Top: Shopping: Sports: Memorabilia: Autographs
Take a look at: image-sports.com

Thanks for catching that.

Not a problem...

While I'm at it, there are other "issues" with that catagory. To be truthful, I've applied for inclusion and also as an Editor to that catagory and have been turned down so I didn't want this to sound like "sour grapes". It's not!

Care to hear my other suggestions?

If you're going to make helpful suggestions, I'm going to say "thanks"--and not inquire too closely into your motivations or state of mind. (Which is, I think, at least partly fair.)

Fair enough...
Let me start with this then and see if you concur with my thoughts and that I'm being helpful and fair.

The Autograph Hut
Mark's Signing Bonus
Signed Sports Cards
The Steeler Chief's Locker Room

OK, all good sites, but have absolutely nothing to o with selling autographs. These sites are for telling about sending sports cards through the mail (TTM) to get autographed. The site owners are telling people of their personal success, where they sent the cards, how long it took to receive them back, etc. All really good stuff, I collect TTM also, however these sites are better suited for this category:
Recreation: Collecting: Autographs

Do you agree?

Actually, to prove that my intentions are for the betterment of the category, I've taken my website out of my profile and after 3 attempts at Editor status I have no intention to make a run at 4.
Now no one can accuse me of having ulterior motives.

So hutcheson, what happened?
No like?

I would never presume to speak for Hutcheson (I have an insufficient vocabulary), however, since he is not he only senior editor who looks at requests such as these, you might wish to put future requests here.

spectregunner said:

I would never presume to speak for Hutcheson (I have an insufficient vocabulary), however, since he is not he only senior editor who looks at requests such as these, you might wish to put future requests here.

Click to expand...

Will do...

In hindsight, I guess I do understand hutcheson's position in not wanting to reply publicly to my suggestions. It would, in some sense, be an unfair "blind side" shot at an editor and his category.
Hopefully my attempts to show where this category could/should be cleaned up will not fall on "deaf ears" and will alert a meta editor to just maybe take a closer look at the stagnation that has become all but evident to me.

Would I like my site listed there? YES!
Where my intentions 100% pure? NO! (90% pure anyway)

I do understand the definition of volunteer, and respect the editors' role in each and every category, however, there really has been a bit of complacency in this particular category.

Thank you for your attention, this has allowed me to respectfully speak my mind. I never said DMOZ editors where corrupt, nor would I ever insinuate that is the case. The benefit of a public forum is the opportunity to be heard and it is up you (the editors) which information should be deemed credible and which should be deemed as dribble.

Thanks again, and enough said on the subject!

Rather than starting a entire new thread, and being as though this falls along the same lines, I have a question.
Is it OK for a webmaster to have a one page website that describes what they do and upon clicking on a "Enter Store" hyperlink it takes you to an eBay store?
Just wondering, is that considered acceptable or adhering to the ODP guidelines?

The only unique content is on eBay (or might better be on eBay.)

You can figure on the ODP not rewarding website arrangements that are deliberately made suboptimal for the surfer.

And ... you can probably figure on the ODP not trying to duplicate what someone else is doing better (such as classified ads, which eBay does extremely well.)

Indulged me for a moment, maybe you could shed some light on my confusion.

I don’t quite understand the confliction of terms that I sometimes read here in the forums. I’m not a frequent poster; however I have been monitoring these forums for quite some time now and have been following my specific category in the ODP for approximately 2 1/2 years. There seems to be a couple of unified themes that resonate over and over again that I just can’t seem to wrap my head around.

First, the question of “why don’t you list my site” is asked to the point of ad nauseam around here and seems to spark the same replies over and over again by the editors, moderators, and metas. The response seems to always be one of two common answers, “we just haven’t gotten to it” or “we’re looking for unique content”.

Let’s start with “we’re looking for unique content”, this is one of the most puzzling responses to me. Define unique and where the standard was set. I see plenty of websites that appear to have been listed ages ago and the content hasn’t changed since the advent of the internet. Who set the bar, and why does it seem to be set so low? I can give many examples of websites that haven’t been updated in years, as a matter of fact, one in particular that hasn’t registered an update since 2001. What is unique about content that is almost six years old? If a website was added in the infancy of the ODP does that make its content more relevant or unique than a webmaster that continually updates and modifies his/her site? As to the “uniqueness” of a site, is a site that has a one page entry that explains what they do and a hyperlink to an eBay store unique? Again, many examples of this can be found. Am I wrong in assuming that having the privilege to be listed in the ODP should come with the responsibility of some sort of routine updates? Are we, as webmasters, who strive to be included in the ODP, asking too much to expect that the sites that are presently listed be a “base line” of what we should strive achieve. I guess that it could be argued that a webmaster that doesn’t update his/her site is doomed to fail and the point is moot, however there are many examples of the sites which I describe that still seem to linger around.

Now, “we just haven’t gotten to it” is probably a little more personal to me, I will try to remain objective. Many years ago, before I even owned my own ecommerce site, I applied to be an editor in a category that in hindsight was way too large for me to handle. My false pride prevented me from reapplying until more recently. I truly did have the desire to help and make a better directory and felt after many years as a collector could offer some real input into the category. After monitoring the ODP for a while and not really seeing a change in a category I felt it was time to reapply. Difference this time was I did have a vested interest in the section. OK, I’ll reapply! The response, (paraphrasing) “category to large for a novice editor, pick something smaller (under 50 listings) and reapply”. Mind you this category had 74 entries at the time. OK, I pick a category with 36 entries and reapply! Again, (paraphrasing) “sorry but that category is well covered, thanks for applying”. If it was so well covered why are there so many mis-categorizations, one page entries to eBay shops and blatant mistakes? I ask again, is it too much to ask that we hold editors to a higher standard if they wish to continue to edit in a category? Once every four months in a category with only 34 entries and still has glaring errors? That’s well covered? If it's an issue of not enough time for that paticular editor, then assign a co-editor to aid in updating, no?

Thanks for taking the time to read this long winded post, I sometimes get more passionate than I should on certain topics and need the “soap box” pulled out from under my feet.

CAVEAT: I only closely monitor 2 or 3 specific categories and reserve these comments for those categories!

Let’s start with “we’re looking for unique content”, this is one of the most puzzling responses to me. Define unique and where the standard was set.

Click to expand...

The definition of "unique content" varies slightly among various categories.

I see plenty of websites that appear to have been listed ages ago and the content hasn’t changed since the advent of the internet. Who set the bar, and why does it seem to be set so low? I can give many examples of websites that haven’t been updated in years, as a matter of fact, one in particular that hasn’t registered an update since 2001. What is unique about content that is almost six years old?

Click to expand...

It may be that the site was sufficiently listable when it was listed have the time to rereview existing sites to determine if they are still listable because we are busy with other things.

Mind you this category had 74 entries at the time. OK, I pick a category with 36 entries and reapply! Again, (paraphrasing) “sorry but that category is well covered, thanks for applying”. If it was so well covered why are there so many mis-categorizations, one page entries to eBay shops and blatant mistakes? I ask again, is it too much to ask that we hold editors to a higher standard if they wish to continue to edit in a category? Once every four months in a category with only 34 entries and still has glaring errors? That’s well covered? If it's an issue of not enough time for that paticular editor, then assign a co-editor to aid in updating, no?

Click to expand...

The "sorry but that category is well covered" message that you got was in all likelihood the one that says that you have applied for a category that is already under control or is too broad for a new editor. The "too broad" part is usually the pertinent part. It can either mean the category is too large or, more likely, that it is at too high a level. For example, someone applying to a state-level Business and Economy category in Regional might get that reply because few sites would be appropriate for that high/broad a category. Very rarely does anyone ever get rejected because the category is already being taken care of.

>I see plenty of websites that appear to have been listed ages ago and the content hasn’t changed since the advent of the internet.

Yes.

>Who set the bar, and why does it seem to be set so low?

The other sites on the web at the time defined the bar. Unless you were very active as a surfer then, it's hard to realize how much the bar has risen. Sites like encyclopedia.com were exhaustively deeplinked at the time, but I can't imagine ANY category today where an encyclopedia.com entry would add value. (To say nothing else, Wikipedia blows it away, all across the board. And that's just one site!)

Editors have gone back and removed some sites that no longer add value to the categories they're listed in. But, like anything else we do, that's done on a volunteer basis and volunteer schedule: people deciding what's most important for them to do today.

And we ought to be slightly cautious about removing sites that someone else thought were worth listing. So there are sites that wouldn't be listed today, and yet wouldn't be removed if they were already listed.

As an aside, "date since last updated" is generally NOT a criterion. Gilgamesh, the Old Testament, the Domesday book, the poetry of John Milton or Prudentius Aurelius or Homer or Ephraem the Syrian, the Annals of the Cakquichels, the Norse sagas (and pre-twentieth-century translations of them) are the kind of unique content that is still of an intensely practical interest (this is not a random list, BTW).

The definition of "unique content" varies slightly among various categories.

Click to expand...

Slightly? I have to say that is a understatement in my humble opinion

It may be that the site was sufficiently listable when it was listed have the time to rereview existing sites to determine if they are still listable because we are busy with other things.

Click to expand...

But, like anything else we do, that's done on a volunteer basis and volunteer schedule: people deciding what's most important for them to do today.

Click to expand...

Both of these statements beg for the question...Why not recruit more help? I don't quite understand the "we're donig the best we can, remember the ODP is made up of volunteer editors" mentality when I know there are people will to aid and assist. Sure, there are people that have their own agendas, but you certainly can't tell me there are no "good" people that don't truly want to help?

And we ought to be slightly cautious about removing sites that someone else thought were worth listing. So there are sites that wouldn't be listed today, and yet wouldn't be removed if they were already listed.

Click to expand...

Actually, of the many examples that I have, only a very small percentage would I even consider removing completely. Most of the errors I would deem as mis-categorizations. Of those that I would consider for removal are blatant disregards for ODP guidelines and policy. I'm not trying to say that you need to reinvent the wheel, maybe just retread the tire.

Very rarely does anyone ever get rejected because the category is already being taken care of.

Click to expand...

If you have access to editor applications take a look for yourself. I'm certainly not saying that I didn't interject my own influxes, but I really don't think so!

Slightly? I have to say that is a understatement in my humble opinion

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about sites that perhaps don't meet current guidelines. I'm talking about the fact that what makes a site listable in, say, Regional isn't the same as what makes a site listable in, say, Shopping.

Both of these statements beg for the question...Why not recruit more help?

Click to expand...

There are "volunteer to edit this category" notices at the bottom of every category that doesn't have a listed editor.

I don't quite understand the "we're donig the best we can, remember the ODP is made up of volunteer editors" mentality when I know there are people will to aid and assist.

Click to expand...

We're volunteers and we choose how much or how little time we spend doing ODP-related tasks. Tasks aren't assigned, they are sought. If no one chooses to spend their time editing in any given category, then that category doesn't get edited.

Sure, there are people that have their own agendas, but you certainly can't tell me there are no "good" people that don't truly want to help?

Click to expand...

Good people apply and are accepted regularly.

Actually, of the many examples that I have, only a very small percentage would I even consider removing completely. Most of the errors I would deem as mis-categorizations. Of those that I would consider for removal are blatant disregards for ODP guidelines and policy. I'm not trying to say that you need to reinvent the wheel, maybe just retread the tire.

Click to expand...

Feel free to report them in the thread stickied at the top of the Quality Control Feedback forum.

As an aside, "date since last updated" is generally NOT a criterion. Gilgamesh, the Old Testament, the Domesday book, the poetry of John Milton or Prudentius Aurelius or Homer or Ephraem the Syrian, the Annals of the Cakquichels, the Norse sagas (and pre-twentieth-century translations of them) are the kind of unique content that is still of an intensely practical interest (this is not a random list, BTW).

Click to expand...

This is not some timeless work of art that I speak of...
It's a 17 year old kid whose site got listed in a Shopping category that basically uses the site as a blog for TTM autograph signings and hasn't had an entry since sometime in 2001.

There are "volunteer to edit this category" notices at the bottom of every category that doesn't have a listed editor.

Click to expand...

I've tried, I'm obviously not an acceptable canidate, which is OK. I just hope someone will come along that will be and take some sort of interest in the category.

Feel free to report them in the thread stickied at the top of the Quality Control Feedback forum.

Click to expand...

There's an editor in the category, I'm sure when he sees fit to "seek a task", he'll find it! If not, as you say "then that category doesn't get edited".

Off Topic: motsa what is that avatar? It's making me crazy trying to figure it out.

Off Topic: motsa what is that avatar? It's making me crazy trying to figure it out.

Click to expand...

There's this lady in a red dress that's just a little bit upset with the guy she's standing in front of.

Yeah, sorry, it's a bit small, isn't it.

That would of been my guess, but for some reeason I just didn't want to believe it!