Category Change

Consupro.net has been listed in the category Computers/Software/Internet/Site_Management/Content_Management/ ... forever.

I have tried at least three times over the past few years to get the category changed to Business/E-Commerce/Technology_Vendors/ as "Content Management" doesn't begin to cover the scope of this site's services.

The description has also evolved along with upgrades in the applications, but despite all efforts, it's still listed the same. A new request was entered approx. 3 months ago. Help?

That request to move the category was reviewed by an editor and declined. Also, previous requests for additional listings in

Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Web_Applications/Databases
Computers/Software/Business/E-Commerce/Business-to-Business
Computers/Software/Business/E-Commerce/Business-to-Business/Application_Service_Providers

were all declined

:confuse2: 'Additional requests' is news - and bad news at that. Recourse?

You've been given a gift. You don't like it as much as you'd have liked some other gift. What recourse do you usually have in such circumstances?

Personally, I would take it back to the store and exchange it for the appropriate gift, which is pretty much what I've been trying to do.

IF refusals to place the the link in the proper category are based on a history of which I have no personal knowledge, however, it seems the only recourse is to keep filling out - or have someone keep filling out - that modify form and wait for the request to be refused again. I can only assume that is the reasoning: history. But, you know what they say about assuming.

Knowing the guidelines, if I were an editor, I might think, "Well, it's been added or requested to be modified or otherwise misplaced before, ergo I should probably just refuse it again, because this request is likely to be no different." Hate to say it, but if I were an unpaid, unappreciated volunteer and had a thousand other sites waiting on me knowing that *someone* had violated the listing guidelines previously, I might be tempted to do just that.

Then again... I might say to myself, "Well, 'someone' in the several-year history of this listing doesn't necessarily make it this particular person who violated the guidelines, so perhaps I will give it the benefit of the doubt and consider that the site may indeed be that of E-Commerce Technology Vendors engaged in developing and servicing online catalog and eprocurement solutions for small businesses rather than web site "content management".

Now... a lot of flotsam has been thrown at ODP editors on this board out of frustration. I see there are even a few here today, but I'm not about to do it myself - frustrated as I am. The ODP has become huge, complicated and important to search engines and end users alike. Its editors' answers to these rants are exactly the same as mine would be: There's a lot on our plates, so kindly remember we're human.

That said, as anyone here who manages the design, hosting, development and/or SEO of multiple sites can attest, it usually takes a team to cover it all. Teams don't always communicate or perform the way they should. Why? They're human, too. Signals are crossed, miscommunication occurs, someone falls down on the job because they've a bad day - whatever. Mistakes happen. The thing to do about that - especially if you're the "I" utimately responsible for it all - is to find those mistakes and see to it they're corrected.

The task will be very difficult if a renewed request doesn't have a snowball's chance out of the gate. But, guess what? It's important to my business to have this site listed properly in DMOZ. So, what do we have to work with here?

Thank you, bobrat, for taking the time to remark on not only the most recent request, but the entire request history. Above and beyond. M'kay. I'll put in another request... and another... and another... PERSONALLY until it's right. Can't say I'm too optimistic at this point, but if no one has any advice to offer on formatting *this* request so that it's not refused out of hand, it's off with me and the crew to attend to the million and one other things on our plates - oh, and this "gift" from DMOZ. Wrong size. Where's the returns counter?

You can submit an "Update URL" request. And yes, editors will often just go with the prior editor's judgment -- for many good reasons. But there's nothing preventing an editor from re-reviewing any site -- except his own judgment as to whether it's worth while.

But ... the bottom line is ... in the end, editors will not ask the webmaster whether the sweater fits. (We don't care if it makes you look fat.) The editors' judgment isn't final -- hardly anything is final -- but nothing but another editors' judgment will overrule it.

At some point, importunity becomes pestilence, and the editors will take actions to discourage it.

I've just taken a look at your website (and ignored its history) As far as I can see, it's already appropriately listed.

I'll put in another request... and another... and another... PERSONALLY until it's right.

Click to expand...

Please don't; it would be just a waste of your time and, more importantly, ours.

Allow me to give you a few thoughts that are of a generic nature (I have not looked at your website and I do not edit in that part of the directory).

Take a critical look at your website (remembering that first impressions count) and ask yourself: what business does the webside say I'm in? This is vastly idfferent than what business you say you are in. Remember, the editor bases his/her evaluation, in its entirety, on the website.

If you are trying to convey that you are in a different industry/segement than what your curent placement indicates, make sure that your website reflects that desire. The editor is not going to dig through 27 pages looking for that information.

If you want to be in the Apples_and_Peaches subcategory, make sure that your website clearly reflects (of the first page if possible) that you are in both businesses. If everything about your business shouts "apples" then no editor is going to move it just because you say you are in both businssses. i rejct updates almost every day where the update claims one set of facts, but the actual website reflects an entirely different matter.

Only try to do one thing with your update request. If you want to change categories, focus the update on that -- tell us where the content is that reflects the change -- and don't try to sneak in a keyword-stuffed description or non-compliant title in the process. We'll likely assume that the cat change is a smokescreen to try and change the other things.

Have someone who has no vested interest in your site tell you (without prompting) where they would put it.

Go back and read the category descriptions and submission guideleins for your current cat and the target cat to be certain that you qualify.

Look a the sites in the target cat with a critical eye and try and determine what makes them fit the category.

Often a site can fit neatly into several categories but can only be listed in one. Once listed, if it fits neatly, it is unlikely to be moved. The only way a move would be allowed, assuming it was not originally misplaced, would be if the content changed direction. If that is the case then it should be explained in the update request. Though in your case, I get the impression it has been checked several times, and rejected several times.

I don't see "content management" as a term prominent on your site though I do see "B2B e-commerce". But as I read more and more on the site it seems more and more a good fit for content management. Better so than the others maybe.

Frankly it doesn't do you any favours to be moved either. At this time you are listed in a good fit category. If moved you would go back into the pool of unreviewed sites, which I can assure you consist of hundreds of sites. Leave well alone!

I'm one of the people who reviewed your request in the past and denied it. As pointed out above, there was scant evidence to support a request for a move while there was plenty to show that the site has an appropriate home now.

Thank you all for your kind attention and excellent advice.

"Content Management" (to those in IT) suggests software produced for the express purpose of updating/maintaining the content of a single web site. These applications are designed for the display of business to business catalogs, online transactions, order management and shipment tracking modules of multiple, mainstream Vendors and Buyers, but is not a "marketplace" in the traditional sense of a Vendor putting up catalogs with just any buyer anywhere placing simple inquiries about the products displayed in their catalogs.

This seems to be the 'sticky point'. Personally, I have limited control over the surrounding content and have done the once over suggested by spectregunner (thank you), making suggestions as to the presentation and deliniation of the differences, etc. At the vendors' request, the main page is a "cut to the chase" kind of leap into the nuts and bolts of getting down to business, with featured links to and directory listings of the vendors themselves: Go to my catalogs, place your orders (inquiries are accepted on unconfirmed orders).... Business. Makes sense. They don't have time for anything else.

Introductions to the service itself seem pretty straightforward - 'Services' outlines the modules and their use, 'Corporate' introduces the service and its benefits to passers by, etc. Everything else surrounds the applications themselves.

Vendors are using it; Buyers are using it. That's the point and that's good. It'd be nice if more new Vendors and Buyers were aware of it, which is something that is happening on a daily basis - word of mouth, SE visits, etc. A listing in DMOZ in the category to which it belongs just might help that along and that's the only reason I'm here - not trying to pull your chains, but get some insight into the reasoning, which I have.

Thanks again. Minor changes to both the site and the request, the request is submitted again. Crossing fingers.

jimnoble said:

Please don't; it would be just a waste of your time and, more importantly, ours.

Click to expand...

Rude--You know, you are a volunteer, if you feel this is a waste of your time then perhaps you should stop volunteering.

I volunteer everyday in my home town. Things happen that waste my time and make more work for me but I do it gladly because there is a need for that position I also don't take it out on those people I'm trying to help.

People on this site Admin/editors/moderators I have noticed many of your additudes are going downhill and you are breaking many of the Guidelines to this forum. Best thing to do is take a break. We will understand but you will come back respected when you have the additude changed.


Now about this subject an EDITOR should never deny a website just because it didn't measure up the first time. It should be reviewed every time a request is made(except for spam). Websites change and become better and worse everyday. Some sites that were not READY before may be now and if you refuse to even look at it because you denied it before then you are doing DMOZ a disservice.

I'll put in another request... and another... and another... PERSONALLY until it's right.

Click to expand...

Please don't; it would be just a waste of your time and, more importantly, ours.

Click to expand...

Rude

Click to expand...

I thought it was a pretty polite response to somebody who'd just declared an intent to spam the directory. It was also factually and helpfully accurate in that it would be a waste of Lori's time.

You know, you are a volunteer, if you feel this is a waste of your time..

Click to expand...

It wouldn't have wasted my time - I never work in that area

It should be reviewed every time a request is made(except for spam).

Click to expand...

Right. And you threatened to spam us until you got your way -- and then you lecture us on manners.

Nice! And people wonder why we sometimes get abrupt and start offering one-word answers.

It is time for this thread to close.

Now about this subject an EDITOR should never deny a website just because it didn't measure up the first time.

Click to expand...

They don't. Many sites have been rejected numerous times and when the circumstances change to a material extent so does the decision. That isn't the case here - minor amendments don't make for material changes.

I have noticed many of your additudes are going downhill

Click to expand...

You should have noticed that submitters who follow all the guidelines on this site and all the submission guidelines are also given straight answers and very often are given constructive feedback on potential problems with their sites too. Where submitters get brusque replies, they know and we know they are usually being economical with the truth somewhere along the line, or have made multiple submissions of spam sites, or committed some other blatent violation of guidelines, but external observors will not know that. And they will ignore the large percentage of posts that give a straightforward report - they're boring aren't they.

Tips to avoid a brusque answer are not to start a thread with an indignant demand to know why their site submitted a month ago hasn't been listed yet, or start by implying editors (or one in particular) are lazy, corrupt, competitors, or a medley of all three and more, or tell us a site was submitted two months ago when it was yesterday, or tell us their site is the unique product of hundreds of hours work when we know it is affiliate content.