Chainsaw=1 (Confused on ODP Policy)

I'm confused on an issue. It seems to me that there's something very unfavorable going on in the ODP and maybe someone here can help me out. Before I start, please be aware that I have read the submission policy - especially pertaining to this:

"Affiliate links are links to a commercial site that usually, but not always, include an affiliate or referral ID in the URL, such as AffiliateID=19555&ProductID=508. The person whose ID is in the link gets a commission from anyone who buys from the site after following that link. A site that lists affiliate links in addition to other content (such as a fan site for a singer that has interviews and photos and links to buy the singer's CDs) might be an acceptable submission to the directory. Sites that consist primarily of links to buy books or CDs, etc. and/or provide no unique content are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory."

I'm assuming that every time I submit a page to the directory and the "chainsaw" comes is because the editor in question is considering my site to be an affiliate farm.

My site is a movie database (similar to the IMDb, but it has the added ability to work with soundtrack information that the IMDb doesn't really handle). So far there are 120K+ celebrities listed and 11k+ movies listed. It's a new site, so content for various things may be lacking (i.e. There may not be reviews or links for certain movies, but as a community based site, that would change if people were actually allowed to find the site...)

So far, I've seen no indication that I've been accepted, nor rejected (I might have missed the rejection in my old logs) for my submission to the /Movies/Databases/ category.

I've also submitted a couple of specific areas of my site to the ODP for consideration and that is where I'm seeing the chainsaw coming. Here's where my question is. I can possibly understand having my submission for "Spider Man" and "Star Wars" rejected because of the "unique contribution" part of the statement above. It still rather cranks my stones, though. Just because there are 74 other sites, there's only SO MUCH information that exists. I find it hard to believe that each of the other sites listed has something (anything) completely unique that none other possess.

And so, I recently added information on the new USA Network TV series "The Dead Zone". I communicated with the folks at the official site and they sent me some information (I had the episode listing posted on my site two weeks before they did). I put up the information. My site also contains filmographies and considerably more information about the actors from the series than the official site.

In the Dead Zone TV Series category, there are currently two listings The Official Site and one more listing (which contains very old material and has nowhere near the content of my site - to make things worse, the other site is OWNED by the affiliate company that my site links to - not only do they have affiliate links, but they are the very marketing arm of the company that I suspect is making my site a taboo).

And so, when I see the chainsaw coming in for that specific page, it gives me pause. Any ideas on just how one might add more informational content than already exists? Should I just give up and consider that a database that generates about 1 million pages of information is utterly useless and of no possible interest to the internet community?

G.

I glanced at the site in your profile (that's the one, right?) and it looks like you have some unique content, albeit with a lot of affiliate links. On my 800x600 screen, the first thing I see after your nameplate is a huge Amazon.com box, and speaking solely as a visitor that doesn't make me want to proceed to the rest of the site.

The affiliate link guidelines are there because we get a number of submissions that really are affiliate farms - thus, one of the questions editors often ask themselves is "Would this page be here if not for the affiliate links?"

Generally, deeplinks to sites are the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps if you just submit the pages you know already have content, you might have more success.

Good luck! /images/icons/smile.gif

When an editor is reviewing a site, s/he is not as interested in affiliate content as much as unique content. That is, what does your site offer that can be found nowhere else on the web.

The main page of your site, http://www.rock-n-reel.com, is still waiting to be listed in Arts/Movies. The deeplinks are a different matter. I took a look at several of your deeplinks, most notably the pages for Star Wars and Star Wars, Episode II, and in both cases I didn't see anything on either page that would justify deeplinking. The plot outlines and reviews are not unique to your site, therefore there is not unique content that would justify deeplinking.

Thanks for the tip on the double sized banner up top. I'll remove it and give it another try? I can say for sure that the site in question (yes, you were at the right one) has more information than any (including the official site) on the web. Worth it, or not?

"Generally, deeplinks to sites are the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps if you just submit the pages you know already have content, you might have more success."

Heh, I can't even seem to get the front page listed.

Cool on the Star Wars, etc. I guessed that might be the case in my original post.

G.

Remember that we're looking for unique content more than anything else. I get the feeling that you're looking to make this site into one where the internet community could post comments/reviews/etc on individual films, a la epinions.com. Once that happens, you would definately be eligible for deeplinking (do a search for epinions, and you'll see what I mean). Best of luck. /images/icons/smile.gif

I can't see what's not unique in a site that is the only place you can get current information and current cast information in one place.

Oh well, I'll give up on the topic. Would be nice if my main page could get listed though - at least that way maybe I COULD actually get the whole "community effort" thing going.

Thanks for the info, apeuro. I'll try back in a year or two.

G.

One quick note on the "chainsaw=1", which I suspect you're seeing in your logs. This is a parameter that is passed to the internal program where we edit sites. It simply tells the program that we want a big, long list of sites to edit all at once. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the essence. Most sites that I visit will have that in their referrer logs no matter what I do or think about the site, because I have a DSL connection and can handle long lists.

Would be nice if my main page could get listed though.

Grumpus, don't get me wrong. The site, as a whole, is more than qualified to be listed. It's simply waiting to be reviewed. My remarks are limited to listing deeplinks of the site in question.

Seeker - Thanks for the info there. I was pretty sure that the Chainsaw was a rejection. Interesting to know.


apeuro - What are the odds of a site going more than 3.5 months without being reviews? I first submitted my main page back in mid February. I resubmitted it sometime in April. I even wrote to one of the editors in the category above it and got no response. Is it likely that it would continue to be in limbo for another string of months?

G.

Is it likely that it would continue to be in limbo for another string of months?

It is. I don't know what specific deeplinks you submitted, so I can't comment on that. But your main page is still waiting to be reviewed.

>>What are the odds of a site going more than 3.5 months without being reviews?<<

Pretty good.

>>What are the odds of a site going more than 3.5 months >>without being reviews?<<

>>Pretty good.<<

Yikes.

/images/icons/blush.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>What are the odds of a site going more than 3.5 months without being reviews?<p><hr></blockquote>Waiting time before review varies immensely from category to category. Sites about boardgaming in Norwegian language will usually be reviewed in a day or less, because that's my favourite hobby (besides ODP editing /images/icons/smile.gif ). At the other end of the scale: Some time ago, I went through a few of the smallest country categories in Regional, reviewing all the waiting sites and doing some searching to add more sites. Some of those unrevieweds had been waiting for two years. /images/icons/frown.gif

Regards, Hilde

"chainsaw" is merely the mode in which the unreviewed sites are shown: "chainsaw=1" is called "Power Edit" internally (and allows you to select several sites to handle all at once.), "chainsaw=2" is called "Super Edit" (and allows you to see unreviewed sites in subcategories all at once.)

Some editors (like me) simply prefer the "Power Edit" screen, whether for listing, moving, or rejecting sites. It is certainly NOT exclusively for rejecting affiliate sites -- in fact, it is NOT even particularly useful for that. (You've got to look at each site individually to see whether it's affiliate spam anyway.) It IS particularly useful if you expect to see several duplicate submissions (you can whack them all at once) or if you expect to see several sites that were mis-submitted (as in an Arts category that gets lots of commercial submissions that should have gone to a related Shopping category.)

"Power edit unreviewed" was generated for you all (you know who you are!) who submit your site every week to categories with large backlogs, until it shows up (at Hotbot.com!). We used to curse and curse and curse while we deleted all the duplicates one by one. Now we just click and sneer.

By the way, if you were wondering what good it does to keep re-submitting a site like that, well, it helps motivate ODP staff to give editors more flexible tools.

UPDATE:

This morning I saw another DMOZ editor hit in the logs and went to check. One of my deep linked pages was approved! Still waiting for the front page to come up, but at least now I know that my site (that took nearly 1000 hours in pure development, not to mention the hours I've spent adding 150K+ database entries) isn't deemed as utter garbage! WooHoo!

Thanks to all of you here in helping me in my understanding of the way things work over there at the DMOZ. You folks have been very helpful. If I'd found this site two months ago, my Alka-Seltzer habit wouldn't have gotten as out of hand as it has. /images/icons/wink.gif

Thanks again!
G.