Confused about rejection...

Described in the submittal policy.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the site itself...

I understand that you want to find out some information specific to your sites but we have chosen not to permit site reviews (or status checks) in this forum. pvgool has already gone a step or two beyond where he should have.

I tried to stay just within the boundaries.
Giving just a few usefull hints.
If even that is not allowed in R-Z than it has no use for me anymore. And IMHO it than also has no use for any non-editor. We realy should try to give some usefull information.

Useful tips and hints shouldn't require actually going to the member's sites and telling them here whether you think they're listable. You've seen that giving the little bit you gave just prompted a request for more detail, right? That is why we don't offer specific site reviews.

I feel your pain, pvgool, I'd like to be more helpful too, but, I'm afraid motsa is right, one answer just leads to more dang questions that we can't answer, as the receiver is never satisified. It's tough to know where to draw the line, . We're a curious bunch.

Cool avatar, motsa, .

> We're a curious bunch.
Ofcourse we are, we are DMOZ editors.
:embar: :angel:

pvgool said:

We realy should try to give some usefull information.

Click to expand...

It seems like all you guys can say is "read the guidelines". I can do that without someone telling me, and already did. I came to the forum to hopefully get someone to tell me, more specifically, which guideline I was in violation of. Thats all I really was looking to find out.

Pvgool - you have really been the closest to the answers I was looking for and I appreciate that.

I came to the forum to hopefully get someone to tell me, more specifically, which guideline I was in violation of.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that requires someone to actually (a) have a look at your site and (b) check on its review status. Both things are things we no longer do here. I think you'll find you've been given more information here than you realize.

The reason for that is that the Guidelines we suggest you read are the same Guidelines we edit by, so the answers are in there. Anything more than that is doing a site review for you specifically, and we don't do that.

You're asking us to review your sites, and then tell you how to get around our Guidelines in order to get them listed.

Assuming that you're an honest, decent fellow with no intention of trying to spam the directory with multiple sites for your own personal benefit or the type of junk sites we don't list at all, I'm afraid there are others who are not quite so honestly intentioned, and they read these forums also.

Most site suggestions are happily listed, if they meet our qualifications for being listed, accept in certain spam ridden areas of the Directory that we refer to as spam magnets, where it takes us more time to ferret them out.

Getting listed in these areas takes much longer (which is the fault of the dishonest spammers, not the editors). It is a matter of quality control, not only for our websurfers looking for relevant information, but, also for the honest site suggesters like I'm assuming you are. Would you want your site suggestion buried in junk? (I think not)

So, it's not that we don't want to be more helpful, it's because we can't be more helpful for certain reasons. Thank your fellow site suggesters who are less than honest for that, but, don't blame the editors.

crowbar said:

So, it's not that we don't want to be more helpful, it's because we can't be more helpful for certain reasons. Thank your fellow site suggesters who are less than honest for that, but, don't blame the editors.

Click to expand...

That leads me to question the purpose of the forum. I run a forum for a specific type of vehicle, and if I ran it the same way, anytime someone posted a question asking for "carburetor help", all anyone could do is say "read about carburetors".

I just don't see the point.

That is because you have your point of view and we have ours. The Quality Control thread we have in the other forum is useful enough to make all these forums viable - imho.

tmnoonan said:

That leads me to question the purpose of the forum. I run a forum for a specific type of vehicle, and if I ran it the same way, anytime someone posted a question asking for "carburetor help", all anyone could do is say "read about carburetors".

I just don't see the point.

Click to expand...

And, for 8 years, I ran a forum for professionals in my industry (I'm just a visitor in this one), and we were happy to share all of our personal knowledge and experiences, as small businessmen, with each other.

In this particular forum, we try to represent the editing community itself, I think, and there are certain topics we can discuss, and others that we can't(for security reasons), and others (like site status), that we won't because we tried it, it doesn't work, and it wasted a lot of our time and only led to "Why not?" arguments between questioner and editor. (leaving both frustrated and unsatisfied).

The questions we can and will answer are posted in our Posting Guidelines:
http://www.resource-zone.com/guidelines.php

I understand your frustration, but, the answers to what you want might be even more frustrating, .

hutcheson said:

There isn't a reason for REJECTION of a site. There are only -- actions and inaction.

Click to expand...

I think Hutcheson said the main point. Editors are looking for unique information and have many different ways to find sites for consideration. Editing is not about rejecting sites, it's about being interested enough to take the time to review and list sites. And the more an editor edits, the better feel they get for different types of sites and whether or not they are likely to be worth the time to review.

For example, I do a lot of mining and searching for links for Regional and constantly come across websites for Real Estate agents that aren't in the ODP yet. Yes, they are a type of site the ODP lists. Yes, they often have unique information. And yes, they can be useful in a locality category. But quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of them. I've seen all sorts of template site variations. I've seen umpteen versions of cobbled together financial tools and MLS links. And I've seen far too many where the only personal thing about the agent is a badly outdated photograph. I don't even pause as I close those windows and move on to something with better potential. But you can be sure, when I stumble across the (very!) occasional unique real estate agent website, it leaps out at me and I'm practically fumbling my fingers to try to get it listed ASAP.

So ... it's not about a site being listable, it's about whether anyone is interested enough to list it.