Explanation of the guidelines

R

richalp

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
32
http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6435

Request Status for www.resumes2work.com on DMOZ,

specifically to Huchenson, the Meta Administrator.

Leaving me open ended with a statement like: "It is not even eligible for listing." and then closing the thread doesn't help either of us.

I have read and re-read the guidelines and those criteria specifically declared as making a site ineligible for listing do not apply to our site. Or maybe I am missing something. Do you have any specific complaints about our site? We would love to be directed to those criteria you think we violate.

Thank you
 
spectregunner

spectregunner

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
8,768
While your frustration is understandable (sort of), what we do understand is that the forum rules have been changed to prohibit exactly the kind of discussion you want to have.

The priomary purpose of this forum is to provide a status of submission, not to analyze websites or get into complex discussions as you exactly why a site does not meet our submission guidelines.

I call your attention to the last four items in the forum guidelines (particular the third point I've quoted), that you presumably read. To wit:

Keep in mind that editors cannot reveal certain information due to confidentiality issues mentioned in the ODP Editor Guidelines.

# If your site has been rejected, please keep in mind that arguing about the editorial decision will not be tolerated. Please note that at the bottom of the "add URL" screen it says "Netscape and the ODP have unfettered editorial discretion to determine the structure and content of the directory" and "a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time"

This forum is not intended for site analysis or spam accusations. Please avoid discussing any aspect of the site except its submission status. "Rejected and not likely to be accepted anywhere" is a reasonable status.

We understand that editors and other members are often trying to be helpful, but in our experience discussions about site design or spam detection often take a hostile turn. So, please, send constructive criticism about site design and contents directly to the submitter via e-mail or private messages; please send information on suspected spammish or abusive listings to the meta-editors.
 
spectregunner

spectregunner

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
8,768
What makes you believe that your status could have changed?

Have you made wholesale changes to the site in order to become guidelines compliant?

Have you resubmitted? If so, where?
 
thehelper

thehelper

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Messages
4,996
Unfortunately I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleagues about the status of the site but it has not been rejected. The submission is currently awaiting review in

http://dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Media_Production/Resumes_and_Portfolios/

Now, whether or not the site is eligible for a listing, I don't know. I trust hutcheson if he said it is not listable. However, currently the site is still awaiting review in the category I mentioned. Whether or not it ever gets listed is a different story.
 
Alucard

Alucard

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
5,920
There is a submission dated 14/Aug/2003 awaiting review in category http://dmoz.org/Business/Employment/Job_Search

A submission dated 21/Jan/2004 to category Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Weblogs/Tools was moved by an editor to category http://dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Media_Production/Resumes_and_Portfolios where it also awaits review.

The reason your last thread was closed was because of the nature and tone of your enquiries. The purpose of this forum is not to debate anything, but to enquire the status of submissions. I suggest that we all confine ourselves to that scope in this new thread.

Thanks.
 
djdeeds

djdeeds

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
5,800
Multiple suggestions for this url have been received. Duplicates have been removed (causing delays in which editors could be listing sites), leaving at least one for review, including one dated Aug 2004 in the category you cite. No need to submit further. Thanks.
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top