M
mibut
Just been looking in dmoz and can't find my site.
www.overseasrealestate.co.uk
Has it been removed and if so why?
www.overseasrealestate.co.uk
Has it been removed and if so why?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,204
While rechecking sites it was moved to http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Classifieds/Homes_-_FSBO where it now waits for an local editor to review it.
M
mibut
As this category has no editor ,any idea when this will be?
M
mibut
Would it not make sense that before moving a site into another category that it is reviewed at that time.
M
mibut
In that case why move.The category it was in was relevent to the site.If not why was it accepted into that category?
totalxsive
Member
A higher ranking editor decided the site was more suitable for the second category.
M
mibut
In that case why was it not reviewed at that time or placed directly into the new category?
>The category it was in was relevent to the site.
From our point of view, it is the site that must be relevant to the category. And that was what was not the case.
In fact, the site is, face it, not so palpably content-rich as to be an obviously valuable addition to _any_ category.
Apparently, at the time the editor felt it was more important to fix the mistake of listing it in the wrong place in the first place, than to do the full analysis of determining whether it should be listed at all, let alone _exactly_ where. (It hardly exhibits a clear, incisive topical focus.)
From our point of view, it is the site that must be relevant to the category. And that was what was not the case.
In fact, the site is, face it, not so palpably content-rich as to be an obviously valuable addition to _any_ category.
Apparently, at the time the editor felt it was more important to fix the mistake of listing it in the wrong place in the first place, than to do the full analysis of determining whether it should be listed at all, let alone _exactly_ where. (It hardly exhibits a clear, incisive topical focus.)
M
mibut
It is a site with real estate for sale from around the world.That is the "clear, incisive topical focus".
"Face it" If that was the case why was it listed when there was even less content.
If you are going to be rude at least learn to use a keyboard.
"Face it" If that was the case why was it listed when there was even less content.
If you are going to be rude at least learn to use a keyboard.
>Why was it listed?
It was a mistake. It was listed under a misapprehension of the nature of the site contents.
And "around the world" is the exact opposite of "focus" -- diffuse rather than targeted.
Now, if a site had that many listings for Podunk, New Jersey, we'd list it in a flash (well, in a Podunk Business category, at any rate). That would be focused content -- and for a small town, two dozen listings could also claim to be "comprehensive." But to be useful, a site needs content commensurate with its breadth. This site clearly doesn't. So, is it worth listing at all? And where could we list it so that people could go to it with any significant chance of finding something useful for them?
Those are the questions that need to be answered. The site is waiting in review, in a category where it has a better chance of being "on topic", for an editor to do the necessary research.
It was a mistake. It was listed under a misapprehension of the nature of the site contents.
And "around the world" is the exact opposite of "focus" -- diffuse rather than targeted.
Now, if a site had that many listings for Podunk, New Jersey, we'd list it in a flash (well, in a Podunk Business category, at any rate). That would be focused content -- and for a small town, two dozen listings could also claim to be "comprehensive." But to be useful, a site needs content commensurate with its breadth. This site clearly doesn't. So, is it worth listing at all? And where could we list it so that people could go to it with any significant chance of finding something useful for them?
Those are the questions that need to be answered. The site is waiting in review, in a category where it has a better chance of being "on topic", for an editor to do the necessary research.
M
mibut
"It was listed under a misapprehension of the nature of the site contents."
The url,title,description and content type have never changed.What did you think the nature of the contents were?
"around the world" is the exact opposite of "focus"
If the target is around the world ,how can that be diffuse.
If people did not find the site useful,could you please tell me why properties listed sell?
Are you saying that when I have a certain number of property listings then i will have a site that you deem worthy?
Are you the editor that removed the site?
Could you give examples of your sites so i can compare and bow to your obviously superior knowledge of what people find useful.
The url,title,description and content type have never changed.What did you think the nature of the contents were?
"around the world" is the exact opposite of "focus"
If the target is around the world ,how can that be diffuse.
If people did not find the site useful,could you please tell me why properties listed sell?
Are you saying that when I have a certain number of property listings then i will have a site that you deem worthy?
Are you the editor that removed the site?
Could you give examples of your sites so i can compare and bow to your obviously superior knowledge of what people find useful.
>The url,title,description and content type have never changed. What did you think the nature of the contents were?
Apparently, because of the category it was submitted to, it was thought to be a site offering the services of a particular real estate agent. Many real estate agents include content about listings on their site (although there is no rule that they have to, it is good business), and many of them submit titles and descriptions similar to yours. It is an understandable error.
>If the target is around the world ,how can that be diffuse.
That's what "diffuse" means -- "no particular place, anywhere"
>If people did not find the site useful,could you please tell me why properties listed sell?
Nobody suggested that a listing on the site could _prevent_ an owner from selling a house.
>Are you saying that when I have a certain number of property listings then i will have a site that you deem worthy?
Yes. That is the definition of "content".
>Are you the editor that removed the site?
It was done by an editor that has more knowledge and experience in that topic than I do.
>Could you give examples of your sites?
Sure, that information is all public knowledge. (Hint: I'm a programmer but not a marathon runner.) But I should warn you that for my own listings I set a benchmark of 5 to 10 times the content that I'd accept from an outside source. It wouldn't be fair to judge your site by that.
You would be better advised to look at the other sites in FSBO categories. Compare their focus and quantity of content with yours. If your site has obviously more than the average number of listings for sites with comparable scope, it is likely to be accepted. If it has no more listings than the smallest listed site, then it is likely to be rejected -- because the other site may have been accepted when it had more listings, or when there were fewer competitive sites.
Apparently, because of the category it was submitted to, it was thought to be a site offering the services of a particular real estate agent. Many real estate agents include content about listings on their site (although there is no rule that they have to, it is good business), and many of them submit titles and descriptions similar to yours. It is an understandable error.
>If the target is around the world ,how can that be diffuse.
That's what "diffuse" means -- "no particular place, anywhere"
>If people did not find the site useful,could you please tell me why properties listed sell?
Nobody suggested that a listing on the site could _prevent_ an owner from selling a house.
>Are you saying that when I have a certain number of property listings then i will have a site that you deem worthy?
Yes. That is the definition of "content".
>Are you the editor that removed the site?
It was done by an editor that has more knowledge and experience in that topic than I do.
>Could you give examples of your sites?
Sure, that information is all public knowledge. (Hint: I'm a programmer but not a marathon runner.) But I should warn you that for my own listings I set a benchmark of 5 to 10 times the content that I'd accept from an outside source. It wouldn't be fair to judge your site by that.
You would be better advised to look at the other sites in FSBO categories. Compare their focus and quantity of content with yours. If your site has obviously more than the average number of listings for sites with comparable scope, it is likely to be accepted. If it has no more listings than the smallest listed site, then it is likely to be rejected -- because the other site may have been accepted when it had more listings, or when there were fewer competitive sites.
M
mibut
"Apparently, because of the category it was submitted to, it was thought to be a site offering the services of a particular real estate agent. "
I repeat again site details always the same- All for sale by owner.
I know what diffuse means,unfortunately if you use it in the wrong context, then, do not try to infer that my use is wrong.
You suggested that because of lack of content then people would not find the site useful.
Define the number of listings required to provide YOUR definition of content.
As you did not remove this site explain your detailed
so-called reasoning for its removal.
I don't wish to compare my site with yours.I would like to see what makes you such an expert.
Don't be ashamed or embarrassed.List an url.
I repeat again site details always the same- All for sale by owner.
I know what diffuse means,unfortunately if you use it in the wrong context, then, do not try to infer that my use is wrong.
You suggested that because of lack of content then people would not find the site useful.
Define the number of listings required to provide YOUR definition of content.
As you did not remove this site explain your detailed
so-called reasoning for its removal.
I don't wish to compare my site with yours.I would like to see what makes you such an expert.
Don't be ashamed or embarrassed.List an url.
M
mibut
Tour A House
Would you say this is in the correct category?
Would you say this is in the correct category?
M
mibut
Real Estate for sale online
would you say the content on this site fits your breadth category
would you say the content on this site fits your breadth category
M
mibut
http://nwrealestate.biz/r/listings.cfm
10 properties actually for sale
10 properties actually for sale
M
mibut
I think in future that before trying to flame someone who asks a simple question, check your own "facts"!!
When deriding other peoples sites and then saying how good
your own are, at least have the common courtesy to post the url so that we can make our minds up.
When deriding other peoples sites and then saying how good
your own are, at least have the common courtesy to post the url so that we can make our minds up.
As hutcheson said "if your site has obviously more than the average number of listings for sites with comparable scope, it is likely to be accepted". On the other hand, pointing out currently listed sites that have less content that yours isn't an argument for listing your site, it's an argument for removing the other site.
I'm sure hutcheson would be happy to have the content level of his sites gone into in detail, but they're not real estate sites. Comparing the level of content on two differently focused sites is not likely to produce any useful observations.
I'm sure hutcheson would be happy to have the content level of his sites gone into in detail, but they're not real estate sites. Comparing the level of content on two differently focused sites is not likely to produce any useful observations.