how many reviews?

hi,

i'm interested in how many editors have to review a site bevore getting listed. i sbmutted a site 6 weeks ago and two days after submission, an editor reviewed my site (i've seen it in my logs). so i thought 'great, i'll be liested' - but i'm not yet... so, how many editors have to review a site before getting listed?

thx & greets,
blinks

1. It can be reversed, but any editor with the full authority to edit in the topic can list it.

Never assume anything about editor visits in your logs. I often take a quick look at whats waiting to be reviewed to ensure that its in the right category and does not need to be moved somewhere else. If it is in the right place, then I'll come back later and write a description and list it, but later may be an hour later, or a few weeks later. So the log entry could mean the site got moved, or could mean its still waiting. Yes it also could mean it was deleted, but don't assume that.

[It also could mean a lot of other things, but I'm keeping this simple]

Definately, it doesn't mean your site was reviewed. It may have been, but editors can take a look for any number of reasons.

Normally, one review is necessary. But there are many good reasons NOT to list on the first review.

Say, I'm reviewing Classical Orchestras in North America. Here's www.pdso.com, the famous Podunk Symphony Orchestra in Eastern New Jersey. Well, I know it goes in the United_States/New_Jersey subcategory, and I know it's not already there, but do I just list it? NO. I move it to that category unreviewed.

Why? Well, many organizations have a long domain name as well as a short one -- say, podunksymphony.org . I want to check that category for an alias URL before I list this one. But I have several hundred sites to sort out -- I don't want to pop down to the state for each one: I'll move them all down, and then give a quick review/duplicate-check and listing later.

Of course, If I don't _have_ permissions in the correct category, another review will be necessary regardless of what I think.

Since I have editall permissions, I may be able to edit in the category, but still have enough sense not to. (Being firmly monolingual, I avoid editing in World/Russian, even though I can recognize the Cyrillic alphabet and know which category the St. Petersburg Philharmonic goes in.)

We do have a "greenbuster" permission, which allows editors to list and categorize sites, but those sites still have to be reviewed by a "full category editor" before they appear on the public side.

Sorry, have to leave my keyboard for a moment, your site won't get listed just yet -- my daughter just set the dog on fire.
--------------------
This is worth repeating, partly because it illustrates how complex the job of reporting a site's real status is. We don't have an automatic way of doing it, and we may never ... because confidentiality keeps us from telling you, among other things, whose dog is being mistreated, which editor is too busy at work to keep up with the unrevieweds in his category, which editor is on vacation in Podunk without internet access, etc., etc., etc.

Everything that Mssr. Hutcheson just said is spot on.

Another way that your weblogs can inadvertantly mislead you is that they don't know why a given editor visited, but may not have edited.

I have several sites within the broad categories that I am allowed to edit that I have looked at repeatedly, yet have not published them. Why? In some instances the sites appear to be fairly new, have a lot of promise, but have not yet reached critical mass in terms of unique content. These I just keep in unreviewed and peek at them every few weeks in the hopes that they have grown.

Others are just horrid websites. Sites that has so much @!#@$!$ flash that they take forever to load with my cable broadband access that I give up on them and leave them unreviewed. Others are of such a horrid design that I either cannot categorize them or can't find the unique content (but I suspect it is in there someplace).

Some sites "smell funny". There is something uncomfortable about them -- either I have seen them before or something is out of kilter, and those sites are going to stay unreviewed and subject to investigation until such time as the little hairs on the back of my neck no longer stand up. Sounds arbitrary, and it is, but like all editors, I've learned to trust my instincts.

I might even log into a given webiste because I am investigating a different site, and I want to check something out on yours (a price, a product name, a link, etc).

Finally, because I am also allowed to edit within Regional/ I might not be able to positively ascertain that there is a brick-and-mortar presence backing up the website (thus qualifying it for the Regional/ listing) and I am doing the tried and true research of looking in the phone books, looking at related directories, and the like. Why in the world someone with a business, in search of customers, would not put their address on a website is beyond me, but then again, if you could see some of the sites I see on a regular basis, you too would cease to be amazed.

Those are just a few of the reasons why your log will tell you that an editor has visited, but gives no clue as to their intentions.

Hope this helps.

ok,

thanks for your detailed assertions! it raises my hopes

greets,
blinks