http://bee-gees.info/

SHOCKED and OFFENDED!!!!

Very pleasant intelligent exchanges were being had for weeks with editors about http://bee-gees.info/

The logistics of acceptance is how it began - then evolved to possible recommendations in policy changes...

The Topic was almost of historical importance.

A tempermental editor - rearranged one of the posts and locked the topic.

"From our guidelines: Rejected, and not likely to be accepted anywhere" is a reasonable status.

You have been given the reason why your site has been rejected. Arguing about it is not going change the decision for the time being. Editors have taken their time to explain what is considered unique content.

Once you do add unique content to your site, feel free to resubmit and ask for a status update here.

Meta Editor: apeuro
http://dmoz.org/profiles/apeuro.html "

Edited offensive comments. Please read the Forum Guidelines


We So-o wanted to end our discussions with all of you by THANKING you lovingly for a very very compelling and arousing exchange...

I hope this topic will be of historical value to webmasters and SEO's for many years...

And, perhaps be a catalyst for some changes in policy and perception.


<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />


As suggested by beebware, please read the Forum Guidelines. Further offensive comments will not be accepted and may lead to the removal of your Forum posting privileges. This is an official warning.

Looking at the thread in question I can see no noticeable changes in that thread (apart from the addition of your post and apeuro's) since dfys on the 24/01/03 05:23pm.

Define "historical importance". Personally, I saw it more as a disgruntled webmaster constantly complaining that their unique content-lacking website would be be listed as per our guidelines. Apart from your suggestion that third party news feeds (ie Moreover) be "re-assessed as valid content" (which it isn't in my eyes and many other editors) there was no suggestion of changes of policy.

apeuro is a meta editor and, hence, is one of the "more respected" editors of the ODP. I have always found his posts and comments polite and informative. We do not remove editors for restating facts. You were told that your site was rejected and the reasons for it being rejected. You were also told that once your site has unique content that it may then be worth listing. These points (whilst summarised briefly and politely by apeuro at the end) had been already made many times in that thread and yet you seemed "unable" to grasp the idea of "unique content" being something that you produced (a copied article from the BBC - whether with or without there permission, a discography that can be already be downloaded from multiple sites, and news feeds provided by a third party do NOT count as content you uniquely produced).

Again, totally from my viewpoint, you did appear to be the one that was being aggressive to fellow posters in that thread (accusing them of personality defects, making unpleasant remarks, ) and accused many editors of not actual understanding the situation. A site is either listable or not listable under our guidelines. Your site does not fit the site selection criteria of our guidelines and therefore is not listable. There isn't much _to_ understand. You did refer that your site is still growing (I believe the proper terminology is "still under construction" - and we don't list that sort of site), but we can only judge a site on the content it has _currently_ - we do not pretend to be able to see into the future and be able to accurately go "Yes, the webmaster will add X Y and Z content on that date as they promised": I've recently come across sites which have still said "Launching in September 2001"!

Your thread was closed as, in the eyes of the forum's administrators, it was no longer serving any useful purpose (the same information being repeated several times) and it should have been perceived that, for now, that topic of conversation is at an end.

For reference, I'll quote set parts of this forums guidelines:

In particular, the following topics may not be discussed.
... Complaints about specific people working or volunteering their time at ODP.
Discussion of the ways in which ODP runs itself

General codes of conduct
Please remember that you are expected to be courteous and polite in all your communications. Flames, slanderous/offensive comments and advertising is strictly forbidden

Click to expand...

I would personally advise a re-reading of the form guidelines before any further posting takes place.

I am sorry that I waited so long to respond to your comment,
I was away for a while with urgent matters.

As most have gathered, Several of us involved in this website are posting to this forum under "111", and it was I who posted the remark - so everyone else laid off.


I do not need any official public warnings about
losing posting privileges - that was rude and confrontational.

I was unforgiving about the re arrangment of the posts
(putting an older reply as last - that was originally made earlier) and that newly added "bolding" to the post - and I am STILL angry and still think about that.

"Historical significance" - means that passionate arguments that may be the catalyst for changing standards in Dmoz.

I saw the exchanges as "real" people communicating passionately. That is the ONLY way I communicate!


"Original Content" was a different effort and undertaking
when Dmoz proposed that standard - then it is now!!!

(the discography with the International chart history Is one of the most extensive available about the group and is about as unique as any one that already exists anywhere)




I HAD read the guidlines - I was and am shocked and angry and make NO apologies for my responses.



If others from my group want to post they can - but after that remark from that previous editor before you - "I" will remove "myself" volunterily from your forum forever.


No one forced ANY one to continue writing to me ( I only wrote to respond as the topic grew )- I TRULY
enjoyed those responses and exchanges - they were Human and unaffected - we were communicating from the heart.

When I saw the three stars the topic received and the one star this one received, and how rarely stars are given out - I concluded that these exchanges were as
arousing to others as they were to me.

I sorry that it has to end this way - but at least on MY
end this is GOODBYE! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

The problem 111 is that you just aren't getting the point. Perhaps if I put it another way, you will. There are rules that specify in what an editor may not consider when refusing to list a site. Most notably that the editor cannot act out of self-interest (refusing to list competitors sites) or personal bias (such as a left winger refusing to list a site with Libertarian Party views). However, beyond that it is pretty much up to the editor. In your case, the issue seems to inadequate material and original content. What an editor decides that level is basically is subjective. I just looked at you site. Likely if I were the editor I would have given it the thumbs down with an editor note such as "submediocre and trivial". I've used that reasoning for sites before, and would have with yours. The problem is simply your site is too lightweight to add to the ODP. When you were told that, rather than whine you should have worked on Bee Gees material and FTPed it up to the web server rather than argue.

You should consider baseball. If a pitcher doesn't like what the ump thinks is the strike zone, much better to alter your pitching than try arguing with the umpire over balls and strikes. Basically, that is what you are doing.