1
totalxsive
Member
Haven't we already established that the site is unsuitable for listing?
You were told last month (not to mention in your earlier threads) that the site was rejected, wouldn't be accepted, and that there was no point coming back in a month to check on it again.
So, let's try again. The site is pretty much the same as it was the last time you asked about it therefore the same answer applies here -- rejected, won't be accepted, please don't come back in a month to ask again.
So, let's try again. The site is pretty much the same as it was the last time you asked about it therefore the same answer applies here -- rejected, won't be accepted, please don't come back in a month to ask again.
1
111
Please- Please - Please Motsa - do NOT respond to ANY of my status posts about
.info/]http://[censored].info/
- you are just TOO rude - I just dont NEED that -I do not want to correspond with any nasty people.
The site is NOT the same as it was last month - in fact - I had made a point in my intial post of putting in all the information about the site - however - it was "unfortunatly" edited out by an editor.
I will ask for an update - because I have looked at all the Bee Gees sites and there now exists unique content on mine.
The last editor who RUDELY responded (rejected) did not show anything approaching any valid research or observation.
Again MOTSA - this is not working out between us - please do not respond to any of my posts - your bad manners is not acceptable to me under ANY circumstances.
I tried to wait and calm-down before posting this reply - you can only imagine how ANGRY I was initially upon reading.
P.S.
(You only do yourselves harm when you attack posters - I am now getting a number of emails from total strangers who have read my posts - and your responses - they have been emailing Google and Netscape LITERALLY complaining about the editors attitudes and dispostions and lack of objectiveness)
=================================================
in reference to the other two civil replies - (I will answer you in a civil manner the way this correspondance should have gone):
And haven't we already established that the site is unsuitable for listing?
the site has grown substantially since it was rejected TWO months ago and will continue to grow and will seek to be updated again - not meaning to be rude - NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW WHEN THAT SUBJECTIVE THRESHOLD OF ACCEPTANCE WILL OCCUR AND WHAT WILL BE THE FINAL ADDITION THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH IT.
(The site is now on the first page of Google for "Bee Gees"
We know by our statistics and our emails how the public is responding to this site
We feel that this site will be a very informative and entertaining addition to the DMOZ surfers)
==================================================
From last month:
Since this site has quite a history now, it would help if you could tell us where you think the site has been submitted recently. Then we can check if it's in the queue or not.
there are other options besides the Bee Gees fan pages...
any appropriate listing would be appreciated if the "fan pages" is inappropriate. I certainly would not be adverse to anyone finding any option for the site.
.info/]http://[censored].info/
- you are just TOO rude - I just dont NEED that -I do not want to correspond with any nasty people.
The site is NOT the same as it was last month - in fact - I had made a point in my intial post of putting in all the information about the site - however - it was "unfortunatly" edited out by an editor.
I will ask for an update - because I have looked at all the Bee Gees sites and there now exists unique content on mine.
The last editor who RUDELY responded (rejected) did not show anything approaching any valid research or observation.
Again MOTSA - this is not working out between us - please do not respond to any of my posts - your bad manners is not acceptable to me under ANY circumstances.
I tried to wait and calm-down before posting this reply - you can only imagine how ANGRY I was initially upon reading.
P.S.
(You only do yourselves harm when you attack posters - I am now getting a number of emails from total strangers who have read my posts - and your responses - they have been emailing Google and Netscape LITERALLY complaining about the editors attitudes and dispostions and lack of objectiveness)
=================================================
in reference to the other two civil replies - (I will answer you in a civil manner the way this correspondance should have gone):
And haven't we already established that the site is unsuitable for listing?
the site has grown substantially since it was rejected TWO months ago and will continue to grow and will seek to be updated again - not meaning to be rude - NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW WHEN THAT SUBJECTIVE THRESHOLD OF ACCEPTANCE WILL OCCUR AND WHAT WILL BE THE FINAL ADDITION THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH IT.
(The site is now on the first page of Google for "Bee Gees"
We know by our statistics and our emails how the public is responding to this site
We feel that this site will be a very informative and entertaining addition to the DMOZ surfers)
==================================================
From last month:
Since this site has quite a history now, it would help if you could tell us where you think the site has been submitted recently. Then we can check if it's in the queue or not.
there are other options besides the Bee Gees fan pages...
any appropriate listing would be appreciated if the "fan pages" is inappropriate. I certainly would not be adverse to anyone finding any option for the site.
If you read the guidelines for this forum, you will find
"Please avoid discussing any aspect of the site except its submission status. "Rejected and not likely to be accepted anywhere" is a reasonable status."
The status of your submission is that we have elected not to list it.
We thank you for your inquiry and have responded to it.
"Please avoid discussing any aspect of the site except its submission status. "Rejected and not likely to be accepted anywhere" is a reasonable status."
The status of your submission is that we have elected not to list it.
We thank you for your inquiry and have responded to it.
OK. Just to make sure that we are all being fair to you, I've taken another look at your site to assess the content level. Here's what I find:
1. A 'tribute board'.
This consists of 19 posts spread over 6 months. That's one post every 10 days, not a comprehensive resource.
2. A discography.
This can be ignored. If it's comprehensive, it'll be exactly the same as all the other [censored] discographies that we have listed, and so it will add nothing to the directory. If it's not comprehensive, it's useless.
3. A biography.
This is clearly copied from the BBC website, and cannot be considered unique content.
4. Some pictures.
Twelve pictures doesn't make an extensive resource, and the affiliate links on the same page pull the 'quality' level down some more.
5. Some links.
This is a collection of, apparently random, moreover.com feeds. Definitely not unique.
And there we have it, a small site, with a lot of copied or affiliate content, and very little useful and/or unique content. The site certainly looks different than I remember from the first time I saw it, but the content level is exactly the same. One thing I didn't notice on my last review is the 5 pixel high blue line at the top of the page, which expands out if you leave the page there for 10 minutes or so. When it expands it adds a whole load of affiliate gambling and adult oriented adverts. Most of these are from clickthrutraffic.com but the collection from marketbanker.com amused me by placing AdultFriendFinder.com next to BigChurch.com.
It still looks to me like you have copied things from other sites in order to cobble together enough content to hang lots of affiliate links from. Until you get some useful and unique content, the site will not be listed.
1. A 'tribute board'.
This consists of 19 posts spread over 6 months. That's one post every 10 days, not a comprehensive resource.
2. A discography.
This can be ignored. If it's comprehensive, it'll be exactly the same as all the other [censored] discographies that we have listed, and so it will add nothing to the directory. If it's not comprehensive, it's useless.
3. A biography.
This is clearly copied from the BBC website, and cannot be considered unique content.
4. Some pictures.
Twelve pictures doesn't make an extensive resource, and the affiliate links on the same page pull the 'quality' level down some more.
5. Some links.
This is a collection of, apparently random, moreover.com feeds. Definitely not unique.
And there we have it, a small site, with a lot of copied or affiliate content, and very little useful and/or unique content. The site certainly looks different than I remember from the first time I saw it, but the content level is exactly the same. One thing I didn't notice on my last review is the 5 pixel high blue line at the top of the page, which expands out if you leave the page there for 10 minutes or so. When it expands it adds a whole load of affiliate gambling and adult oriented adverts. Most of these are from clickthrutraffic.com but the collection from marketbanker.com amused me by placing AdultFriendFinder.com next to BigChurch.com.
It still looks to me like you have copied things from other sites in order to cobble together enough content to hang lots of affiliate links from. Until you get some useful and unique content, the site will not be listed.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Haven't looked at you site before I don't know which parts you have updated but looking at your site as it is now I wouldn't list it. Lack of unique content.
I opened the biography and did a search at Google.
The same biography (and I mean letter for letter and word for word the same) can be found at the top site for the search words I used
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2650329.stm
Most of my colleague editors will stop reviewing a site after they have found this copied content. Certainly in a category where a lot of copycats are submitted and with a site that already has been rejected before.
Oh, and all those anoying popups also won't help you get a listing.
I'm afraid in the cuurent state your site will not be listed.
I opened the biography and did a search at Google.
The same biography (and I mean letter for letter and word for word the same) can be found at the top site for the search words I used
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2650329.stm
Most of my colleague editors will stop reviewing a site after they have found this copied content. Certainly in a category where a lot of copycats are submitted and with a site that already has been rejected before.
Oh, and all those anoying popups also won't help you get a listing.
I'm afraid in the cuurent state your site will not be listed.
Time to Ride Off Into the Sunset
It's clear the site, as it currently stands, will not be listed without a complete overhaul in order to add unique content
According to the Forum Guidelines that should be sufficient.
It's clear the site, as it currently stands, will not be listed without a complete overhaul in order to add unique content
According to the Forum Guidelines that should be sufficient.