http://royalhealthunited.com

http://royalhealthunited.com
I'm not really sure what category this site was last submit to, but could someone please tell me if it has been deleted from unreviewed altogether. I see that there are editor notes on the submission dating back to 1999, and it has been moved around a little, but what has actually happened to the submission? I also noticed that it has been flagged and been deleted at least once as being MLM related. I find this surprising since the owner is a good friend of mine, and I created the site for him, and as far as I knew, he is a simple retailer selling retail products to consumers. A small group of customers are allowed to purchase at wholesale prices, as local distributors, if they purchase a specified amount and are offered a commission for referring other local distributors. By whose standards does that make his site an MLM site? 99% of his business is retail sales. If the previous submission has been rejected, could someone please take a look at the site and tell what category would be appropriate for him to submit to?
Thank you.

The defining factor we (and others) use to determine that something is MLM is that people pay to become distributors and in turn are paid for getting others to pay to become distributors.

Thank you

Seems simple enough. So is it safe to say that his company website will never get listed as long as he is offering that program?

>If the previous submission has been rejected, could someone please take a look at the site and tell what category would be appropriate for him to submit to?

If it's considered MLM, and from your description it sounds like it probably was, there is no appropriate category.

We would consider listing the original source of the merchandise, but from there on downstream, all other websites represent a net loss of information (i.e. the actual source and provenance of the merchandise) and a net gain of noise (i.e. repetition of the same products from the same supplier.)

It is an important part of our mission to not list those other sites.

Thanks for the info hutch, but I think you have taken the ODP mission to a new extreme. I can understand the MLM problem with this website, despite the fact that he has hundreds of retail customers around the world, and only a handful of distributors in the United States, at least that part makes sense. The part about listing the original supplier of the products has me a little confused. Are you saying the ODP lists only companies who produce their own product? There are already thousands of sites listed in ODP which are nothing but resellers of another company's product, everything from online gifts to car dealers. They all get their product from the same place, but are allowed a listing here. Do you also believe my local yellow pages or business directory should only list companies who produce their own product and not the local retailers where I can also buy it? That makes no sense at all, aside from the fact that I see it being applied nowhere in the directory.

We don't have to discuss the rules of any other directory (like the yellow pages), we have our own set of rules. See http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#affiliate - let's quote parts of the MLM section:

"You may list the domain for the corporate site, however, you should not list independent representatives or distributor sites. For example, only the main Metabolife should be listed in the category Business/Opportunities/Networking-MLM . Metabolife representative sites should not be listed anywhere in the directory. [...]"

This was a decision we made some time ago, since we feel that MLM sites do not add significant unique content to our directory. Since this are our guidelines, I think there is nothing further to discuss.

>....You have taken the ODP mission to a new extreme

First you go delete 20,000 affiliate sites submitted to the Open Directory; and then scroll past another 20,000 of them in Google searches looking for unique content ...

Then we can sit as equals to discuss -- not whether, but -- how much gross physical violence should be visited on the persons of developers and proprietors of affiliate sites, as well as their pets and their descendents unto the fourth generation. Until then, I am content to be considered by you as "enthusiastic."

As for the site in question, it has been rejected, [apparently] either because it seemed to be an affiliate site itself, or because affiliate-URLs based on it had been submitted, or [more likely] both.

Either of these are, by our standards, adequate and even mandatory reasons to reject the site.

You will see from our submittal policies that both "affiliate sites" and "multiple URLs for related sites" are not to be submitted; a possible penalty for the latter -- which did happen -- is removal of ALL RELATED SITES -- which is no more than has happened.

Furthermore, IMO, both reasons are in this case possibly (but not certainly) valid. The site certainly bears many of the earmarks of an affiliate site. And it certainly tempts its affiliates to submit "related sites" -- which has given it a reputation.

Bad rep, bad appearance -- easy reject.

Now, if there had been an actual business before this facade of a website (and behind it), then a website about that actual business would be listable. But it is not clear from THIS website that such a business ever existed. And it is a market niche that is a major spam target.

If there is an actual business, you can add more information about it to the website. I'd strongly recommend adding more information about the provenance of the various products -- it is characteristic of the sleaziest kinds of affiliate spammers that (like your site) they DON'T give that kind of information.

And then resubmit. And then, because the site has a reputation, you'll probably have to bump this thread to try to interest an editor who is willing to reconsider a site related to submittal spam [by which I mean not necessarily the site itself, but its "affiliate" deeplinks].

????

As usual, you seem to have missed the point. I was not questioning the guidelines concerning MLM. I disagree that this site is multi level marketing related since it is only a very small percentage of its business, the vast majority of it's business is retail sales. I was questioning the comment about listing only the original supplier of the products, but you know what, don't bother trying to explain. I'm sure it will make sense to no one but yourself. Posting here has convinced me of only two things . . .
1.) ODP editors (on the upper levels at least) are far too judgemental and self-satisfying, for their own, or anyone elses good. I think you have all taken a very noble idea and turned it into nothing more than a way to satisfy your own need to feel important.
2.) I need to resign my own categories before I get like the rest of you.

Hutcheson wrote:

We would consider listing the original source of the merchandise, but from there on downstream, all other
websites represent a net loss of information (i.e. the actual source and provenance of the merchandise) and a
net gain of noise (i.e. repetition of the same products from the same supplier.)

Click to expand...

It seems to me that in this case, the submitted site is the original source of the merchandise, but was deleted by the category editor due to a misunderstanding of the note.

[Added: Editors, see here or add the site to your Bookmarks to have a look.]

It seems to me that in this case, the submitted site is the original source of the merchandise, but was deleted by the category editor due to a misunderstanding of the note.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that in this case, as with almost every case, the site was viewed by one or more editors with the sole purpose of finding a reason to exclude it. It would seem that the vast majority of editors here feel that finding reasons (any reason) to exclude sites from the directory is what makes the ODP special. I feel it makes ODP inferior. Almost every website has something to offer someone, whether you people like the site or not, whether you people agree or not. The fact that so many of you here have decided that it is up to you and you alone to decide which websites have something to offer others is exactly what is wrong here. I volunteered to edit for ODP because I agree, very strongly with the mission ODP set out to accomplish. I resigned as an editor because I disagree very strongly with the manner in which you have decided to attempt to accomplish that mission. I think many of you have been doing this a little too long and need to step back and take a good look at what is going on here.
I'm done posting here, you can delete this thread. I'm sure you do not want others viewing any opinion but your own. I'm also done contributing, and submitting to ODP. I've not seen a website yet that showed any significant benefit from getting listed in ODP, which should tell you all something right there. I'll leave you now to continue sitting around feeling better than everyone else.

Sfd, I would like to urge you to stay on as an ODP editor. I mean if all good editors, with a honest goal in mind, feels like you and leave, it will indeed mean the end of ODP, although I know that only a few will agree with me that it is possible for ODP to go down. As with any other job there will obviously be some editors that misuse their position, and sometimes forget they actually have a job to do and people to serve. I know there will be editors that think the public are there to serve ODP and not the other way around. So much more reason for you to stay and change what you believe in rather than complaining about other “less gifted editors”.

I am not going to criticize another editor's actions in this forum. The place for questioning another editor's decisions is in the internal forums.

In this case, I can't prove the editor was right to delete the site, ... nor can I prove that the editor was wrong. That's why I recommended adding more information (and mentioned examples of the kind of information) to the site; that's why I recommended resubmitting, and posting here to make sure the editor gets the full history of the site -- so as not to waste your time resubmitting futilely, and do give the site (if it is legitimate, which I am not prejudging) its best chance for being listed.

This is a free service which you are free to accept or reject; just as you are free to choose where to offer your own free services.

My last thoughts

You know hutch, I appreciate the fact that you come here and try to answer people's questions, I'm sure there are better things you could be doing with your time. I don't even have a problem with whether or not the particular editor(s) in question was right or wrong in this particular instance. What I do have a problem with is that every question I have ever read, or posted here is responded to with some type of criticism. Review some of your own posts right here in this thread. You apparently never even looked at the site before criticizing it. If the site cannot be criticized, then the question itself is. You are far and away the most cynical group I have ever dealt with, and definitely not one I want to be associated with.