Sanibelart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6
Please let me know the status of http://www.aboutsanibel.com submitted http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/Florida
http//www.aboutsanibel.com
- Thread starter Sanibelart
- Start date
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Sanibelart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6
Next question
I understand why it would be prohibited to reveal the reason for ineligibilty in the public forum. I have, however, reviewed the editing guidelines and am unable to find anything in them that would make the site "ineligible." My intention is to provide those considering a trip to Sanibel Island with some guidance about things to do. Where should I turn to determine what the problem is so that I may fix it.
Thank you for your help.
I understand why it would be prohibited to reveal the reason for ineligibilty in the public forum. I have, however, reviewed the editing guidelines and am unable to find anything in them that would make the site "ineligible." My intention is to provide those considering a trip to Sanibel Island with some guidance about things to do. Where should I turn to determine what the problem is so that I may fix it.
Thank you for your help.
I don't know that there is a problem. It is your website, and you may develop it however you wish.
From our point of view, we've got 187 websites already listed for Sanibel -- categorized and (more or less informatively) described: check out http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Florida/Localities/S/Sanibel
which is sort of like what WE'D call a "comprehensive guide." You have ... a one-flap travel-brochure hype-heap wrapped around a dozen or so links. My initial reaction was, "which syllable of 'inadequate content' didn't you understand?"
Now, my second reaction was slightly more favorable, when I checked and discovered that we did not yet have several of your links. (I added THEM to our suggestion pile, and for them I thank you unreservedly, and apologize for a large portion of my original reaction.) But -- in my judgment our surfers would be benefited far more by your links in our context than by even ten times as many links as you have in the kind of context you're building.
I'll give the usual spiel: develop your site as if the Open Directory had never existed, and you had to communicate directly with surfers, in the face of competition from larger, older sites with legions of editorial staff writers Yahoo listings to boot.
If you can show you can swim with the sharks, then you're likely to get an ODP listing -- not when your site can't survive without it, but when the ODP cannot survive as a comprehensive resource without a link to your site. (Frankly, 95+% of wannabe-guides can't do this. I'd give you slightly better odds than the average, but still bet against you. You've still got a lot of writing to do, and also a bit of learning about the difference between information and hype. But I've seen worse. And you are right to start with a very small geographic focus.)
From our point of view, we've got 187 websites already listed for Sanibel -- categorized and (more or less informatively) described: check out http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Florida/Localities/S/Sanibel
which is sort of like what WE'D call a "comprehensive guide." You have ... a one-flap travel-brochure hype-heap wrapped around a dozen or so links. My initial reaction was, "which syllable of 'inadequate content' didn't you understand?"
Now, my second reaction was slightly more favorable, when I checked and discovered that we did not yet have several of your links. (I added THEM to our suggestion pile, and for them I thank you unreservedly, and apologize for a large portion of my original reaction.) But -- in my judgment our surfers would be benefited far more by your links in our context than by even ten times as many links as you have in the kind of context you're building.
I'll give the usual spiel: develop your site as if the Open Directory had never existed, and you had to communicate directly with surfers, in the face of competition from larger, older sites with legions of editorial staff writers Yahoo listings to boot.
If you can show you can swim with the sharks, then you're likely to get an ODP listing -- not when your site can't survive without it, but when the ODP cannot survive as a comprehensive resource without a link to your site. (Frankly, 95+% of wannabe-guides can't do this. I'd give you slightly better odds than the average, but still bet against you. You've still got a lot of writing to do, and also a bit of learning about the difference between information and hype. But I've seen worse. And you are right to start with a very small geographic focus.)
Sanibelart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6
Thank you
I appreciate your thoughtful and helpful guidance. I will review what you have advised and will try to make more out of my guide than I have presented so far.
My survey of Sanibel sites that actually are listed in the regional category was far fewer than 187. But perhaps I am wrong. I did think that providing information about and links to attractions that you did not yet have might be worth something. I obviously have work to do. Thank you again. This is so much better than "reviewed and ineligible".
I appreciate your thoughtful and helpful guidance. I will review what you have advised and will try to make more out of my guide than I have presented so far.
My survey of Sanibel sites that actually are listed in the regional category was far fewer than 187. But perhaps I am wrong. I did think that providing information about and links to attractions that you did not yet have might be worth something. I obviously have work to do. Thank you again. This is so much better than "reviewed and ineligible".
You must have overlooked the subcategories.
You actually gave us some new information (and, hey, I can be bribed in THAT coin!) Most "ineligible" sites -- 99% or more of them -- don't have anything unique except the pattern of deception and concealment. And most unreviewed sites are either "certainly listable" or "certainly never listable" -- although it may be hard to tell which one it is. The exceptions are rare enough to treat exceptionally.
You actually gave us some new information (and, hey, I can be bribed in THAT coin!) Most "ineligible" sites -- 99% or more of them -- don't have anything unique except the pattern of deception and concealment. And most unreviewed sites are either "certainly listable" or "certainly never listable" -- although it may be hard to tell which one it is. The exceptions are rare enough to treat exceptionally.