http://www.lacetoleather.com/dogtricks.html

G

giz

Member
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
3,112
It appears to have been processed by a GreenBuster (an editor who has limited editing access to a category), and is therefore awaiting a full editor to publish it. A duplicate submission was recently deleted. Please don't submit again, this will take you to the very back of the queue. It has been submitted to several categories, but there are nearly 200 other sites awaiting review in the most appropriate category, so it may be a few months.

We don't usually accept deeplinks to a site, but some sites such as yours that have diverse subject areas can sometimes be accepted. An editor may visit the category tomorrow, or in many weeks or months time. When this happens the editor will review a large number of sites in one session (We don't use this forum as an opportunity to 'jump the queue').


There are a couple of very minor display glitches with the site in my browser. This does NOT affect your ODP listing in any way. You need a <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> statement on the first line, then Validation Results will show you the rest of the minor errors. This also applies to some of the sub-pages as well.


* * * See below for Updated Site Status: Seems I misunderstood some of the notes. * * *
 

Actually, what giz says with respect to the site's status is incorrect. The site was processed by a Greenbuster from the 'old' Greenbusters project, when senior editors published Greenbuster sites directly from special subcategories set up for greenbusting volunteers.

It is not waiting to be approved, but sitting in Unreviewed in Recreation/Pets/Dogs, waiting for the local editor to review it. The reason it was not published was most likely because the Greenbuster editor did not know where to place it. I've removed it from unreviewed in Recreation/Pets/Dogs, but left it in Recreation/Pets/Dogs/Training - there is an active editor there, so it should be only a matter of time before you get listed.

What giz said about submitting your site again is quite correct, though. Submitting the site again won't make things any quicker or easier - the site is already in the correct queue.
 

Thank you for your help. I didn't realize there was still an old submission in the wings - I thought I may have written it poorly the first time so it got deleted. And, I've now made most of the corrections you suggested from W3C - I'd been using Netmechanic.com, which seems to be more forgiving.
 
windharp

windharp

Meta/kMeta
Curlie Meta
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Messages
9,204
"I thought I may have written it poorly "

That makes me think of...

Quiz for submitters, question 1:

What do you think why reviewing submissions is so timeconsuming?

(There is a hint hidden in this post <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> )
 

Windharp, I'll rephrase that. I wondered if my first submission had not been written as concisely as the editor wanted and so may have been deleted. If you are making fun of those of us who submit sites, please remember that we don't do it often and so are not experts.
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
&gt;&gt;I wondered if my first submission had not been written as concisely as the editor wanted and so may have been deleted.

Trust me on this. If we did that, we'd delete 99% of the submitted sites, not 50% of them.

Yes, we laugh at the really really horrid ones -- the dilbert-esquely-pompous organization mission statements from the one-person/three-brain-cell webmasters, the complete product listing from corporate conglomerates, the pleading/begging/boasting "letters to the reviewer", the self-inflating-from-the-third-person boasts of future success from self-proclaimed-artistes with no past production, the twenty-times-repeated keyword-spam-from-the-dark-lagoon, the late-night-TV-infomercial-sell-sell-sell frantic-lists-of-peremptory-commands to be obeyed now-this-instant-without-delay-YES!, et nauseum.

But ALL descriptions are just "suggested" -- it is the editor's responsibility to get them right. Any editor will quickly learn that that means modifying nearly all of them. It may be your advantage to provide a description that doesn't need replacing -- it may get your site reviewed more quickly, more thoroughly, and/or more sympathetically. But a bad suggested description shouldn't (and, I think, seldom does) get a submittal deleted outright.
 
D

dfy

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
2,044
So far my acceptance rate for submitted descriptions is 0.02%. A well written consise description often does stand out from the dross we usually get, and I will go and review that site first since the author has obviously taken time to read the submission guidelines. Really bad submissions get left till last, but never deleted. Well, the worst offenders often get deleted for other reasons (a bad description is usually a pointer to a bad website) but sites don't get deleted just because the description doesn't suit the author.

But I can see where windharp is coming from. If you could see some of the rubbish we have to wade through ...
 
G

giz

Member
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
3,112
&gt;&gt; If you could see some of the rubbish we have to wade through ... &lt;&lt;

The longest, hype-filled, keyword-stuffed submitted description ever, and more!

No seriously, the longest description ever submitted was over 3000 words of keyword stuffed hype. Someone has noted it in their bookmarks somewhere. I'm trying to find it again. It has to be seen to be believed.




&gt;&gt; I've now made most of the corrections you suggested from W3C - I'd been using Netmechanic.com, which seems to be more forgiving. &lt;&lt;

The various 'entity' problems can be solved by changing each &amp; to be &amp;amp; instead. The SCRIPT tags need a TYPE="text/javascript" attribute added. The various Name and Value pairs should have the value inside quote marks, especially for ALT="blarg" elements. I think that the &lt;!-- Comment --&gt; tags probably ought to be on a separate line (and those at the end of javascript code ought to be // --&gt; instead of just --&gt;). The nesting of elements in the table should be straightforward, one real error is probably responsible for most of the reported error messages: Validation Results. Be sure to check all the other pages of the site for similar errors. None of this makes any difference to your ODP listing. There is no requirement to validate (but it does make sites easier to review if they are problem free). Heh, you normally only get this sort of help on WebMasterWorld.
 

So should I change &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; (I copied it off the validation page) to a less strict version than W3C until I get all the little kinks fixed? Maybe some browsers would show some things incorrectly if they were expecting perfect html and css? Thanks
 
G

giz

Member
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
3,112
I would clear the errors, then the site is going to work in just about all browsers. None of the errors is difficult to fix. Any other discussion you want about HTML is best carried on by PM, rather than use further space in this thread. [ ... and as I said in Item#1 yesterday: &gt;&gt; This does NOT affect your ODP listing in any way. &lt;&lt; ].
 
A

apeuro

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
1,424
Please remember that having HTML code that validates is not a requirement for being listed. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top