http://www.qldaccommodation.com

Seeking clarification re this site which was accepted into ODP ages ago.

A search of ODP yesterday for the word "qldaccommodation" shows no matches. A search of the cat where I thought it was shows no site.

However, Alta Vista shows a link to this site from:
Regional/Oceania/Australia/Queensland/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation/

so I take that as confirmation that the site did once reside in that cat, even if the AV data is dated.

Question is, is the site still in ODP? If so, why can't I see it... if not, is there an explanation for its disappearance?

Kind regards

Re: http://www.qldaccommodation.com/

qldaccommodation.com was removed in favour of the main site (austtravel.com.au) which is already listed.

Re: http://www.qldaccommodation.com/

Thanks dfy.... appreciate the speedy response.

I understand that editors cannot respond to every submission they receive... but when a site that has been in ODP for what, 12 months or so, is deleted on the basis of a personal judgement, then surely it should cross that editors mind that a courtesy notice is appropriate. Removal of a site can have huge consequences and while that is not a consideration for the editor, surely it should at least warrant a simple notification.

The explanation "removed in favour of the main site" raises more questions than it answers. Is it because we actually highlight and acknowledge that some informational excerts are reused from another site.... or is it really because some holiday accommodation properties appear in two sites?

What you (or the editor) seems to be saying is that Mr Smith can have a Californian Destination Guide but can't have a Los Angeles Accommodation guide, nor can he provide a Palm Springs Backpackers Guide if any of the Californian content and accommodation properties appear in them....

Ditto for Mrs Jones who can have a British Destination Guide but can't have a Yorkshire Accommodation Guide if it uses any of the British site content etc.

Ditto ...can have West Indies but can't have Barbados..
Can have Portugal, can't have Algarve etc etc

You see my difficulty interpreting this? The site in question is meant to be a separate, stand alone resource offering a value to viewers interested in that particular state of Australia .

Rather than rabbit on about differences of opinion, lets try for a win, win. Tell me what has to be done with this site (be specific) to meet ODP's requirements and I will resubmit a site that will add value to its cat.

<Added>
Before starting this post, I wasn't sure if the site had ever been submitted. It was (re)submitted a couple of days ago and that request can probably be removed from the queue in light of what is now coming to light.

Re: http://www.qldaccommodation.com/

>> You see my difficulty interpreting this? <<

No, not really, you seem to have grasped it perfectly.

If you have a site that covers an entire country, we won't allow you to have a seperate listing for a site that contains the same information but cut down to fit a smaller area. That's trying to get a site in every category that you're interested in, and we call that spamming. If you decide to do it by disguising the content with diffferent names and different styles, we'll crack down hard on you when we see what you're doing.

Re: http://www.qldaccommodation.com/

when a site that has been in ODP for what, 12 months or so, is deleted on the basis of a personal judgement, then surely it should cross that editors mind that a courtesy notice is appropriate.

Click to expand...

That would be "on the basis of an [/i]editorial[/i] judgement". Sites that have been listed for years are deleted every day when someone discovers them and determines that they don't warrant listing. Note: I wasn't the editor involved with this particular site but I certainly wouldn't email a webmaster, whose site I deemed inappropriate for listing, telling them what I was doing. That would just open me up for longwinded discussions about why their site should be listed and why I was a horrible meanie for deleting them....and possible spawn retaliation against my email account. Not worth it, IMO. It's a rare editor who will email you to tell you they're deleting your listing.

Ditto for Mrs Jones who can have a British Destination Guide but can't have a Yorkshire Accommodation Guide if it uses any of the British site content etc.

Click to expand...

Frankly, you can have as many sites as you like but the larger site is really the only one that is likely to get a listing in the ODP (I say likely because it really depends on the sites involved). In your case in particular, http://www.qldaccommodation.com/ really has very little content period that isn't covered by the hotels' web sites themselves being listed and when the listings themselves duplicate of what is available from the main national site, there is zero point from an ODP perspective in listing the state-specific subsite(s).

From my POV, you would have to add a significant amount of unique information that isn't available on the national site and is particular to Queensland and isn't replicated on any of a number of other sites about Queensland. I can't really be more specific than that.

>>then surely it should cross that editors mind that a courtesy notice is appropriate.

No, it surely should not.

If you want search engine monitoring services, there are many people you can hire for that.

Our editors are building and maintaining a directory. We strongly recommend that they avoid contacting outside parties, and simply concentrate on reviewing websites.

Re: http://www.qldaccommodation.com/

dfy

<That's trying to get a site in every category that you're interested in, and we call that spamming. If you decide to do it by disguising the content ..>

I was trying to add one stand-alone site into one (as in 1, singular) appropriate cat with a view to offering the viewer more choices.... to you its spam to be policed, to me its value adding to the resource. Why? ... lets say you live in Utah and you want info about a holiday in Texas. If I'm reading these posts correctly, you should start your search at the top USA level to ensure you get all relevant sites. And there I was thinking its logical to start a Texas search in the Texas cat.

I guess we differ on this... so be it, and I do not intend to rabbit on with some-long winded diaribe the bores everyone else witless.... spammer eh... well that's a first, and disguise eh... guess I'll just have to do my acknowledgements as H1 headers in future. <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Cheers...