http://www.self-hypnosis.co.uk/

HI again

After such great help with my last post, I thought I'd better check out another site that I've been having problems with. I submitted http://www.self-hypnosis.co.uk to:
http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Health/Alternative/Hypnotherapy/

First submission was Feb 7th, 2002 and the second was on July 20th. There was a problem with the submission page the second time, so I had to send an email instead. I'm not sure if it all worked OK. Thanks again.

Seeing this second submission... I now would say that neither this nor the other submission of yours should be listed anywhere in the directory.

http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/ is your company site. It is already listed appropriately in both Shopping/Health/Alternative/Hypnotherapy and Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Shopping/Health_and_Beauty/Complementary_and_Alternative .

These other URLs, while root-level domains, are really considered deep links into your main company.

We aren't a product catalog for you.

Jazz

I didn't realise I had done anything wrong. These sites stand alone, have unique and valuable content and are listed all over the web.

And whether I have, or have not transgressed any rules, I do not appreciate being accused of using the ODP as a 'product catalog' for my company. I consider it an invaluable resource on the web, and would not want to damamge that in any way.

We provide quality free information on all our sites, and feature products on some of them as part of that. If you view the sites, you will see that the vast majority of our information is free, well written, and well presented.

Our visitors provide positive feedback for all our sites on an ongoing basis, whether they buy anything or not, and I think that our content adds value to the ODP results (in a small way of course.)

I am rather concerned about this as I do not want to jeopardise our standing with the ODP. Is your view a personal one Jazz, or is it representative of the ODP itself?

roadrunner

While this not be directly considered in the guidelines, it happens often enough to be repeated (and this does apply to you, but don't take it personally: I'm emphasizing it because it applies to so many other people as well:

Do you want to be considered a spammer? It's very simple. You can do it anytime, anywhere. Just submit two different URLs for the same website to a single commercial category. That's all. I may not call you "spammer" to your face, but I guarantee I'll think it.

And, read the submittal guidelines as many times as you will, I also guarantee they WON'T say "pick the ONE BEST CATEGORY to submit several pages of your site to"!

Do you want to be considered a DECEITFUL spammer? Then use two different domain names for those two pages. Now not only do I think you're a spammer, I think that YOU know you couldn't get what you want honestly, and you're therefore trying to sneak it in. Again, I may not say it, but in my book you've earned the reputation.

And, finally [FTR, this part certainly doesn't apply to the website under discussion]: Those spawn-of-rabid-dogs that repeatedly submit every single page of a site to a category -- nothing vile that ever happens to them will be undeserved, nor can fail to cause great rejoicing among society at large.

I'll say it again: one entity, one topic, one listing. Any entity that wants more content visible from (and perhaps described in) its ODP listing has a real simple solution--they can link to anything they want: and "update URL" to add mention of significant new content, is allowed and even appreciated.) If you see any exceptions, I'd almost say "please report them as potential abuse."

There is one kind of legitimate exception that I know of, but it applies only to "highly valuable reference" domains. Project Gutenberg might have one listing in an author's category for each e-text of a book by that author; the Catholic Encyclopedia and similarly authoritative sources might under very unusual circumstances have multiple listings. Even in those cases, we'd prefer to link to, e.g, the "author index" on an electronic archival site, than to each individual work. (PG didn't have them, last time I looked.)

I should add: Sometimes the first situation I mentioned (and occasionally even the second) can arise out of carelessness; and all three situations can arise out of ignorance -- the "Submit URL" page doesn't REQUIRE you to read the guidelines before submitting a URL. And in fact all could be done out of malevolence by someone else. So although the mere situation may range from irritating to outrageous: before we start stuffing pipe bombs and filling envelopes with toxic chemicals or pathogens, we really do try to check the circumstances to see whether some lesser reaction might be more appropriate -- or at least we try to get the right address on the envelope.

Hello hutcheson

Thanks for your time in posting that. I note the 'don't take it personally, and I haven't done /images/icons/smile.gif - see? but I'd like to clarify:

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Just submit two different URLs for the same website to a single commercial category.<p><hr></blockquote>
I didn't do this, they are different sites with different content.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you want to be considered a DECEITFUL spammer? Then use two different domain names for those two pages.<p><hr></blockquote>
I didn't do this either.

However, I do realise that the domain in question within this post was submitted to the same category as another site by the same company, and if that is not allowed, I apologise and will certainly not do it again.

I really do try to follow the rules, and will continue to do so. I hope I have cleared my name!

P.S. Should I do something about this submission - let the editor know or something?

Your submissions have been deleted. There is nothing else you need to do.

&gt;&gt; they are different sites with different content.

They are one company. The content isn't unique. I can go to your main company web page which is already listed and get the same information / content. Buy the same product. Signup for the same mailing lists/courses.

This situation is cleaned up; I think no further action is needed. (Your site is still listed in the category, and I at least do not feel an urge to go delete it.)

Submissions like this are (in the mass, which is where I've been dealing with them this week) are intolerable, and are individually indefensible ... but not unforgiveable.

I at least try to cut self-promoters with at least one legitimate site a bit of slack -- less powder in the pipe, mostly dehydrated spores in the envelope -- because a lot of people pick up bad advice from somewhere. Contrition covers a multitude of first sins.

OK hutcheson, thank you for that. I guess I have learned something here - although I feel a bit bruised and battered for it. I won't be doing that again.