Innocent duplicate sites from the UK

Dear hutcheson,

I gave the example odf Dmoz - Visit our sister sites mozilla.org | chefmoz.org | musicmoz.org | open-site.org

You replied - Yes, that is exactly the example you should be following.

-----------------

Are these not 4 websites own by the same people which are all a collection of website listings and information - but have been split in to different sites to try and help people differentiate.

It seems to me this is exactly what I have done - with each site being given regular updates of different information on different products.

>> Are these not 4 websites own by the same people which are all a collection of website listings and information - but have been split in to different sites to try and help people differentiate.

Actually mozilla.org is a web browser, Chefmoz is a restaurant review/info site, Musicmoz is a music enyclopedia site, and Opensite is a more general encyclopedia (like Wikipedia). Only Chefmoz is actually owned by AOL. MusicMoz and Opensite were started by ODP editors but are not owned by AOL/Netscape. And Mozilla, well, if you don't know what Mozilla is you should probably check out their site (and they're not owned by AOL/Netscape either). By all means, link freely between any sites that you consider sister (or brother) sites the same way we do. But then that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here.

BTW "fraternal mirrors" is an ODP term for sites that are related but not identical (kind of like fraternal twins).

Dear Motsa,

(may I call you Dorothy ?)

I have searched for issues on your - "fraternal mirrors" - and all that I have found involve people who have sites selling the same thing or have been dodgy or deceptive in someway eg no phone number etc.

My situation is that I have been totally honest from the offset and the key facts are whilst the theme is similar - they are different products.

Example a Paul McCartney website and a Beatles website - he was part of a 4 man show - same person 2 different products.

I will willingly answer any questions to clarify the difference of the products or websites.

The point is, you link to YOUR related sites and we'll link to OURS.

Dear Hutcheson,

You wrote "The point is, you link to YOUR related sites and we'll link to OURS."
-------------

The point is the sites are different and should be given a Dmoz listing.

Yet again we have a statement from you - not answers to the key question - please explain the facts why you state they are not different ?

Crooner said:

The point is the sites are different and should be given a Dmoz listing.

Click to expand...

As specified on http://dmoz.org/add.html
"Editorial Discretion"
".. a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion .."
So there never can be an "should be given a listing"

Crooner said:

Yet again we have a statement from you - not answers to the key question - please explain the facts why you state they are not different ?

Click to expand...

Because they are from the same owner and about the same subject.

The point is the sites are different and should be given a Dmoz listing.

Click to expand...

Ah, the nub of the problem.
You are equating 1 URL = 1 site , whereas we have a different interpretation of 1 company/entity total web presence = 1 site.

How you choose to distribute your online presence is, of course, entirely up to you.

You can spread it over several domains, over multiple sub domains, or on a single html page - thats up to you. You also get to choose whether to link the disparate sections of the presence together or not - thats site navigation.

We choose to list a single entry point to your web presence, you have some control over which entry point by which URL you suggest to us, but we have the final say in which we actually list.

:tree:

>The point is the sites are different and should be given a Dmoz listing.

The point is, there is no conceivable use to our users in giving both sites a listing.

If we link to one, and it links to the other, then conceptually they are one site and should NOT get two listings. If we link to one, and its webmaster thinks the other site is so totally worthless as to not deserve a link FROM HIS OWN SITE -- then who are we to disagree?

There is no case where it makes sense to have two ODP listings.

Dear pvgool,

Why do you ignore questions you are asked - and then tune in when convenient on a different question ?

Relevant to the topic (which wandered off course some time ago)

Have you found Slough England in Germany yet ?

Yes or no ?

Are you lost ?

Are you still looking ?

It is very simple ?

Or perhaps is everyone a stupid imbecile who does not know that Slough England is a fraternal mirror of Germany is that it ?

Answer the question please !

Dear Gimmster

An articulate answer which I respect.

So a different company name on each would solve the problem then for these 2 different sites with different content?

No, it would merely establish that the second submittal was not just spam but maliciously devious spam.

hutcheson said:

One company, one website. When you've got 100,000 people working for you, like GM, we can think about two websites. Until then, your figures just show that the ration is 50,000 people per website -- and you don't have enough people for the first one. You don't want to go there. Our rules work better for you than your proposal does. Under your proposal, you should get no listings. Under ours, you'll be considered for one.

Click to expand...

crooner, It looks like you're going in circles.

Dear luggagebase,

You got that right - shame specific questions are not answered by people making statements to the contrary.

OK, I'm putting a stop to this now. Please keep in mind that discussions of why a site isn't acceptable are not appropriate for this forum and you've had more responses than you should have from editors regarding your site in particular.

This discussion has run its course. I'm closing this thread -- do not start up another thread about it.