Listing a website in the second category

Hi! My site is already listed in Arts: Visual Arts: Painting: Painters: Egg Tempera Category of the ODP. I think this is quite appropriate listing, since I do work in egg tempera and have articles about the medium, further resources and particulars of the medium available on the site.

However, I first submitted the same site to Society: Religion and Spirituality: Christianity: Denominations: Orthodox: Icons, because if one would have to come up with one-word-description of my site it would be (Orthodox) Icons. The site's title and domain name is Byzantine Sacred Art, it is entirely about Orthodox icons and iconography, and every single page is about icons in one way or another.

I have tried submitting to this category for close to a year (although I don't think I submitted more than three times altogether, in order not to irritate the editor with frequent submissions) and after waiting for 3-4 months each time, finally decided to try submitting to the Egg Tempera category. The editor of this category accepted the first submission and this is probably a good opportunity to say a heartfelt Thank You!

I still think my first choice was a more appropriate category for this website. This particular category doesn't seem to be over-populated (23 sites when I first submitted mine and 23 almost a year later, today) and, apart from a handful of excellent web resources, most other sites listed seem to be of rather average overall quality. I dare comment since iconography is my area of expertise and I'm also a webmaster. In any case, most are personal icon websites like mine, with no or less content (articles, resources and information about the art itself, icon tradition, history, icon-types, etc.).

Should I try resubmitting to this category again, or would this permanently enrage the Orthodox icons category editors and kill my chances of ever getting a site listed in this category?

I would appreciate all the suggestions and input!

Follow the submittal policy. If you've submitted twice to a category, what allowance does it provide for a third suggestion? None. Twice may be a help, the third is the first step towards the country of the spammers, and there are no further warnings.

We'd rather not tell you the exact point at which irritation spills over into incandescent rage and eternal retribution -- it probably isn't the same every day, and that's OK.

hutcheson said:

If you've submitted twice to a category, what allowance does it provide for a third suggestion? None.

Click to expand...

From the site owner's point of view, submission policy or not, the whole thing boils down to sheer guesswork and this is part of the problem. The only means we have to evaluate our sites when submitting are the submission guidelines and comparison with other sites already accepted and listed within the same category.

I know we can never be perfectly objective when it comes to our own work, but as far as I can see, my website does meet all of the criteria to be listed, it fits best in the said category and it equals or exceeds the quality of more than half of the websites listed within the same category (it is at least equally educational and well presented).

If the editor(s) can't tell me he/she will not list my site in his category ever!, and if he won't tell me why, this provides the allowance for me to think all sorts of things: that he/she perhaps never received my submission; that this particular editor edits his section only once a year and my earlier submissions are hopelessly buried under hundreds of others; that he/she has an especially soft spots for Bulgarians and hates Serbs; that the description I sent was poorly worded and should be cleaned up yet again; that 60+ pages of content is too much for this editor's taste - half of it should be cut off first; that 60+ pages of content is too little - at least twice as many would be considered acceptable; that red-black-white color scheme is absolutely contrary to everything this editor stands for and perhaps some pinks and yellows would be much better received; that right navigation is not looked upon kindly by this particular editor; that promoting egg tempera as the only traditional iconography medium has hit the wrong nerve with this editor (perhaps the Man In Charge paints his own icons with acrylics and won't have anybody saying otherwise anywhere near his masterpieces); that he/she sits on a category not to add other quality sites to it, but to keep it from being expanded... The point is: after seeing accepted sites, I think my site should not have been rejected, i.e. I see no reason for it being rejected, so I keep guessing and thinking perhaps I should try again (with different description/ different color scheme/ more pages filled with meaningful text/ less pages altogether/ saying ACRYLICS ARE JUST AS GOOD, THEY ARE EVEN BETTER, I'M SURE above the title on index page/ left side navigation! There! That should do it!)

Topping it off with the threat of being branded a spammer for the third or fourth attempt at listing your site in the most appropriate category(something we are advised over and over) is a bit too close to omnipotence, even if in a very limited/finite chunk of cyberspace.

>The only means we have to evaluate our sites when submitting are the submission guidelines and comparison with other sites already accepted and listed within the same category.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly!!!!

hutcheson said:

>The only means we have to evaluate our sites when submitting are the submission guidelines and comparison with other sites already accepted and listed within the same category.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly!!!!

Click to expand...

I'll gladly say: Thanks for your help! as soon as I figure out what, exactly, does this mean

You suggested your site, it was listed. That means you should never suggest that site again.

Now - if your site could be listed in another or a different category, use the Update URL link in the category your site is listed in (one time only). Under reason - you could put something like "this site would also belong in xxx category" or "please move this listing to xxx category". Bear in mind that either of these updates could result in a move that may temporarily (for an unknown duration) delist your site.

The only means you have ... are the only things that matter. (It's always nice when that happens. Most of the time the world clutters up your information with all sorts of irrelevancies.)

Thank you, Imocr, I wasn't aware of the Update URL option in these instances. As I mentioned before, I'm quite grateful my site was listed and I don't think the category it was listed in is inappropriate or wrong.

Since I have reasons to think the other editor might be eager to keep the quality icon sites away from his category, and since I can see there is a range of further punishments available (and, apparently, cheerfully enforced), I think I better just let it go. After all, it is not my job to worry about the quality of icon sites available in ODP’s Orthodox icons category, especially when even the most basic Google search will reveal, on first few pages, at least two dozens of excellent icon websites that are nowhere to be found in ODP. I know which they are and where to look for them, most other iconographers and iconophiles do, and that’s good enough.

Thanks again!

Since I have reasons to think the other editor might be eager to keep the quality icon sites away from his category,

Click to expand...

<rant on>

This is not directly aimed at poster Svetlana, but at webmasters in general.

Why, oh why, do people feel a need to besmirch volunteer editors when they don't have a single fact at their disposal.

Do you (collectively) know how demoralizing it is to hear website owners (who can buy their way into any directory but this one) accuse an unknown volunteer editor of unethical behavior simply because the editor does not respond in a manner that the webamster thinks is suitable?

It is this type of attitude that makes volunteer editors such as myself want to shun listing any commercial sites at all -- it is a heck of a lot more rewarding to list information resources, non-profits and NGOs.

Give it a rest people! So we haven't listed your website yet and you can't do anything about it. Life is not fair. Do you have a roof over your head? Did you eat dinner tonight? Do you have clothes on your back? The lack of an ODP listing on your timetable is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

To anyone reading this thread: please keep your thoughts of conspiracies, inefficient editors, and the like to yourselves until you have some form of evidence beyond your own greed to support the accusations. Think about it for a second: this is the parallel to the Hollywood standard scripts that all businessmen are inept, all husbands cheat on their wives, all hookers are beautiful and all politicians are dishonest.

<rant off>

Since I have reasons to think the other editor might be eager to keep the quality icon sites away from his category, and since I can see there is a range of further punishments available (and, apparently, cheerfully enforced), I think I better just let it go.

Click to expand...

The fact that your site hasn't been added to the icons category is not a sign that an editor is conspiring to keep quality icon sites out of the category. Though site owners are quick to assume foul play, the usual reason that a listable site isn't yet listed in an appropriate category is simply that no one has gotten around to reviewing it yet. No conspiracies, no foul play, no abusive editor...just lack of action. I personally don't get around to reviewing many thousands of quality, listable sites every day but it doesn't mean I'm conspiring to keep them out.

Svetlana said:

After all, it is not my job to worry about the quality of icon sites available in ODP’s Orthodox icons category, especially when even the most basic Google search will reveal, on first few pages, at least two dozens of excellent icon websites that are nowhere to be found in ODP. I know which they are and where to look for them, most other iconographers and iconophiles do, and that’s good enough.

Click to expand...

If, considering the current Orthodox icons category and description, you can propose at least 3 "excellent icon websites" other than your own, why not apply for the category. That would make it your job to worry about the quality of the sites.

(Be sure to mention your site under affiliations in the application, as well as any other sites you're affiliated with.)

arubin said:

If, considering the current Orthodox icons category and description, you can propose at least 3 "excellent icon websites" other than your own, why not apply for the category. That would make it your job to worry about the quality of the sites.

(Be sure to mention your site under affiliations in the application, as well as any other sites you're affiliated with.)

Click to expand...

Hi, Arubin! I'm considering applying for the category because, off the top of my head, I can list at least 5 really good icon websites that have been around for quite a while now and are well known as rich resources of information iconographers and iconophiles are looking for, and I'm not affiliated with any of them.

Based on the messages I receive, people who love iconography and are interested in studying it, don't mind that I don't have a free palm-tree-wallpaper for their desktop, but are asking for more books recommendation, more articles about the art itself, more tips on what mistakes they shouldn't make whey buying or writing icons and more in the line of "make your own egg tempera". The icon websites that have more content than me-myself-and-my-icon, and those that don't look like a three page site on Geocities, with free ads blinking around, about someone's wedding (up-close and overly personal) are always appreciated, especially in the areas that are not widely known and popularised in this part of the world, like Orthodox icons.

Moreover, I know of another icon website (6th, off the top of my head) by a Greek icon master, that is really exceptional, that is also sitting in a Painting sub-category of ODP where no one who's looking for Orthodox icons will ever look, but not in Orthodox icons. His icons are decorating many of the Patriarchates within the Orthodox Church and one would assume if they're good for our Patriarchs, they'd be good enough for an ODP editor, but apparently not so...

Spectregunner, I understand the frustration of feeling that what you are doing is a thankless job and although you didn't address the entire message to me alone, I'm sorry if I made you think webmasters generally don't appreciate the work of ODP editors. For myself, I have had an encounter with two editors: one consciences, hard working and on top of things, the other stuck in the beginning of the century, not willing or unable to refresh and update his category and make it worthy of the glorified "handpicked, edited by an actual person, choosing content-rich web resources, best of the best for the given subject" aura.

I actually haven't paid my way into anything on the web, not because of any principles, but simply because I have created a website as a free resource of information and, as such, it was quickly picked up by all the major directories and all the Orthodox directories available on the web. It was soon found by visitors and, thankfully, it keeps receiving a lot of visits and a lot of repeat visits daily.

As for "...it is this type of attitude that makes volunteer editors such as myself want to shun listing any commercial sites at all -- it is a heck of a lot more rewarding to list information resources, non-profits and NGOs" - this is exactly what I would like to see happen with Orthodox icons category: list the sites that are informative and resources of information about icons, not three-page-nonsense where a beginner shows his first attempts at icon writing! Certainly there should be some standard of quality in place, from the quality of the artwork displayed to the quality of the content. That's what's largely missing from the category in question now. I'm not voting for introduction of commercial sites and I'm glad those are not listed (I personally know of few).

Dear Motsa, you are right, this can be the simple issue of inactivity. But that's not good either - if an editor can allow his category to fall asleep for months at a time, ODP stops representing the best of the web resource-wise and starts representing the-best-I-found-when-I-last-looked. As soon as consumers can find much better by looking anywhere else, it should be way past time to wake up. Webmasters are always told the best sites are constantly being refreshed with new content, updated and enriched continuously, if they are to remain at the places they strive to hold for themselves. Doesn't the same rule apply for ODP?

Dear Motsa, you are right, this can be the simple issue of inactivity. But that's not good either - if an editor can allow his category to fall asleep for months at a time, ODP stops representing the best of the web resource-wise and starts representing the-best-I-found-when-I-last-looked.

Click to expand...

That, unfortunately, is the nature of something like the ODP. We are all volunteers. If no one feels like reviewing suggested sites for any single category such as the icons one, then it stays the way it was the last time someone *did* feel like editing there.

DMOZ is a cult

motsa said:

That, unfortunately, is the nature of something like the ODP. We are all volunteers. If no one feels like reviewing suggested sites for any single category such as the icons one, then it stays the way it was the last time someone *did* feel like editing there.

Click to expand...

It seems that lately so many of your volunteers "don't feel like it." My question is, why are you volunteering at all if you're just going to take up space? Have you considering adding new volunteers? Upon looking through your "become an editor" forum categories. You repeatedly smash attempts of folks to help, and then get snotty with them when they ask why.

DMoz has become nothing but a cult full of unhelpful, creatures who mistakenly think of themselves as some kind of know-all public servants. Your forums are comedic. Anyone can see how you operate just by reading a few posts. Hutcheson, for instance, who has posted on these forums thousands of times, would rather fight and lord it over others than list sites in the ODP.

People who post to Google Groups are making fun of you. Check it out. Run "Open Directory Project" in Google Groups search engine and see what you get.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Fransway

if you're just going to take up space?

Click to expand...

No editor "takes up space". There is no maximum number of editors we allow, nor do we reject editors because we feel that we had enough other helping hands.

Have you considering adding new volunteers?

Click to expand...

Did you check our status reports? We do add new volunteers. Thousands of them.

Hutcheson, for instance, who has posted on these forums thousands of times, would rather fight and lord it over others than list sites in the ODP.

Click to expand...

You know his editing statistics, do you? Well, obviously you don't.

People who post to Google Groups are making fun of you. Check it out.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the same goes for a lot of other groups out there in the world. I don't know how others feel, but I don't care about that.

why are you volunteering at all if you're just going to take up space?

Click to expand...

Editors who aren't volunteering enough to satisfy you don't take up space. There's nothing to prevent a category from having several editors. You've already read the FAQ of course and are aware that around 200 editors who can edit anywhere where they like.

Have you considering adding new volunteers?

Click to expand...

We take on all that we can - 4,776 of them in 2005.

DMoz has become nothing but a cult full of unhelpful, creatures who mistakenly think of themselves as some kind of know-all public servants.

Click to expand...

Several problems with that.

• You're judging the whole of ODP by the very small proportion of us who volunteer some of their own time here in an attempt to inform people such as yourself.
• know all - Yes, we sometimes do know a lot more than the poster might have wished. We tell people the truth when we can and it's sometimes not what they want to hear.
• public servants - What? Not hardly . We're merely a rather large bunch of people building a directory for the pleasure of it, as a hobby. That's it. That's all we do. Sometimes people come along and tell us that we must refocus our hobby and shape it the way that they want it to be. Do you not find that a tad arrogant?