ncown.com

http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/North_Carolina/Localities/C/Charlotte/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/Rentals/

http://www.ncown.com

Submission status check, thank you for your time.

Respects,
Mike

I am sorry, but unfortunately that site is not listable and has been rejected. Most reasons for site rejection can be found in the Site Selection Criteria section of the Editing Guidelines.

Sorry not to have better news.

I appreciate your time but fail to see how any of that could possibly apply. We have licensed realtors with about 18 homes for rent and relocation services.

Seeing how that category has only 16 listings:

one of which was just removed on FEB 8 thanks to my contact to a DMOZ editor as it was spam, and it was removed. It was a subpage of bellsouth offering some guys timeshare.

http://www.uncccondos4rent.com/ is still listed, which is a homepage offering two condos someone owns, which is a garbage 1 page site.

and http://www.summitgrandview.com/ which is a deadlink that goes to a network solution park page page.


This makes it hard to estimate how people gauge appropriate. I had offered to edit this mess, and my time would clearly have improved the project in this category.

Again thank your personal time in the prompt response.

I have removed the dead link, but left the other one that you have reported. It is a small site, but it does offer rentals in Charlotte, and that's what this category is about.

By the way, I think it would be a good idea to add a page where you state who actually owns the business and how you can contact it (address, telephone number etc.). You have a contact form asking detailed information from users, but I could find no information about you at all.

I appreciate your time and friendly productive response. Yours is the first response of such grace I have seen to date, not saying all bad in the past, but you did use your time to help as did I when checking out this category to see it needs some cleaning.

I have made the change you mention to the contact page. though I dont care to deal with telephone volume I have provided more insight to the fact that our site is for two local realtors and real people with real inventory and connection to this community.

I appreciate your time, and respect the contructive helpful nature. I hope the changes you suggest will help change matters somewhat.

I thank you for your time

http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...tte/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/Rentals/

I offered to edit this category, but was refused with no reason or even email to state so, you can see I was patient and polite in my response as 'respect comes standard'.

I have now been responsible for informing EDITORS of 2 sites of 17 that needed to be removed and they "have been removed" as I was correct in pointing them out.

One was a awful spam site, the other a dead link.

You can also add this to that list, I am not sure what this site is supposed to be, or who is placing these, but this is pretty clearly 3 sites now from 17 that should be removed (2 already done)

http://www.charlotterent.com/

I was told my site www.ncown.com was refused because it had no contact information?

POLITE HELPFUL EDITOR QUOTE
"I think it would be a good idea to add a page where you state who actually owns the business and how you can contact it (address, telephone number etc.). "

We have a complete site, an inventory, and are NC licensed realtors who deal with rent to own homes exclusively, we have live neighborhood statistics in a relocation section, and pages of information on the subject which is our hand written copy. Our site and business exceeds most everyone in this category currently in depth and quality.

This 3rd spam site I point out, has hidden text at the bottom in white, has no email form, no addresses, and consists of perhaps 10 words per page on average. Any attempt to justify this as a credit to the DMOZ project would just be silly.

We are trying to run a business, and any exposure in a prominent place like the DMOZ is crucial to that effort. We have maintained a up to date complete site with dozens of pages regarding lease purchase programs, which is our our HAND written copy and writing about how it works.

We just ask to be inlcuded in a category that is littered with poor sites or poor inclusions. I have offered to edit the category, and I have gotten two removed already with editors help,

THUS making me the most active and efficient editor this category has without even touching it.

Again, I know it is normal to be defensive and snap back at my post, and if flaming helps anything please feel free.

But you will see this site holds less content than even one page of my hand written text. You will also note that 2 other were previously removed this past month as I state, at my informing of the editors, and that I have cleaned this category up from the sidelines, and yet am having my site which represents licensed NC realtors denied, and not given the chance to complete my work in cleaning up this mess of a category.

I exchange threads with respected editors on a daily basis and I know there is much to do, and I show great respect in amy tone in all my posts and questions here.

But we are trying to sell homes here too, and have gone to great lengths to make a - great informative site - , and even greater lengths to show our dedication to the quality of the DMOZ,....even when we receive inexplicable no's.

You take a moment to look at the two sites that were removed

THIS ONE - was removed last month, "I was happy to help", A subpage on bellsouth? selling some guys condo?

http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=8265&ck=&userid=1&userpw=.&uh=1,0",

AND THIS ONE - I am baffled at why this is included.
http://www.charlotterent.com/

Which sells ad space? and has 4 listings, blank white pages, not a single paragraph of text, and hidden keywords at the bottom?

AND of course the dead link, which again I was happy to help since I am active in the market.

While I was told our NC licensed realtor group at ncown.com were told we need contact info like a phone number?

http://www.ncown.com

Look at those inclusions, and TELL me how I am supposed to react to that notion? To try to defend these inclusions and state how ours was unacceptable is just plain silly.

Again, we worked hard on our site, and maintain it with our inventory and information, so this doesnt sit well with our hard work when we are hoping for the excellent relevent exposure for our licensed Realtors.

I thank you for your audience, and I will continue to help keep the DMOZ project as valuable as it is. Please dont take this as an insult to the projects quality, this is just inspiring me to want to help it even moreso. Also, please be mindful of the time that went into this post, and the time we have put in to help edit our regional category.

I would have made a very detail oriented, honest editor for your project.

I'm not going to snap back at you, or call you names, but I am going to clarify (using plain language) a few apparent misconceptions that you have.

1. You said you were told your site was refused because it had no contact information?

That is an incorrect statement. You were told that it might help you get listed if your site contained that information.

2. You've repeatedly mentioned that you offered to edit this category.

Thank you for volunteering, but it is unnecessayr to keep repeating this fact, and this section of the forum deals with submissions, not with editor applications. The two are totally unrelated and if you wish to discuss your editor application, there is a forum for edactly that purpose.


3. You ave identified some sites that you believe are questionable.

Thank you again, however, this section of the forum is for status checks, not for possible abuse reports. We have an entire forum dedicated to those issues, and a team of exceptionally senior editors who monitor those discussions and take action as necessary. Repeating those issues in a status forum only clouds the issue.

4. You tend to compare and contrast your site with others that are listed noting that yours is better than the worst of those that are already there.

While we undertand the apparent logic in oding this, it is flawed. The question is not what sites are listed that are worse than yours (we'll clean them out eventually) but the question really is: is your site among the best?


You have been told that your site, in its present form is ineligible for listing, and have been referred to the editing guidelines. Realistically, all further discussion is moot. We are not going to reevaluate your site based on discussions in this forum. That would be bad form on our part and open us up to all sorts of problems down the road. You were even, graciously, given a suggestion as to one area of improvement that you implemented. However, you also need to recognize that this forum was not designed to have editors walk submitters through the approval/redesign process. You received a nice gift, it would be unrealistic to expect more.

[It is interesting to note that your reaction to uzs980's suggestion demonstrates the exact reason why eidtors are discouraged from doing what he did: you immediately interpreted the suggestion as a statement of cause as to why your site was rejected, you fixed the one thing, and returned to this forum, asking for a re-review because your site was fixed. No criticism, you did exactly what hundreds and hundreds of others before you have done. We understand why, we don't hold it against you, but it serves as a great demonstration as to why we don't critique sites or give detailed explanations in this forum.]

In my personal opinion, you would be much better off carefully examining your site in the context of the editing guidelines -- honestly evaluating any shortcomings and weaknesses, then making appropriate changes and resubmitting once.

Spectregunner gave you the long answer. The short answer is the site is not listable, putting the address on will not help [sorry about the confusion regarding that], it will still not be listable, and attempting to change your site to make it listable, is not a good use of your time.

Thank you for the long answer, and I appreciate how much time this must have taken. I did not at any point hope to now be listed, and truthfully didnt expect any constructive response.

Which I did receive, and it was constructive.

I have remained respectful in my posts as it is pointless to do otherwise, and you here have done the same.

It is the first and most common course of logic to use accepted sites as an example of the guidelines, even when the idea is flawed. An included site will stand as an "example of what fits the guidelines" . So pathetic inlusions represent a form of bad advertising for the project as a whole.

And again I held no hopes that my site would suddenly be included, any changes were just good common sense additions and I am thankful to the editor for his suggestions.

Please delete this thread, as you are correct in your assertion that it is misplaced here.

Thank you for your time.

We'll probably keep the thread because it contains information and general advice that others may find useful.

Thank you for your understanding. Non-acceptance by ODP is not a reflection on a web site or a designer. The majority of sites I create for myself or for customers are not allowable in ODP, but are necessary as part of internet marketing and promotion.

I recently advised a close friend on promotion of his own (rental-real-estate-related) site. (I told him, among other things, that it wasn't listable in the ODP.)

Size doesn't matter. Unique authoritative content matters.

John Doe's site featuring his single rental house is listable. Nobody else can offer to rent that house. Many other people may ADVERTISE that house -- no matter how large those sites may be, John's site is listable and their presentation of the same or more content doesn't make them listable.

A real estate agent may also make a unique offer -- not, perhaps, of a house, but of his own professional services -- his unique combination of location, availability, personality, skill, experience, knowledge; his uniquely authoritative appointment book. Again, that's what makes a site listable, not his thousand pages of all the reasons why one would want to live in his hometown, and not even the list of all the houses he'd like to sell.

On the other hand, a page of advertisements, no matter how many real estate agents or private parties are represented, is at best secondary or derivative information.