No sites being listed

Well, at least now I know. There's no point even expecting even one of the shops to be listed. If the problem was ownership, at least one would have already been taken.

Regarding "good content" of a site, that is intriguing. It'd be quite interesting to know what criteria is used to determine it. Could it be how nice the designs appear to the administrator? I just took a look at the 3 sites above again ... and more.

To describe the articles http://www.cafepress.com/srcc uses Cafepress standard descriptions. This as well: http://www.cafepress.com/assyrian_shop

In comparison to mine, apart from may be the not attractive designs(?), to the Cafepress standard article names, I prepend my shops name, something like A "Hot Stuff Mug" or t-shirt instead of just "Mug", for example.

Above "Apparel" are a few introductory words, to the shop, like here: http://www.cafepress.com/srcc uses, - only this one also mostly uses Cafepress standard descriptions. The 2 shops above do not have any introductory statements to the shop.

For exactly similar shops, using standard Cafepress article descriptions, I will assume then the criteria for the administrator is whether the DESIGNS are considered acceptable or "good" or not, because "BASIC" Cafepress shops have EXACTLY the SAME DESIGN & FORMAT like those I chose above.
My shops are NO DIFFERENT - . Regarding whether some patriotic designs, which may include something like a flag or some words in national flag colors, etc is judged to be not "good" whereas others are not shows how much of a rare privilege it is if one's site is picked.

I do not see any superiority in "goodness" otherwise between the designs on articles on the above sites that makes mine and probably many other Cafepress sites that are apparently disqualified, - but I am a lay man here, I admit. The rest of the site content + layout are the same and standard. There's no other content on the site, which would easily be an additional trap and reason for disqualification, because it'd be judged to be not good or irrelevant & reduce one's site's already small chance ...!

Amazingly, I have sold about 50 different articles, with these non-quality designs. With dmoz, who knows, may be a few more customers would have come on board?

Quite astonishing: http://www.cafepress.com/mondpaco has NO ARTICLES in it .. it's an empty shop - but it seems to have somehow made it over there. ... :icon_excl

Actually, the more I look at sites listed at http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=cafepress ... the more frustrating it gets, but that's ok. This chapter on the shops is closed. .

Unintended double post deleted. Sorry

Many thanks for your reply Crowbar. I have been reading through a few threads and can see this gets raised a lot. I do admire how you and your peers answers this same question over and over again with such patients.

crowbar said:

To be perfectly honest, most site suggestions I personally see, do get listed, but there are parts of the Directory that are real spam magnets for the less than honest, , so much in fact, that editors choose not to edit there at all.

Click to expand...

Now I see. We all get spam submissions on online forms and no doubt the ODP is not exception. I can imagine a big long list of multi submitted sites. To email each one of them back would cause a lot of traffic, you would almost be acting as an open relay. It would need some infrastructure and I guess like you say it would not benefit you in any way and would just be a big over head. I suppose you could charge a fee for a reply but then you would have the responsibility of taking peoples money and guaranteeing they get a reply. That would make it all so complicated

crowbar said:

I have considered putting myself up as an editor, but feel that I would then not be able to review and list my own site for ethical reasons.

Click to expand...

The kind of editors we want, are the kind that can be trusted to treat their own or affiliate sites with the same unbiased fairness as any other site, so yes, an editor can list those sites (or send them to the proper category, if they don't belong in that category), but, they are required to declare all such affiliations.

Click to expand...

Ditto really. I have always like the idea of hitting that volunteer button but always felt that I would be seen as a conflict of interest when I listed my sites. I can see a few sites in there that are for companies that are no more and quite a few others that really should be in there. Websites that have great information about a locally based company.

I'm really not qualified to talk about becoming an editor, our meta editors are the experts, I just wanted to correct what you said.

We don't judge companies or site design, only the site itself and its content.

I thought the earlier post would generate more interest. Not that I didn't find the FAQ suggested by Mr. Noble intensely stimulating, however, the question of the nature of my site was not merely one of qualification for the ODP. With all due respect, the dynamic quality of web pages of late, the introduction of the Application or web based program without the ".exe" brings a new level of character to what can be considered a web page. Indeed, it might well be the assembly of several pages working in concert to produce a desired result. Satisfying the end user or the web surfer with content, information or entertainment.

Web 2.0, database driven interaction, user partisipation in a multi-user or massively multi-user environment, Wiki style updates and improvements...etc.

I would appreciate a bit of input with respect to the evolving nature of the web and human utility.

This will be my final input on this forum. Trying to discuss relevant matters without coming across as lobbying for inclusion or kissing up is far too distracting. Less there be any doubt, ignore my website for ODP inclusion. I would much prefer to succeed on my own. I will follow this thread for a response the Web 2.0 question.

It's been a blast, especially the replies of editor Spectregunner.

Good Day

I would appreciate a bit of input with respect to the evolving nature of the web and human utility.

Click to expand...

This probably isn't the best site for a broad discussion of that nature.

Only comment I'll make is that Web 2.0 is an overhyped meaningless buzzword for the convergence of several technologies most of which are at least 5 years old and some older than that.

Unless you mean big flashy annoying buttons and text that would look better in a kindergarten room than a web site for adults. Then I have an other name for it, somewhat impolite and often unprintable.