No Update site link

In the help pages, it says "go to the category which your site is listed, and click the "update URL" link at the top" however in my catagory
Top: Society: Relationships: Dating: Personals: Regional: South America
There is no such button. Almost all of the sites have great descriptions filled with important keywords except for mine. www.mylatinrose.com
My site's description was butchered to only:
My Latin Rose - Purchase addresses and e-mails to contact Latin women. While the website for THE LATINA CONNECTION was allowed a whopping "The Latina Connection - Latin women (Latinas) from Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America seeking single American and Canadian men for correspondence, romance, love and marriage."

I'm not a whiner but c'mon guys is this really fair? I can't update the site and there is NO editor for that site to contact. I applied to be the editor of this area last year and was denied but still the site has no editor to speak of. Well someone edited my description, right? I also submitted my other site www.cupidoclub.com over a 7 months ago and have heard nothing.

I want to resubmit it but everything I've read on here says that if I do that it will start in the 6 month waiting line again. someone please just give me some kind of answers.
Thanks in advance.
Terry Nolan
www.mylatinrose.com
www.cupidoclub.com

and click the "update URL" link at the top"

Click to expand...

Nowadays, it's often called update listing and it's present in the top line of http://dmoz.org/Society/Relationships/Dating/Personals/Regional/South_America/


We've noted your comments about http:[i]//[/i]www.cupidoclub.com/

In the help pages, it says "go to the category which your site is listed, and click the "update URL" link at the top" however in my catagory
Top: Society: Relationships: Dating: Personals: Regional: South America
There is no such button.

Click to expand...

The link at the top of the page says "update listing", not "update URL", and it *is* there for that category. Please note that the fact that other sites in the category might have improper description does not mean yours should as well. You can suggest a change to the description but I think you'll find that any changes you'll suggest to include more keywords will be refused.

Thanks Jim... but no editor for that site still

Thanks for the info Jim. I found it and if I recall I tried to edit it before using that option but never heard anything. After months of waiting, I applied for editor of that area since there was not one. I was denied because someone felt It would be a conflict of interest. Why would someone apply to be an editor of that area if they did not have an interest? The obvious difference in the site description of the Latina Connection and others would lead one to beleive that someone at the Latina Connection or that has an interest in them is doing the editing. Is there any way to contact the person that is doing the editing for that area to find out the reasoning for that?
Thanks again!
Terry

Did you read my post?

The fact that other listings may be improper doesn't mean yours should be as well. What was OK in a listing 6 years ago isn't necessarily OK in a listing now -- eventually, someone will get around to correcting descriptions or titles that no longer meet our guidelines.

If you already suggested an update to your site and it hasn't been changed, then either the update request hasn't been processed or it was denied. In either case, we can't tell you the status of the update request as we no longer give status checks. By requesting an update, you've done all that you can do.

You do not see an obvious difference?

I'm not saying one is right and the others are wrong. What I am saying is that there is an obvious difference between the Latina Connection and the others. If there is no editor then who made that decision? Editors should at least make an attempt to distribute keywords evenly. My site includes many more options than just "email a Latin Lady". The description was butchered and Latina Connection has a Paragraph. If there is no editor then one should be appointed or I should not be denied (I applied to be an editor there) and held responsible for any partiality on my part. I would expect that from myself and the editor of that catagory should be held to the same bar.
That's all I'm trying to say.
Terry

Did you read mine?
Ther IS NO editor.

I understand what you mean - personally, I would say that one is right and the other wrong. You'll see the same kind of thing in many, many categories: some sites have descriptions that are not acceptable by our standards today - in the late 1990s, I don't think keywords were an issue, whereas today we try to make sure not to include them unless they are necessary for describing a site. Now that you have brought it to our attention, I bet some editor with editing rights in that category will fix the improper description. Thank you for pointing it out!

Oh, and of course it was an editor who listed the site and described it, but it's unlikely to have been the same editor who listed all the other sites in that category. If there is no listed editor in a category, that category will be taken care of by an editor with editing rights higher in the category tree, or an editall or Meta editor, who have rights in the whole directory.

If there is no editor then who made that decision? Editors should at least make an attempt to distribute keywords evenly.

Click to expand...

Keywords aren't something we really concern ourselves with, let alone distribute (evenly or unevenly).

My site includes many more options than just "email a Latin Lady". The description was butchered and Latina Connection has a Paragraph.

Click to expand...

Now, you're exaggerating there. It's not a paragraph.

If there is no editor then one should be appointed or I should not be denied (I applied to be an editor there) and held responsible for any partiality on my part.

Click to expand...

We don't "appoint" editors. And, as nea pointed out, lack of a listed editor does not mean the category is abandoned. Nor does it mean that we should accept any application to edit there -- the Personals section is one of those areas where spam and inappropriate submissions are rampant and we need an editor there who has already established themselves as an experienced ODP editor. It's not a place to throw a new editor, especially one with an obvious interest in adding keywords to his/her own listing. Doesn't mean you couldn't become an editor in another category but you're unlikely to be accepted to that one.

Please also read

http://www.dmoz.org/newsletter/2001Sep/spam.html

and http://www.dmoz.org/add.html starting at Step One paragraph 2

The editors are here to help, voluntarily, but that does not give you the right to go editor baiting, looking to provioke an argument.

Every editor who posts here has a different style and you often see two or more editors respond to the same query -- each with a different way of saying essentially the same thing.

If you don't like the way a particular editor answers a question, then ignore the answer.

Anything else will be viewed as trolling, and we have little or no patience for people who want to start an argument.

Consider yourself strong advised to get on the high road and stay there. And, I further advise you to be very temperate in your response to this posting.

That's one heck of a windup. Motsa, my questions were simple and direct. Nea answered them professionally....You're here to help, right?

Click to expand...

You wanted to know why you weren't accepted to the category. I offered you what I expect was the primary reason (having not looked at your application). When I said "It's not a place to throw a new editor", I meant it in the sense of throwing someone who can't swim yet into the deep end of the pool. If you're objecting to my saying "especially one with an obvious interest in adding keywords to his/her own listing", well, you've been clear in this thread that the lack of keywords in your listing is what is motivating you most right now so that's hardly a stretch in thinking on my part.

I merely pointed out that there was a big difference and wanted to know why.

Click to expand...

I answered that question earlier on in the thread, saying pretty much what nea did but you don't appear to have actually read it.