ODP submission guidelines, as stated in this forum

[essaytown]

"hutcheson: If the other sites mentioned were also your sites, then you lied when you gave the list of your sites. If not, then you lied when you said the search engine was unique. In either case, more time was spent on the site (reviewing as well as coding) than its unique content warranted."


Those other sites are NOT mine. Apparently, you either do not understand the concept of an AFFILIATE relationsip, or are simply choosing to ignore my previous statements on the subject! It's the same as the relationship between ODP and Google.

Please go back and review every post that I made. Did I EVER state that my papers are not partially available through certain affiliate relationships if an ODP editor were to go out of his or her way to research and track down minute connections? No, I didn't. What I DID clearly state is that my papers are NOT--I repeat--NOT available through a site listed in ODP! Am I not making that clear? Am I wrong about that? Can you at least acknowledge that THAT is what I stated, and it is a fact? You are making statements about my character and honesty that are utterly false and unfair.

Isn't the entire purpose of a directory to give consumers/surfers different choices/options from different companies under each particular category? I have read ODP guidelines over and over again, and I see nothing that states a site cannot be listed in ODP if another site with partially related content is included in the index of an INDEPENDANT search engine/directory from ODP. Am I wrong about that, too? Are you actually trying to tell me that any site that is already included in another search engine/directory (Alta Vista, MSN, Looksmart, Overture, Google, etc.) is NOT elligible to be included in ODP? No site listed in ODP offers the same papers as EssayTown, so how can you possibly disallow my site? (By the way, I can easily prove that most of the sites currently listed in the ODP category offer their papers through other sites and search engines, and in much greater volume/reach.) I really would like someone to give me direct answers to my direct questions.

 

[flicker]

Essaytown, what do you keep complaining about? Your site already *has* one listing in the ODP (its most unique page). Given the small amount of unique content and your history of repeatedly trying to hide this from us (by careful omission and legalese manipulation of vocabulary if not technically lying), I can't imagine any editor would really think it qualified for MORE than one.

 

[hutcheson]

Pick your horn of the dilemma. We asked what you had that was UNIQUE. I distinctly and emphatically stated (and I tried to emphasize it, because it was an important point) that what was "in the ODP already" was NOT our criterion for "unique".

Yes, we see lots of affiliate programs in this industry. If we can't figure out the "home" of the affiliate program, the usual procedure is to not list any of them -- because NONE of them offer UNIQUE content, and APPARENTLY none of them offer content that is uniquely AUTHORITATIVE.

 

[xixtas01]

Did I EVER state that my papers are not partially available through certain affiliate relationships if an ODP editor were to go out of his or her way to research and track down minute connections? No, I didn't. What I DID clearly state is that my papers are NOT--I repeat--NOT available through a site listed in ODP! Am I not making that clear? Am I wrong about that?

Yes. You led us to believe that your papers were 100% unique. The exact statement was: "You will clearly see that my papers are 100% unique and totally different from any of the papers offered by any other site in the category." This statement while being of debatable technical correctness, uses creative obfuscation and leads the reader to believe that the papers are 100% unique. This has now been demonstrated to absolutely not be the case.

Can you at least acknowledge that THAT is what I stated, and it is a fact?

I have acknowledged your statement above, and will acknowledge that it is not a lie, although I do believe that it is deliberately misleading. I do not acknowledge that none of your papers are available at other sites in the category, I have neither the time nor inclination to check. I acknowledge that this may be true, however. I think it's unimportant whether it is or not.

Isn't the entire purpose of a directory to give consumers/surfers different choices/options from different companies under each particular category?

That is an important aim of the directory. So I'll give that question a "Yes." even though it is not "The entire purpose."

I have read ODP guidelines over and over again, and I see nothing that states a site cannot be listed in ODP if another site with partially related content is included in the index of an INDEPENDANT search engine/directory from ODP. Am I wrong about that, too?

Yes, you are wrong about that. Unique means not available elsewhere. (Read any one of Hutcheson's excellent responses on this subject for more information.) The guidelines clearly state "A site should not mirror content available on other sites."

Are you actually trying to tell me that any site that is already included in another search engine/directory (Alta Vista, MSN, Looksmart, Overture, Google, etc.) is NOT elligible to be included in ODP?

No. We do not care about what is included in other directories or search engines. We care about the body of work available on the web as a whole.

No site listed in ODP offers the same papers as EssayTown, so how can you possibly disallow my site?

As editors, we can use our discretion to disallow sites that we don't feel add value to a category. I personally would favor disallowing your site because of the history of abuse. Others might be inclined to be more generous than I.

I really would like someone to give me direct answers to my direct questions.

There you go, I've done my best to provide an answer for every sentence followed by a question mark in your post.

 

[essaytown]

"creative obfuscation"?

Man, you're giving me FAR too much credit. I made a clear, straightforward statement:

"You will clearly see that my papers are 100% unique and totally different from any of the papers offered by any other site in the CATEGORY."

A lie would have been:

"You will clearly see that my papers are 100% unique and totally different from any other papers that are accessible from any search engine/directory on the Internet."

I stated the latter, NOT the former. How you can accuse me of being dishonest or "manipulating words" is absurd! What other way could I have POSSIBLY communicated that fact?

If I were as naturally sly, deceptive, dishonest, and manipulative as you suggest, I would have been a lawyer, not an editor.

And, once again, at hutcheson's request, I admitted the past abuse of my employee(s) to the best of my knowledge.

Since I have obviously been handicapped by the actions of others in the past, I guess there's nothing I can do or say to have my site re-instated (despite what I was told 2 years ago, and recently in this forum). However, based on editor statements in this forum, ODP will remove any site that has an affiliate relationship with a another site on the Internet that offers the same/similar product, correct? You will also remove any ODP site that does not provide unique and/or authortative content, correct? Therefore, if I provide rock-solid proof of such infractions by almost every site listed in the category, you will remove those sites, correct? If you will not list my site, I hope that you will at least render equal treatment of my competitors. Is that not an acceptable, understandable request? I will provide all the proof you need upon receiving your reply.

 

[flicker]

Who actually *wrote* these essays, anyway? Why do you keep calling them 'mine' if they're just part of an affiliate program you belong to? Couldn't all these other affiliates equally well claim them as 'theirs'?

'Unique' means ONE-OF-A-KIND. The only page on your site which would seem to match that definition... is already listed in the ODP.

 

[hutcheson]

We clearly asked the former question. You deliberately answered the latter, even after the difference between the two had been specifically and emphatically brought to your attention.

In some OTHER context it might not have been a lie; in this context it could not have been intended to convey the truth, and it could not have been accidental. That only leaves one option.

 

[essaytown]

Fine. I'm not concerned with you adding my site anymore, because you clearly have a bias against me for what others did in the past, and are using YOUR semantically-skewed interpretation of MY words against me. What DOES now concern me is my expectation that you apply the exact same guidelines to my competitors.

As clearly stated below by Flicker, "'Unique' means ONE-OF-A-KIND." As asked but not answered in my previous post, you will remove any ODP site that does not provide unique (one-of-a-kind) and/or authortative content, correct? If I provide rock-solid proof of such infractions by almost every site listed in the category, you will remove those sites, correct? I will do all of the research for you. All you will have to do is verify my well-outlined and irrefutable evidence of duplicate content. If you will not list my site, I take it for granted that you will at least render EQUAL treatment of my competitors. Is that not an acceptable, understandable request?

 

[xixtas01]

What other way could I have POSSIBLY communicated that fact?

How about: "You will clearly see that my papers are totally different from any of the papers offered by any other site in the category." You see, by removing the words "100% unique and" the sentence communicates what you now say was your intended meaning far better. It surprises me that a professional editor would not have been able to see this simple edit even in hindsight.

As asked but not answered in my previous post, you will remove any ODP site that does not provide unique (one-of-a-kind) and/or authortative content, correct?

No, incorrect. The standards for remaining listed are not as high as the standards for becoming listed, or becoming relisted.

If I provide rock-solid proof of such infractions by almost every site listed in the category, you will remove those sites, correct?

No, the editors are not here to serve as your personal category police. If you have examples of sites which violate the current guidelines in some egregious way, you may post them in the appropriate thread in the abuse forum. http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5453 . The editors there will evaluate them and act in what they consider to be the best interest of the directory. This may or may not include delisting the site.

I will do all of the research for you. All you will have to do is verify my well-outlined and irrefutable evidence of duplicate content. If you will not list my site, I take it for granted that you will at least render EQUAL treatment of my competitors. Is that not an acceptable, understandable request?

I refer you to my original post in the old thread. In it I said "If we really have to dig that deep for uniqueness, we aren't going to go to all that effort because there are hundreds of thousands of websites with great unique content that smacks you in the face with its value as soon as you visit the page that have not yet been included in the directory. As editors, we need to spend our time working on getting those sites included, not arguing about whether marginal sites are good enough or not. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but we need to make a decision and then move on. We can't possibly spend the time and effort to argue about every site we decide not to include."

This is just as true now as it was then, and just as applicable. Neither are we going to argue about those sites that we chose _to_ include. There are far more productive ways for editors to spend their time than either adding or removing marginally listable sites.

What Hutcheson offered you was chance to plead your case, and some coaching on how to do it effectively. Not a guarantee that if you did what he asked you would be listed. You've plead your case, and many editors have independently found your arguments to be unconvincing.

Surely you can find a better way to spend your time.

 

[brmehlman]

If any of the sites you mentioned in your previous post have content which is duplicated in another dmoz listed site, please be so kind as to identify them in the appropriate thread.

This thread has become a pointless argument, and I see no reason to allow it to continue.