Opinion on site/possible categories for site neede

I haven't had a lot of success in getting http://www.relationships911.org included in ODP, although it's not been a long time since I've submitted. Rather than try and figure out the details by trial and error, I'm wondering if there's a kind soul who might be able to suggest what category might be most appropriate for the site, and, whether any of the sub-areas could be submitted for more deep-linking.

relationships911

The site just seems to be a collection of links to articles on other sites and affiliate links to Amazon.com, with virtually no content of its own. Not sure it would get listed anywhere (I would definitely avoid submitting deeplinks).

BTW I don't see that the site has been touched before by an editor so wherever you originally submitted it, it is probably still sitting there.

Re: Opinion on site/possible categories for site n

After just having a short glance on your site, I think the best place might be Society: Relationships: Advice. Have a look at the category description and check if I'm right. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

WOW, you guys respond fast! Thanks. Motsa, I'd say your description about links to other articles is an accurate reflection of the site. So, I guess one could argue that there is no original content, or one could argue this the collection as a whole is a valuable unique service since it basically supplies something that doesn't exist much on the web - helping people find ARTICLES without having to search through dozens of sites. That each article has a brief summary? I don't know where that fits.

I'm not meaning to argue the point about this site. I think one thing that's interesting is that something like this site can be a valuable tool for people to find things, BUT, still be considered lacking in original content.

One concept that kinda fits here, drawn from the copyright world is the concept of a "collection", where each individual part of the collection may not be "original", but the particular collection as a whole is recognized as unique and original.

Anyway, I'm glad the decision about what is original content doesn't fall into my lap &lt;grin&gt;.

Re: Opinion on site/possible categories for site n

uzs980, the problem with suggesting Society:Relationships:Advice is that that category is meant for sites that actually offer advice, not sites that just point users to other sites for advice.

rbacal, I'm not saying that such a site wouldn't be useful to some surfers but that doesn't make it ODP-listable. I can think of many sites/pages that I've personally found useful and/or entertaining that wouldn't meet the guidelines for listing in the directory.

Re: Opinion on site/possible categories for site n

I just want to be ABSOLUTELY clear here that I'm not lobbying for the site's inclusion here, ok? Apart from the fact that I think it's a rule that isn't in the interest of surfers when carried to the extreme (but again we aren't going to change that), what comprises unique content in law is certainly different from motsa's definition. A collection of works, let's say articles, can be copyrighted as a unique work, on it's own. So it'recognized in law.

The rule itself is interesting because it means the the ODP then, does not qualify to be listed in its own directory.

On Motsa's side of the argument is that there are a lot of "directories" that really are just links to affiliate programs, or other things, or, involve people adding whatever links they want willy-nilly. I think we would agree those don't have much value.

Apart from the above, perhaps what sets the site as having original content is the same as what sets ODP as having original content, and that is the structure (which is original), the edited summaries (which can be original), and that the directory is, just like the ODP, edited for quality.