Our Website Was Considered

Dear Editors,

I am the Webmaster for the website http://www.weight-loss-institute.com . We submitted this website to what we believed was the correct category in the Open Directory; http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Health/Weight_Loss/Supplements/ in the middle of January of this year. Before submitting we carefully read the guidelines and tried to make sure that we did not make any mistakes in our submission. We used the following title and description in our submission, which we thought was accurate and objective.

Title:
Weight Loss Institute

Description:
Offers comparison and sales of dietary supplements that can assist with weight loss, a body mass index calculator and reviews of popular weight loss programs.

I have a friend who is an editor in a category unrelated to the category we submitted to. I asked my friend if there was any chance that he could check what had happened to our submission. He reluctantly agreed, but pointed out that there was nothing he could do to speed up the acceptance process. However, he informed me that our site had been rejected because the editor, who is in charge of the category, thought that the website looked very spammy.

I was employed as a Webmaster of this site to make sure that it is not in any way perceived as spammy I promised the owners I would do my best to try to get the website listed in the major directories like The Open Directory and Yahoo, and hopefully also get some traffic from the search engines. I cannot understand what I have done wrong concerning this website for it to be considered spammy by the DMOZ. I have been working on the design of this website for several months and:

· We do not use any pop-up windows or other forms of advertising.
· We do not have, and never will have any affiliate links or other similar links, that could be considered spammy. We only link to the most trusted resources in regards to weight loss.

We provide a decent amount of quality content such as:
· A BMI Calculator that makes it easy for a person to quickly calculate their Body Mass Index.
· A Calorie Counter that lists the calorie content of hundreds of different foods.
· A comprehensive review of the four most popular weight loss programs.
· A comparison chart of several different prescription and non-prescription diet pills.

In regards to uniqueness; of the site, I would like to point out that as far as I know the diet pills offered for sale on the Weight Loss Institute website cannot be purchased anywhere else on the Internet at the moment.

The Weight Loss Institute is run as a joint venture between a Professor of nutritional sciences from Romania and a company based in the US. Professor Arnsfelds research into a number of different prescription and non-prescription diet pills is the basis for the comparison chart on the website. He in effect decides which diet pills are to be sold by the Weight Loss Institute.

I have to try to explain to the owners of the website, why it is considered to be spammy;. However, I simply cannot believe that this decision was based on the actual content and design of the website.

I would very much appreciate a response, and some advice on how I may proceed with this website for it to be included in the Open Directory.

Sincerely
Joanna Barrett
webmaster@weight-loss-institute.com

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

I think you've done the best thing you could do: post here, with a pointer to the claimed unique content. (The usual caveats apply: no site is guaranteed a listing, just a review. If the site is not listable on its merits, then aggressively promoting it can't help it.)

Based on what I saw of the site, I can see your position: it really doesn't include the gross technological forms of spam. That is something worth doing, and it really does make the site look more professional (which is, however, not quite the same as being listable.)

On the other hand, I can see where the editor got the impression. There's an awful lot of verbiage about "institutional research" but awfully sparse about actual research results. (A little niggling "for instance:" the site mentions adverse effects for several medications, but doesn't give any details or examples except for one of them. The old saw applies: "corroberative detail ... adds verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.") It could leave a impression of a clueless marketroid winging it with what passes for scientific lingo in marketroid circles (which is, however, not quite the same as _not_ being listable.)

The overall graphic design looks at least semi-professional or professional (at least to a junkie with color-impaired graphics sense like me.) But, so long as we can find the content, that doesn't count for much one way or the other. We list some really _ugly_ sites, and we reject some slick ones. _Content_ is king.

I would recommend that you mention the "product exclusivity" at the website itself. I poked around and didn't see that information, but I may have overlooked it. [But if two editors overlooked it, your public may miss it also!]

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

This site looks perfectly listable to me in this cat. At the ODP, "spam" usually means things like the site duplicates other sites, etc. And, since this is in Shopping the only real content is that they have to be selling what the cat is about. Unfortunately, this gets into that vague area of "editor discretion". For example, I have rejected sites on the basis of "minimal content" that other editors likely would have added. Editing does have a subjective component. About all I can say is you can hope when the editor re-reviews this he will add it.

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

Unfortunately, diet pills is another one of those sections of the directory that is overly prone to extreme amounts of spam so editors there tend to be more suspicious.

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

>I simply cannot believe that this decision was based on the actual content and design of the website.

I can.

It really does come across as being a marketroid's imitation of a marketroid's concept of a scientific site. We see a _lot_ of them, and to people like me (no marketing experience whatsover, but a great deal of scientific reading) the contrast is obvious. It would be like me trying to fool a native speaker of German that I sprachen sie Deutsch. I might be able to fool another monolingual American, but the Germans would be scratching their heads in puzzlement, or rolling on the floor laughing.

But I repeat, the site should be judged on its Shopping content, since it is a shopping category, and the next reviewing editor (did I mention it had been put back in the queue for review) will have access to this thread.

You may not be able to do anything about the marketrish language, but I would again recommend putting something bout the uniqueness of the products you offer. The editor can then pick on that product, look out on the net to see if anyone else offers it. If Google or Inktomi doesn't find anyone else, then it's almost a cinch to list the site.

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

Dear Hutcheson,

Thank you very much for your reply and constructive criticism of this web site, (and thanks rfgdxm and motsa for your comments).

I forwarded your post to the owners of the web site and they have accepted your criticism regarding the lack of detail in the content in a constructive manner. They have followed your advice to the point, and improved the content in all areas you suggested. I have recently uploaded these changes.

On the other hand, I can see where the editor got the impression. There's an awful lot of verbiage about "institutional research" but awfully sparse about actual research results. (A little niggling "for instance:" the site mentions adverse effects for several medications, but doesn't give any details or examples except for one of them.

Click to expand...

The owners have now completely re-written all product pages to incorporate the changes you suggested. The product pages now provide detailed information about each medication and its ingredients, and we also provide more detailed information on the potential side effects of each product, (were there are known side effects).

We have also included a new link from the top of the comparison chart of diet pills that says: How we rank diet pills?. This link leads to the About Us page; where we now have uploaded new information detailing who has carried out the research into the products offered on the web site, and how this research was done.

The overall graphic design looks at least semi-professional or professional (at least to a junkie with color-impaired graphics sense like me.) But, so long as we can find the content, that doesn't count for much one way or the other. We list some really _ugly_ sites, and we reject some slick ones. _Content_ is king.

Click to expand...

I am glad that you think the design looks ok. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> In regards to the content I think you will find that we have listened to your criticism, and changed it accordingly.

I would recommend that you mention the "product exclusivity" at the website itself. I poked around and didn't see that information, but I may have overlooked it. [But if two editors overlooked it, your public may miss it also!]

Click to expand...

You are right, this had been overlooked. We have now put up this information in red at the top of the product pages, where it is applicable. This information is probably also a good sales argument, so I appreciate you pointing this out.

When I first read your post I must admit that I felt it was a bit unfair, comparing us with some of the other web sites listed in the category we submitted to. However, after re-reading your post a couple of times and taking a careful look at the content on our web site, I realised that you were correct. I had not paid enough attention to the content, since my job is more related to the design. The owners also accepted that you had a point, and they have now provided much more, and very detailed content, that I have uploaded.

I hope that you, (or another editor), will take a second look at this web site, now that we have incorporated the changes you suggested, and give us a listing in the appropriate category.

Regards
Joanna Barrett

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

OK, it's in a very short queue. And by "very short" I mean that I reviewed all the _other_ submittals.

I do appreciate your attitude. Evidently, you figured out that what we do basically, compare _every_ site to the others submitted to that category -- and other categories, till we find the right place to list it, or decide it doesn't add value to what we already have.

Why review all the _others_? Well, I'm no expert on Shopping/Health, and there may be something I'm overlooking on this site. (I do think the changes you made are improvements. And I do appreciate your attitude, and your client's.)

But I _do_ know _some_ spam when I see it sometimes, and the _other_ stuff was fresh off the Hormel truck. I'll give the local experts a week or so to review it (with less distractions). But do check back here again in, say, a couple of weeks if it's not listed yet.

Re: Our Website Was Considered "Spammy"

Hutcheson,

I really appreciate your help and the time you have spent on this. Your posts have been very helpful, even though I always find it difficult to accept criticism at first, <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />. I will push the owners to try to get them to improve the content on this site even further, since the improvements after your comments are obvious.

I am amazed at how helpful and quick to come to the rescue some ODP editors are when there is a problem, and you truly deserve credit for volunteering your time for free. This forum is a great way to make sure that the average Webmaster understands that problems in getting a web site listed often depends on the site itself, and not the editor. This is something I believe a lot of people dont realise, and instead of trying to understand and address the issues of the site, they bad-mouth the ODP as being corrupt.

One day I will also apply for a small category where I might be able to do some good for the ODP.

Thanks again
Joanna

I also tried to submit my website [url removed] to the same category as JoannaB, but it doesn't let me.

When is Dmoz going to accept submissions again?