Please check www.ezgotravel.com

Remember, in a business site you've got two hurdles: (1) there first needs to be a real business existing apart from the site and before the site -- otherwise, "there's no there there" -- there's nothing for the site to be informative ABOUT. (2) The site needs to inform surfers about the business.

I was in a doctor's office awhile ago, and (as usual) asked if he had a website. The receptionist essentially said, "yes, but it's just [affiliate] sales of nutritional supplements. My auto mechanic had just a placeholder page. Legitimate businesses, providing good service both of them (as I and my family could attest.) Editor willing to list the sites right away -- check. ODP listing -- none.

True, most unlistable sites trip the other hurdle: there's no business underneath; just yet another anonymous ski mask on top of content copied from Amazon or SMC or yet-another-anonymous-dropshipper. But just because most of the broken-down jumpers are sprawled around the first hurdle, doesn't mean the second one is less crucial.

I was in my dentist surgery the other day and asked if he had a website. He said no, he didn't want one, he didn't want any publicity. The problem with living in a country with bad teeth and too few dentists. I digress.

I have just delisted about half a dozen more travel service sites. The reason - although one or two were clearly legit travel agents with walk-in offices, what they were selling online was clearly against our guidelines for listing. Looking closely there seemed to be a pattern and from the original listing dates my best guess is that they were once straight forward company sites. But with the intention of making more money from their sites they have added content that for DMOZ purposes we don't list. If all travel agents adopt the same money-making schemes, eventually none will be listed.

Purpose of DMOZ

To All that contributed above

Ok, now that I was handed a link to the rules, and was explained the info I can understand why we are not listed.
As a background I hold 2 different degrees, and a masters degree. I am also totally fluent with computers to the point of being able to repair a HD, or to write a virus. Al, I am trying to say is that I can figure stuff out relatively fast when it comes to a pc ... Yet I had a different thought about DMOZ.

If one goes to DMOZ.Com, then opens ABOUT page. There is nothing that talks about “unique sites are listed here”. There is only talk about being all inclusive, the most comprehensive.

"The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors."

I for one expected to see our site listed since we are business, and thus if anyone is looking for a travel agency here, then why should they not be able to find our site, and our address, and see what products we offer. Thus it was listed under its physical location.

Whether there is a unique info on this site is a vague definition of someone’s creation. (please don't send me the links to the definition in DMOZ rules). If it suited someone differently the rules would say something different. In short nothing is unique, and almost everything is. Our address that is listed on the site is unique. Our link to some other site is not. As bulletin / discussion boards go there is nothing unique about this one. Pretty much the same technology.
I wonder if the info and/or links on our site where so useless and so repetitive, why would 97000 people a month click on our site?
The words in this email are not unique (maybe some misspellings are ), yet the whole sum of the words makes it interesting for someone. The whole content of our site made a difference to all our customers and visitors.

I digress...

My point was that to any normal person DMOZ would stand for Open for All Inclusive for "Comprehensive". As it says a "Definitive Catalog". Thus they should be able to find a business that is located at an address, period. Else in the about DMOZ it should say. Open directory of UNIQUE content sites.

P.S. English is not one of my majors

Ps

By the way Travelocity, Orbits, Yahoo Travel, OneTravel, travel.yahoo ...
Offer nothing unique. They all resell same vendors that any travel agency is able to sell. This thought can be extrapolated to most sites that sell something.
In which case once again DMOZ about should say that the sites selling merchandise will not be listed. Only sites that manufacture such merchandise will be included.

There is a difference between selling your services and an interesting array of products you've negotiated on to resell, and having a website that directly sells other people's products without any intervention. The former is why some travel agents remain listed, the latter are simply additional marketing channels for big consolidators mainly and it would be unfair for them to have thousands of listings in DMOZ. These consolidators do actually negotiate with airlines and operators, they have developed ways to allow people to book everything online, so we will give them a listing, but not thousands of listings, just the one.

Like others you may be 100% a bone fide agent with a walk-in shop. For that you are listed in the Yellow Pages, and other directories, generic and specialist. That is fine, they list businesses. We only list websites that meet our standards for content.

It doesn't take much to get a local business listed. If the "local business information" fits on a business card, it probably won't be. But office address (or map thereunto), store hours, services, a writeup explaining what unique skills, experiences, services, personality the agent has -- give us something that'll make it worth while for local people to visit the site; make it prominent enough we can believe it's a main purpose of the site, and we shan't cavil over a bit of advertising of related businesses on the side (whether it's affiliate links, ad banners, or whatnot.)

For the sake of being clear.

<<These consolidators do actually negotiate with airlines and operators, they have developed ways to allow people to book everything online, so we will give them a listing, but not thousands of listings, just the one.>>

Most travel agencies, as did ours had to negotiate with the vendors we have links to. i.e. All the vendors we resell have negotiated commission rates. Most of the agencies have different commission levels. We had been selling these vendors for years before, they created an online booking engine for travel agencies to use on their sites. In short your statement is un-educated from the stand point of not being able to judge what it takes to get one of these links. I would have the same problem if it applied to some other service. By the way some of the vendors we have like Apple Vacations will not even sell directly to a customer, only through a travel agency. So none of the links are even close to pay per click link...

I guess my original point that the public face of DMOZ is misleading. Thus not only am I mistaken for what is is, but any of our customers that would expect to find us in DMOZ would be surprised. This then becomes bad for business. Why would a reputable Travel Agency not be listed in the "largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web" ...

To hutcheson

Well I can live with that idea. But most likely it will not fly as outlined by the rules page. We just paid good money for a new look and feel, and will be rolling that out soon. We will also be adding new content.
Yet to be honest: I do not think, as per rules explained / shown to me, that our site would ever get a light of day on DMOZ.
In any case I appreciate the optimism of your email

Turbo13 said:

Most travel agencies, as did ours had to negotiate with the vendors we have links to. i.e. All the vendors we resell have negotiated commission rates.

Click to expand...

Although your agency may negotiate with vendors, I don't know how you can honestly say that most agencies have to negotiate with vendors. Most vendors have "standard" rates if you don't negotiate.

But that's neither here nor there.

agencies

When I say most. I mean most real ones. I do not consider a web address an agency. Pay per click is not what I was talking about.
I am sure you have better stuff to do, so just believe me that 99% of the vendors (that look just like a link) on our site would not even bother talking to you unless you are an accredited travel agency. All our links hooked in to the direct databases of the vendors. What you are referring to is a 3rd and 4th tier of sellers that just have, a link to someone like us who then has a link to a vendor.
I guess most was optimistic

Yet again, my point is that unless there is a Global Travel category ( For which I was told I should not submit, but should submit under regional ) most editors, not knowing the industry can't make a proper call on the validity of the site or the links on it.

This is like the death penalty: do you kill a few innocent (by mistake), just so that you can kill some that deserve it. (NPR keeps talking about it )

>I do not consider a web address an agency.

Agreed.

>most editors, not knowing the industry can't make a proper call on the validity of the site or the links on it.

Yes, we have to go by what's on the site. And what's not on the site, such as the commission level of the agent, can't count as content.

>This is like the death penalty: do you kill a few innocent (by mistake), just so that you can kill some that deserve it.

Yes. But your proportions are way off. I think if we just nuked 1,000 travel sites at random, we'd be lucky to get a single innocent bystander. We haven't gone that far yet, like we have with some other industries, and we're talking about for yet others: we may yet feel we have to ban online-rezzing sites.

Needless to say, we aren't considering LOOSENING the rules.