Please Recategorize newstandardnews.net

Because ODP is the coolest thing going, I want to make sure that our site is properly categorized. Right now http://newstandardnews.net is listed under local media for Syracuse, NY. We happen to have our offices in Syracuse, but we don't even do Syracuse news, and we believe we are FAR better categorized under News/Alternative -- we are much more like the other sites in that category than like the sites in the local Syracuse categories.

Also, our description is pretty outdated and kind of unfair to us, I think. I would recommend something a little less condescending, like:


Thank you all so much for the awesome work you do on this project, and for giving this request attention at your earliest convenience.

Brian Dominick, Co-Editor
The NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net

The way to do this is to submit an "Update URL" request. I rather think your suggested description is a bit too, um, auto-adulatory by our standards, so I'd skip that bit.

In fact, I don't think I'd recommend doing an "update URL" at all. News sites are often listed twice -- in their hometown as well as in a topical category: something like http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/News_and_Media/Progressive_and_Left/Independent_Media
would be reasonable (I think the category you mentioned would be less appropriate.)

So just submit the site to that category. Again, skip the slant buzzwords -- all that is implied by the category. Skip the motives: WE don't care whether you're being paid by Bill Gates or whether you're doing it out of spite (just to mention two plausible but mutually contradictory alternatives).

Stick to the facts if you can; don't worry too much if you can't, an editor will correct the description.

Thanks for the advice

hutcheson said:

The way to do this is to submit an "Update URL" request. I rather think your suggested description is a bit too, um, auto-adulatory by our standards, so I'd skip that bit.

Click to expand...

Could have fooled me, LOL. It's just a description, there aren't any modifiers that imply "good" or anything like that. I don't really understand what you are talking about, and looking at listings in the category you recommend, I see most of them are like the one I suggested. What is the difference? In fact, many are far more over-the-top.

Here are some examples:

hutcheson said:

In fact, I don't think I'd recommend doing an "update URL" at all. News sites are often listed twice -- in their hometown as well as in a topical category: something like http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/News_and_Media/Progressive_and_Left/Independent_Media
would be reasonable (I think the category you mentioned would be less appropriate.)

Click to expand...

Okay, thank you, that does seem like a much better category. I appreciate the help.

hutcheson said:

So just submit the site to that category. Again, skip the slant buzzwords -- all that is implied by the category. Skip the motives: WE don't care whether you're being paid by Bill Gates or whether you're doing it out of spite (just to mention two plausible but mutually contradictory alternatives).

Click to expand...

Which of the buzzwords are slanted? I guess I do not understand. And why would a person not want to know the "motives" of a news organization -- ie, profit vs. public interest? I can understand that YOU might not be interested in that, but I thought the directory was for the broader web, not for the editors of the directory. Since that is what makes us different, I thought it would make sense to include it in the description.

hutcheson said:

Stick to the facts if you can; don't worry too much if you can't, an editor will correct the description.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand which of those modifiers is not a fact. We are nonprofit, noncommercial and independent. We publish hard news (as opposed to analysis, opinion, etc). Our coverage is daily. Our perspective is public interest (as opposed to corporate interest, investor interest, government interest, etc.) Those are all facts. If I said "A great news site" or "the most accurate reporting around", that would be subjective, and I could understand why you would find it inappropriate.

Anyway, thanks so much for the help. I was not aware of that category, or that a site could be listed by location and by topic.

FWIW, I agree that the specified category is MORE relevant in this case than the Regional one (and so, if one category MUST be chosen, the other is better); also that a lot of the personal horn tooting slips through.

My brief glance seemed to indicate that there wasn't necessarily a story.


As to the other phrases, it always helps to look at them the other way 'round. How many of the sites in that category would term themselves "commercial", "dependent", or "against the public interest"? Likely, not the majority? Hey, even the Stalin and the Maoist genocidal maniacs called themselves "People's Republics".

Very well, then let's just label the outliers, and omit the tags that apply to the majority: thus providing more information in fewer words.

As to the new submittal, as always, you can bump this thread after a month to check the status of the new submittal.