Question: should I request cooling of a site?

Hi,

First up - great project. Like the silent majority of netizens - who seemingly don't post on this forum - I think the project is an excellent resource. It's frustrating to get a site listed, but the patience required does pay dividends in the end.

I submitted my site some time ago and was delighted to see it was recently added to the directory. I was not surprised the site was added because it is the result of a lot of hard work on a niche non-commercial subject that has it's own, very small, dmoz category. Previous sites in the area have not really covered the subject particularly well, so I set out to create the most comprehensive site I possibly could and, hopefully not blowing my own trumpet too loudly, I've been told that I succeeded pretty well.

Anyway, I'm virtually finished writing everything there possibly is on the subject (it's a small enough subject for me to completely cover) and, certainly, there are no other sites on the subject that I'm aware of that have any content that isn't also included on my site (usually in much more detail).

So then, I'm confident that my site is as close to being a "cool site" as I can think of in this category, based on my reading of this description:

Cooling (DMOZ Documentation Project)
http://inelegant.org/ddp/07001/

So. What's the etiquette regarding this? Do you guys think I should try to suggest my site for cooling or is that considered bad form? If you think I should suggest it, what is the recommended procedure for doing that?

I hope this post hasn't come across as being greedy - I am quite happy that my site has been listed, I just think my site is the best starting point for anyone wanting to read about the subject in question.

TIA for any responses ...

Sam.

Cooling is simply not somethign you can request. It is done solely at the discretion of any editor.

This is an example of a question whose answer is obvious, if you think about it in terms of the ODP definition of fairness (and the ODP protocols.)

"Fairness" consists of: the site speaks for itself. There is no huckster, no hypester, no promoter. Site review consists of just the site.

This is important for a number of reasons. Fairness is perhaps the most important -- we judge by what any other surfer sees. And a site doesn't get a better review (or, frankly, more likely a WORSE review) because someone is back-seat-driving the review.

But almost as important is self-defense. Can you imagine what would happen if the spammers heard (and they WOULD hear!) that they could "request" (or, more likely, "demand" or "insist on" being allowed to choose the time of their site review, and provide more justification than the site itself provided?) Editors wouldn't be able to go out of their house without being accosted by importunate strangers. (Even as it is, in the last three months, the police in three countries (THAT I KNOW OF) have been involved in dissuading the importunate....

So, in fairness and in self-defense, anything that resembles pleading (special or ordinary) for a website needs to run into a firm demurral.

Which leads to interesting ethical paradoxes. If someone tells me casually about a website (with no apparent ulterior motive), I can (in my judgment) review and list it (and I often do, if I think it'll otherwise slip through the cracks.) But if someone asks me to review it, I believe I have to say no.

There's no ODP policy here, and there really doesn't need to be. We know what's fair, and we know what damage a carelessly sentimental response to an urgent plea will do to our fellow-workers. And within those facts, we each are free to figure out how to best work together to form a community that can safely build a reputable, comprehensive directory. And, while my ethical judgment has no authority over any other editor, I think most experienced editors will have (completely independently) come up with surprisingly similar guidelines for their own conduct.

Very small niche categories rarely have enough sites to warrant cooling any.

Excellent, thanks for the responses, guys.

spectregunner, thanks for the lightning-fast and authoritative response. Question answered!

motsa, good point and - thinking on it - is quite true in this case.

and, hutcheson, ermm ... I think you must be very smart. I'm not sure I understood a word of it ... but it sounds like you're in agreement with the others, so I'll take your word for it!