Site status: www.simplyparking.co.uk

I've submitted http://www.simplyparking.co.uk in the following directory:

http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Travel_and_Tourism/Reservations/

and unfortunately it has not yet been added. I submitted about 1.5 months ago, perhaps i am being a little too hasty?

Thank you in advance anyhow.

I can't imagine why you submitted it there instead of http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Transport/Parking/Airport but no matter, it was declined anyway.

Please don't resubmit. Our submission guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.html give the reasons why.

I had only submitted to that sub-directory as that is where other sites of a similar nature seemed to have appeared, for example holiday extras. Can i not resubmit to the category that you have kindly suggested?

I really am bemused as to why the site was declined as i can see no reason for it to be so... Perhaps you could offer further advice for my ignorance so that I may be avoid in the future?

Thank you in advance.

Sites existing primarily to drive commercial traffic to other sites, or to advertise businesses that have their own sites, are not eligible to be listed.

Oh okay, thanks for your help...

However, with respect, that would negate most of the 'comparison' sites that are listed in the directory including the "big guns". With relation to airport parking how come these sites are listed:

http://www.airport-parking-quote.co.uk which goes to...
http://www.airport-parking-quote.co.uk/multi/choicenew.php
http://www.247parking.com

to name a mere few. There are a plethora of other sites ranging from:

http://www.123pricecheck.com/
to:
http://www.pc-prices.co.uk

And of course not forgetting the big guns:

http://www.kelkoo.co.uk and
http://www.tesco.com/price_check_search/

I'm sorry if i seem defensive but i cannot fathom why the site has been declined for this reason.

Yes, our rules have tightened up considerably here -- and the reason should be obvious: the more price comparision sites are added, the less likely any new site can possibly have any unique information at all. Then we usually start by asking the question about the old sites -- and end up deleting some of them.

That is partly true, but i do have these points to bear in mind:

1. Product information has to remain similar otherwise you will run into all sorts of difficulties when selling a product that is described incorrectly. Therefore site content will have to be duplicated for this reason.
i.e. I would not want to change the directions to a parking site for the sake of seeming different enough to be listed in a directory, they'd end up in the wrong direction...

2. I appreciate the effort that editors go through when reviewing a site, but i would have also thought that site presentation, usability and consumer friendliness would have been a HUGE factor in determining whether a site is for 'human consumption' instead of one that has been 'composed' and is a mess of words merely to get number 1 in search engines. Surely that is why we have this great directory?

3. Demographically a huge amount of people use the internet for shopping around. Surely a site that can vastly aid the user in doing this, is justifiable cause enough to list a site that:
(a) offers a true and fair comparison service
(b) is presented for 'human consumption'
(c) is friendly and usable, especially when it comes to visual impairment and disabilities.

Therefore you are right in saying that you don't want to list sites that are almost carbon copies, duplicate site after duplicate site etc (which there are a huge amount of), but i believe that your rules should also allow for sites that satisfy the criteria above. It would be a great injustice to take away services that are easily digestable and benefit for the internet user.

I can but rest my case, and continue creating and expanding on a site that i am proud of, and that will continue to follow these ethics.

Thank you for your time.