Status check : http://www.bio4ce.com/

Hi guys

I'd be grateful for a status check on :

http://www.bio4ce.com/

submitted to :

http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Health/Weight_Loss/Supplements/

on 6 December.

I realise it's a little early to be asking for status but I just found out the site owner had also submitted a few weeks previously - apologies for wasting the editor's time. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

Thanks.

We have no record of you submitting to that category and there is no indication that the site has been "touched" by an editor previously ("touched"= an automatic editor note is made whenever is site is deleted from anywhere, accepted in the directory or moved elsewhere - your site log's indicate none of these events have occured).

Your site, however, does scream "affiliate site" to me: but whether this is just because your site sells "nutrition products in pill form" and I tend to associate those with affiliate sites (as that is what they tend to be) I'm not sure yet and I'm not really in the "right frame of mind" to check...

Thanks for the feedback. That's a little worrying - submitted twice and no record?

I've resubmitted. Is it possible to confirm that the submission is now in the queue?

Re. "affiliate site" - the product sold by this company is unique, this is not an affiliate site. The site also provides a number of online tools that give guidance on ideal weight, body mass index, etc. which make it useful beyond the purely commercial aspect.

Hi

Could someone just confirm receipt of this submission, given the first two seemed to go astray somehow.

TIA.

&gt;the product sold by this company is unique
Look, you're talking to HEAVY internet, search engine, and directory users here. We know how to Google. And after this statement from you, and five minutes Googling, we'll know PRECISELY how much credibility to give ANY statement from you. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how you couldn't have known that would happen.

&gt;this is not an affiliate site..
No comment.

For the passers-by, an object lesson. Honest truth, or well-crafted detail to add necessary verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing narratives: your choice, but at least one is necessary.

Stephen

Do try to suppress the immediate reaction that everyone you come across is a liar. A few more minutes exercising your enormous prowess with Google would soon show I am nothing other than honest, open and accountable.

As should be very evident to someone of your prodigious abilities this is not *my* product - I am the web designer.

I understood the product was unique and as you've provided little more than shouted insults I am none the wiser. I will discuss this with my client before commenting further.

It's not everyone, mon, it's just the ones that tell me things I find out aren't true.

And, as you suggest, the situation is slightly more complex: you carelessly repeat something based on someone else's statement, and your reputation sinks with theirs. It's not always easy to tell when you need to be careful about attribution. (You may not have seen as many herbal patent nostrum peddlars as we have.)

I presume that the bit about "not being an affiliate site" is also based on the word of the site owner? (It's still useful knowing which people are prone to asseverations not strictly consistent with reality.)

I'll pass on the more extended character background check. All we need to know is about the website: does it actually contain unique, adequate information about a genuine business? Which is not exactly the same as having a unique _product_: although obviously a unique product creates a presumption of a GENUINE business (although not necessarily unique information about one.)

I have asked my client to respond to your veiled allegations. I asked him if the product was sold by another company or he was part of an affiliate program:

Absolutely not. This is a product that is my own. I have the formula produced by a registered FDA manufacturer. The business concept was developed by myself and completely original. From the formula, label and packaging design, to the web site, it is 100% my product, my company, and not affiliate related.

Click to expand...

Mr Hutcheson, I look forward to your reply and I hope you have the good grace to offer an apology. I also hope you demonstrate a little less arrogance and a little more professionalism when acting as a DMOZ editor in future.

If another editor could please confirm this submission is in the queue I would be very grateful.

Sometimes its very difficult with all those affiliate sites to distinguish the real producer of something. I did not look into the topic deep enough to judge about it - but I can see what hutcheson meant.

Adding my 2 cents to the discussion: Most of those search results for the product that actually talk about the company that offers the affiliate scheme say it was bio4ce.

[Btw: Yes its in the queue - which not means that it necessarily will be listed, as always thats up to editors decision]

From the looks of things (see http://www.bio4ce.com/diet-pills-affiliates.html ), I'd say that bio4ce.com is indeed the source of the affiliate program, not an affiliate itself. In general, we don't have a problem listing sites that offer their own affiliation schemes (think Amazon.com et al); we're just very careful not to list any of their affiliates. You can see where just seeing the term "bio4ce" would arouse suspicions, though, given the proliferation of affiliates of it that abound.

motsa, windharp

Thanks for the replies.

I'm aware of DMOZ policy on affiliate sites and I realise that it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish them from original providers. I also accept there is a higher incidence of affiliate selling in commercial products like diet pills. None of that excuses Hutcheson's behaviour and I wonder if he will be as quick to apologise as he was to call me a liar.

I realise inclusion of this site is entirely at the discretion of the category editor, but I'll just restate : the content is original, the product is original and there are tools on the site that give it value outside the purely commercial aspect. I have spent a *lot* of time lurking and occasionally posting in these forums and I see no reason for the site to be rejected.

I might be back in a few weeks. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Just a side note: it looks like the 'let us know' email address in your client's 'privacy statement' is that of another of your clients. Unless this is done on purpose you may want to fix this.

<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Fixed. Thanks.

I see no reason for the site to be rejected.

Click to expand...

Actually, no one has said your site was rejected. It is still in the unreviewed queue of that category (as windharp noted earlier).

I didn't think it had been. I said "I see no reason for the site to be rejected.". Future tense.

The clarification that you have provided does include verifiable information, and this information appears to check out.

There is, of course, a difference in "affiliate-OFFERING" site and "AFFILIATED" site -- the latter not listable at all, the former eligible for consideration.
And the difference between "site of unique _manufacturing_ _source_ of product" rather than "unique _site_ _selling_ product" is also critical. Either is listable, but the latter is the meaning that would most naturally apply in the context of discussing a shopping site -- but of course, as several people have noted, obviously does not apply.

I had spent a little time in that category, cleaning up some of the obvious affiliate sites; I didn't look at yours, but the queue is not long, and one good session by an experienced Shopping editor might clear it completely. (I have no way of knowing when such a session might occur.)

I should respond directly to the request for an apology.

I have reviewed and carefully considered the original two statements, and cannot see any meaningful way to understand them consistently, as they appeared (juxtaposed, without corroboratory detail, in the context of discussing a Shopping listing) other than as I understood them.

But the additional information you provided has convinced me that:
1) You were repeating information that was true in the context in which it was originally given, and was given to you in good faith.
2) There was no deliberate intent to deceive us.
3) You were not aware that in this context, the words would necessarily be understood differently than in the original context.

I do fully stand by my warning: the appearance of deception, even when innocently obtained, is still hard on your professional reputation. And I emphasize this, because editors are simply not expected to track down and disprove every claim to unique content on a site: in an affiliate-prone area, the first red flag will probably be the last thing an editor looks at. With the number of obviously legitimate sites waiting review, it wouldn't be fair to act otherwise.

In this case, because the claims to "have a unique product" and "not to be an affiliate site" were not on the site itself (at least not in that form) and the corroboratory evidence was on the site, there's no reason it wouldn't get a fair review (because we have to review on site content, not on the claims about the site made elsewhere.)