status: http://www.myphotodrive.com/

Could anybody tell me on the status of the url:
http://www.myphotodrive.com/

The site is in the same industry as my other site http://www.myphotospace.com but it includes a totally different pricing structure and options so I hope this does not cause any added trouble.

It was submitted around 4-6 months ago. There were errors submitting it, so I had to press the button a few times, hopefully it didn't submit it more than once.

DMOZ is under heavy load so here is the Google directory category. I am not sure which one I submitted it to:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Internet/Servers/Shopping/Auctions/
http://directory.google.com/Top/Business/Business_Services/Auctions/

>The site is in the same industry as my other site http://www.myphotospace.com but it includes a totally different pricing structure and options so I hope this does not cause any added trouble.

No trouble at all. We pick one of the names, more or less at random, and reject it with very nasty notes saying "fraternal-mirror spam, do not list." Then we put a very nasty note on the other one saying "fraternal-mirror or alias-URL spammer; check carefully for aliases before listing". Occasionally (very occasionally) the "fraternal-mirror/do not list " message accidently gets added to both sites.

But it's no problem at all. We do it hundreds, maybe even thousands of times a day, and we've gotten fairly good at it.

I hope you are joking. If not, why would I be penalized for running more than one web site?

They are not even remotely copies of each other.

They have completely different pricing structures, completely different design, written in completely different programming languages and completely different account options.

I only started the second site http://www.myphotospace.com as I had a large demand for a different pricing structure. So instead of moving all of my current members from http://www.myphotodrive.com to my new site and causing them headache I just started a new site.

No joke. No penalty, either. You can spread your business over as many domain names as you want. And we don't care.

But, and this is the important bit, there is no BENEFIT to breaking it up into pieces and submitting each piece separately to the ODP.

In fact, when you read the bit in the submittal guidelines about "NOT submitting multiple related sites", -- you did read it? but in any case, that is what you neglected not to do. And for THAT there ARE penalties, as the guidelines specify.

But the notes I described aren't the penalty: they just help us know when a penalty should be invoked (which apparently hasn't happened here -- yet.)

As I said, we pick the URL to list and the one to reject arbitrarily: but once we choose one, it can be hard to get changed -- for good reasons. (After all, we're doing this to deal with fraternal mirror spam, which is one of the more troublesome kinds) So, before the review, if you want to tell us which submittal you'd like us to withdraw, and which to keep for review, this is the time to do it.

Yes, I read those guidelines multiple times actually, that is why I brought this up, but I didn't think it would be a problem. As they are really only related because they are in the same industry.

I had to go through this whole debacle with Google and eventually they have now agreed to list both domains after having a real human view both sites and agree they are only related by industry.

In any case, if you still wish to only list one site, please list the site http://www.myphotospace.com/

>I had to go through this whole debacle with Google and eventually they have now agreed to list both domains after having a real human view both sites and agree they are only related by industry.

Google isn't really a directory, and so uses a different definition of "mirror" than we do -- this is not a criticism, it's appropriate for their way of working. [They have a VERY different definition of "permanent-banishment-spam" also.] And even other directories have their own guidelines or procedures for dealing with different kinds of spam: we will list some sites that Zeal wouldn't, and Yahoo will list sites that we wouldn't. Again, this is not a criticism of them--they have to come up with policies that will work in their communities, which are different from this one--but the point is: generally speaking, we don't care what anyone else lists, or doesn't list. (And, generally, viceversa.)

>In any case, if you still wish to only list one site, please list the site http://www.myphotospace.com/

Probably just as well: the other site gives me the following
fascinating information:
----------------------------------------
Error Executing Database Query.
SQLException while attempting to connect: java.sql.SQLException: [MERANT][SequeLink JDBC Driver]TCP/IP error, connection reset by peer. The error occurred in D:\Webserver\myphotodrive.com\www\Application.cfm: line 3

1 : <CFPARAM NAME = "Cookie.Cookie_MemberID" DEFAULT="">
2 :
3 : <CFQUERY DATASOURCE="myphotodrive" NAME="GetSettings">
4 : SELECT *
5 : FROM Settings
----------------------------------------------------
[Just a FYI.]

OK, while I'm in the neighborhood. You submitted the site to two [not one, like the guidelines say] auction sites. But, so far as I can tell, it has nothing whatsoever to do with auctions. It's an image webhost/archiver. I think surely we have a category for that, but offhand I can't find it, and there are other image hosters in Business/Business_Services/Auctions Unless and until we come up with a more specific category, I am presuming that that would be the one best place?

http://www.myphotodrive.com/ is not giving me any errors and my alarm hasn't went off so it must have been a cold fusion glitch for only a short period of time.

In any case, from what I remember I submitted it to:
Business/Business_Services/Auctions as there were many other auction image hosting sites that were listed in there and I found it the most relevenat as it is image hosting for auctions that are run by business people.

Thanks for your help.

OK, works fine for me now. Resource-zone would _never_ have a problem like that....