Status of http://www.californialicense.com

Please let me know the status of http://www.californialicense.com/, submitted to:
http://dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Education_and_Training/Schools_and_Instruction/

Thank You.

Declined.

Thank you for the update.

May I ask why? We are real estate license school approved by the state of California (DRE Approval # 1877-02).

Thank you.

http://www.dmoz.org/add.html

Step One ...

Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.

I searched the directory and found no listing for the site. Then I only submitted to the one category that I mentioned and waited a month before asking a status. Im afraid I dont understand what you mean by multiple submissions.

It means "please don't submit anything to the ODP, this is not the kind of help we need."

Thank you for understanding that, at least.

Just passing through trying to read up on ODP when I saw this post.

Couldn't believe what I saw as far as rebuttal posts go from mods and editors but I guess that's whay you get with a Micky Mouse operation that ODP has turned into. The guy is state licensed and submitted once and all he gets is a 4th grade response. Nice public relations you all got in here.

The state of California licenses the school, but not the web site(s).

The tone here has seemed to go hostile and I’m not sure why. I read and followed the rules the site is unique, with unique content, the state of California has also approved and recognized this school and its unique curriculum.

A reference was made to multiple submissions, could you let me know more about what you were trying to say? I only submitted the site once to the proper area.

I’m not sure what error I have made or what has made tempers seem to flare. If an error was made against the rules of the ODP I would like to know so I don’t repeat it in the future with other sites.

Thanks again for your help.

I have said enough. It's clear to me that the site is not listable under the guidelines in http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude . If I go into more detail, it will only help the spammers who are intentionally trying to get sites that violate our guidelines into the directory.

I didn’t see in the “not include guidelines” at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude where this site fit in.

Affiliate Marketing Schemes
- Doesn’t appear to be a cause as there aren’t any affiliate links on the site to another site. This site sells and ships out its own course materials. It does offer a handful of items like audio CDs and books for students to purchase which can be found at bookstores and Amazon. Again, there are only a handful of those available for purchase as our main focus is our state approved school curriculum.

Identical Mirrors
- Doesn’t appear to be a cause, unless other sites have scrapped content off of the site. All content for the site was written by internal staff and is original and copyrighted.

Redirects and "Cloaked" URLs
- Doesn’t appear to be an issue as the site doesn’t employ these questionable techniques.

Illegal Sites
- Doesn’t appear to be an issue as the courses and curriculum has been screened and approved by the State of California.

Site Listings Including Search Results
- Is not an issue; however there may be sites that are scrapping this sites unique content to pass as their own. Our content is copyrighted.

Product Listings
- This seems to relate to Affiliate Marketing Schemes. However the site serves as an official school provides much more content than product listing sites.

Site Listings as Notices
- This site doesn’t exist to post notices.

Thanks for your time Arubin, however I don’t see where CaliforniaLicense.com falls into any of the "not include guidelines". Is there something I’m missing?

Thanks again.

>> Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Crelo's right to free speech on the web is now at your hands all mighty editors. At first glance it looks like a bad MLM but when you look at his site it is a stand alone service provider with no ties to any of the above reasons for not being listed.

Are you all design critics or directory editors is what it comes down to I guess. Or just hypocritic blockers of free speech on the web LOL.

crelo said:

I didn’t see in the “not include guidelines” at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude where this site fit in.

Affiliate Marketing Schemes
- Doesn’t appear to be a cause as there aren’t any affiliate links on the site to another site.

Click to expand...

Look for sites which link to your site, and have similiar names and URLs.
From where I sit, suppose it's possible that they are the affiliates, but, again, I've missed some affiliate families before.

>Is there something I’m missing?

You're very good at missing relevant bits. You've skipped over the parts of the submittal policy that relate to this client's internet representation; the relevant links currently in the ODP; and the specific words in posts in this thread that specifically address the specific problem.

Oh, and the forum policies that forbid discussions of why we won't list a particular URL.

The last, at least, it is my duty to enforce.