Status of http://www.humorandlove.net

Hi
I guess, like all the rest, I'm here to see if there's any word on my site being reviewed.

http://www.humorandlove.net

Submitted around Jan 2003

It's been a while but I believe I used the following cat.

http://dmoz.org/Society/Relationships/Dating/Personals/

Appreciate the consideration.
zoom

Denied back in March for being an affiliate site.

Thank you for the speedy reply. But I'm a little confused-was the March denial saying I'm an affilate of somebody else's business or that I'm having others receive money for driving business to my site? Either way that's not the case; my site is not connected to any affiliate programs.

How do I contest the decision? Or could somebody direct me to the specific issue so that I can make it crystal clear that I'm not associated with any affiliate programs?
Thank you.

It's the former: someone thought that site didn't have its own unique database but was simply a "doorway" or "fright mask" for someone else's database.

Thank you.

It's good to know I'm out of the dog house. So... now what? Do I have start all over and resubmit (with some kind of explanation), or is this all understood over DMOZ that my site is OK and is being considered for inclusion?

zm

>Do I have start all over and resubmit (with some kind of explanation)

Yes.

>is this all understood over DMOZ that my site is OK

No such luck. We forum editors just passed on to you what the original editor thought. We did not express an opinion as to whether those thoughts were correct or not (which, admittedly, we usually do if we agree.) But editors who DON'T work in this high-affiliate-spam-targeted area generally divide sites into two categories: (1) blatant affiliate spam; and (2) sneaky spam -- the latter, of course, being the affiliate programs we don't have the experience to recognize. It is likely that a few sites I'd classify as type 2 sites are actually listable, but you aren't going to get me to guess which ones! [FWIW, which is nothing, I took a quick look at the site and didn't see anything to suggest it was type 1.)

>.. is being considered for inclusion?
No, that's what the first response meant. The rest of us were just clarifying that response.

One last thanks. Now I know what happened, why it happend and what to do so it doesn't happen again.
z