I hope this post will answer answer both pudsey and musicfrisk.
Although many sites have deeplinked content, they make up a small percentage of listed sites. Why are some sites chosen? It's not a question of money, but rather of content and contribution to the directory -- at the time the listing was most recently reviewed.
One critical point I hope you both will understand is that, in the ODP, there is room for editorial judgment. No site is guaranteed even one listing. Some sites may have more than one, if their content is judged by an editor to be valuable in a particular category. The need for editorial common-sense, instead of overly-rigid enforcement of the guidelines is present throughout the publicly available
ODP Guidelines -- and is even in the introductory paragraphs on that page.
In other words, for any two given sites, the standards may be the same, and the application of the standards may be the same, but the outcome may be very different, due to the editor's judgment of the site's content and its contribution to an individual category. In this specific case, though, as you have already seen, the site will
not get multiple listings.
I can think of no higher priority that bring ALL sites (not just the abuse in this example) in compliance with the same standard.
I suppose this depends on your point of view. Some people might agree with you. However, I'd also guess that a lot more of the people who post in these forums would prefer that we would work on adding as many of their sites as possible, instead of dropping everything to comb through all of the already-listed sites. I think many editors feel that it is a higher priority to list worthy sites and to delist defunct, hijacked, or otherwise nonfunctional sites, than it is to root out those listed sites that have somewhat less content than might be presently required for a new listing -- although each of these tasks is beneficial to the directory.
Remember, editors are volunteers, who can choose the tasks they wish to perform. If enough editors agree with you, then the sites will be delisted quickly. If, on the other hand, more editors feel (as I do) that these sites can be dealt with as we notice them (while we are engaged in other activities that are beneficial to the directory), it may take somewhat longer. If you wish to speed up the process, you may, as you have already done, make your own contribution to the ODP by pointing out sites which you believe should be investigated.
Thank you for contributing to the ODP.
