Status of submission and Question

Jezebel

Jezebel

Curlie Meta
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Messages
558
The site has been declined a listing. Looking at the site itself it looks as if it's nothing more than a AEBN affiliate doorway (particularly with options 2 and 3 - I'm unsure about the first one). Your site does not seem to have any content of its own. Hope that helps. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />
 
D

dorines

Hi Jezebel,
Thank you for your review, Actually Only option 2 is an AEBN thing. You should be looking at option 3 which is the core of the service, and the prime. These are the Quarterly DVDs being streamed from various studios. Yes, Option 2 is strictly AEN (soon to be cancelled). Option 3 is taking option 2 by far.

Please let me know if this clarify the situation, and if there is an email you can pass me, to give you access to option 3 if you like - we pay a lot for HQ bandwidth usage for 512K streaming videos - hope you understand.

And also please feel free to suggest or move the listing into an appropriate category.

Please advise and thanks ...
 
Jezebel

Jezebel

Curlie Meta
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Messages
558
Hi,

&gt;Actually Only option 2 is an AEBN thing

Ahhh. I see you're right, I do apologise. It seems to me that option two could be, and has been, seen as being 'misleading' by more than one editor reviewing the site, which is probably why you have had a problem getting the site listed.

You may well have the same problem if you re-submitted the site now, however if you're planning on removing the AEBN option you should probably consider re-submitting the site to http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Movies/Members/ once it's been removed.
 
D

dorines

Hi Jezebel,
Thank you again for your feedback. I don't beleive that this should be an issue in getting listed. If I feature Oranges , Apples , Bannanas , exotic fruits etc ... and it happened that the whole world feature my Bananas also, this does not mean that I do not have unique content or unique combination or unique presentation. There is nothing wrong in featuring someone else's work along side to your own work !!! And it seems that editors follow each other, and if it happens that one editor delisted a site for a reason, the next editor follow the reason noted by the first and so on ... I do not think that one editor gonna override his previous and list the site. I'm not expecting you or other editors to be experienced in this industry - I understand - but if you guys are, please point to me ONE single site that has a unique content - not found anywhere else OR NO one is using or linking to this content - Please note if someone linking to my own content does not mean I should be delisted !

I'm not trying to make a fuss, actually I really appreciate all the volunteers editor, and I'm all for the guidelines of the DMOZ directory , but I think editors should be more realistic in the sense that 100% unique simply does not exists. After all --- unique presentation --- should be in question not the exact content.

You find the same old Oak tree painted by so many natural artists (painters), but each one paints in his own unique way... according to DMOZ editors, it is the same old boring OAK tree found everywhere <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ...Another example if you wanna buy a mustang car, why you buy it from one dealer not the other. Every body sells mustang <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> and all car dealers who sell Ford should be delisted from DMOZ directory ...and kepp FORD Motors ONLY.

Thank you ... I will follow your advice on the category when service #2 is gone.
 
Jezebel

Jezebel

Curlie Meta
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Messages
558
Hi,

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I didn't say that your bananas were already well represented in the directory. The problem is simply that, with the current layout of the site, accidents can (and have) happened. It's not at all clear to the surfer (or the editor reviewing the site) which part of the site is yours and which isn't. If, for example, you were using banners to advertise AEBN's content, this would be plain and simple for all to see.. as it is the design is such that it all blends seamlessly together - and before you know it, your site has been declined a listing because it is 'misleading'.

Addressing your oak tree analogy : As far as possible, editors are supposed to ensure that each site has some unique content on it. Each editor usually becomes an expert in their field, therefore spotting content used over and over again isn't really all that hard.

&gt;Thank you ... I will follow your advice on the category when service #2 is gone.

No problem. We will look forward to seeing it. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
 
D

dorines

Hi Jezebel,
I appreciate you taking your time on this, I conclude that there is no way for our site to be listed untill option #2 is removed, knowing that #2 represents at the moment 1/3 of the service only, Or shall I submit to the directory suggeted above and write the editor an explanation -try my luck? OR that's it I give up on DMOZ ...:(

Thanks again ....
 
F

ffabris

Hi dorines

First of all, I think jezebel has given you very exhaustive and useful answers to your questions. To answer your final one, I'd say that "I conclude that there is no way for our site to be listed untill option #2 is removed" is correct. Personally, I find the site misleading as well, very much so, I'm afraid.

I'd also like to add that the concept of unique content is important to us, since our primary consideration is the surfer. We do not wish to give the surfer a long list of sites which offer the same things over and over again.

Admittedly, in practice, it is very difficult to totally avoid duplication of content. However, this is what we strive to do.

All the best,
 
D

dorines

Hi ffabris,
In short , I still understand that the site will not be included in DMOZ. In your opinion, what can be changed, added or taken out, so it can be included? I strongly beleive that inclusion should not be based on "...Personally, I find the site misleading..." because it is NOT and because of the "...personally..." thing .

One section in the site is presenting other people work that's all (there is no misleading), but not all of the site! and no one is trying to mislead no one here. Honestly, the fact that you think it is misleading, by itself show that it is not, it is clear that nobody is trying to hide anything.

As a Webmistress, I beleive that this site should be included under the proper category of course, it is unique in its formation, present value to the surfer, and please feel free to point to me ONE single site on DMOZ that has a 100% unique content. As we Amercian say; "either all in or all out" ...

Also, do you know where can I find a list of other search engines using the DMOZ directory as the underlying base of their search?

Thanks .. But hey I still think you guys doing a good job in cleaning the internet, and should continue putting each site under the microscope...
 
Jezebel

Jezebel

Curlie Meta
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Messages
558
The site *is* misleading. Not only have other editors rejected the site for this reason, but you've now been told this by the category moderator (me) and an Adult meta (ffabris).

&gt;"I strongly beleive that inclusion should not be based on...the '...personally...' thing"

The reason the ODP works is because it is human edited. The 'personal' touch is what allows us to process submissions more accurately than software.

Personally, I think this thread has gone on far too long. We are not here to tell you how to build your sites, nor are we here to argue with disgruntled submitters. Please refrain from posting any more replies to this thread unless it is to ask for submission status once your site has been improved and re-submitted. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" />
 
F

ffabris

"Honestly, the fact that you think it is misleading, by itself show that it is not, it is clear that nobody is trying to hide anything."

I said it was misleading because I didn't spot the gimick until I had read through all this thread and then went looking for it. Had I not had the benefit of this thread, I would never have noticed the AEBN part at all.

That to me makes the site unsuitable for listing, regardless of whether the rest of the content is unique or not.

As for "please feel free to point to me ONE single site on DMOZ that has a 100% unique content", I'd be happy to but the ODP is down right now, and I'm afraid I haven't memorized what is listed and what is not. Off the top of my head, I think http://www.chisel.com/ has unique content, and I *think* it is listed in the ODP.

"do you know where can I find a list of other search engines using the DMOZ directory as the underlying base of their search?"

There is an ODP category which lists these sites, but again, since the ODP is temporarily down, I can't supply you with the precise URL of this category, I'm afraid.
 
D

dorines

Hi ffabris,

My apologies to you and to Jezebel , I did not mean to go this far.

Please keep the good Job...this thread will end here ...:)

To Jezebel: Sorry if you misunderstood me, I'm not "disgruntled submitter" , actually I appreciate you're doing this and encourage it.
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top