Status of www.photobird.com

E

ekrimen

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
14
Thank you for your reply.

Is it even worth it to ask for status updates here? What could the status be other than "no update" and "it's posted", the latter which I could find out for myself?

-- Ed
 
bobrat

bobrat

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
11,061
There are a number of other responses a person could get, [We've had answers like this given out in this forum] such as

An editor went to review it and the site was down each time he tried, so it got removed.

It was reviewed, but the site links were partly broken, and the contact page did not work, so it was not accepted in the Regional category.

Your site was published last week, but your domain expired this week, and you forgot to renew it, so we removed it from the directory.

Someone hacked into your site, and it is currently a porn site, we will check again in a week, and re-review it.
 
E

ekrimen

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
14
Hi, can you please give me an updated status of www.photobird.com in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Photography/Services/Digital ?

Also, I think I might have submitted it to the wrong category. Looking at other entries, it looks like it might be better suited for http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Web_Applications/Photo_Sharing/ . What happens in these cases? Will the editor move it over, or is there something I can do?

Finally, a suggestion: I've been reading about the volume and spam that the editors handle when reviewing sites and I'd like to suggest that the "Suggest URL" page require that the submitter confirm their submission by entering a computer-generated human-readable graphic code, similar to what other websites require when creating accounts. These graphic codes are the small images with letters and numbers that people need to enter into the form to confirm it's a person submitting the URL and not a computer script submitting the form. I'm thinking that this might help reduce the amount of spam that the editors go through and enable them to spend more time reviewing sites. Just a suggestion.

Thanks!

-- Ed
 
A

arubin

Editall/Catmv
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
5,093
No change in status.

And we (I believe this is official) consider "human-readable graphic codes" unfriendly to the blind or text-based browsers, and will not consider their use.
 
E

ekrimen

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
14
Hi arubin, thanks for your reply!

I checked the FAQ and the forums and couldn't find an answer to this question:

I think I may have submitted my site to the wrong category. Looking at other entries, it looks like it might be better suited for http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/.../Photo_Sharing/ . What happens in these cases? Will the editor move it over, or is there something I can do?

Thanks!

-- Ed
 
A

arubin

Editall/Catmv
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
5,093
If you're sure that's the best category for your site, and you haven't been submitting the site all over the directory, you may resubmit. A second suggestion to the correct category, even if related, is appreciated. The reviewing editor will likely move it, but quite possibly would be unable to list it in the new category.

I would suggest that you place
[replacing existing suggestion in Shopping/Photography/Services/Digital]
Click to expand...
following your suggested description, so the reviewing editor knows your intent.

I'm not suggesting that you have been submitting the site all over the directory. This is just noting that the advice to resubmit to the best category (after reconsideration) doesn't apply if the site has been spammed all over the directory.
 
E

ekrimen

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
14
Hi arubin,

Thank you very much for your help! I appreciate it! As you suggest, I have resubmitted the link to the other, better category. (Yes, I had only submitted it once before.)

Regarding my suggestion about requiring entry of human-readable graphic codes for submitting sites, I hope dmoz.org will consider the following:

1. to accomodate blind users, dmoz.org should use audible codes: letters and numbers recorded individually and played back in lieu of the human-readable graphic codes.

2. dmoz.org should require site submissions using graphic-based web browsers, not text-based web browsers. By setting the submission requirements to include an incredibly small number of the web-browsing population in text-based browsers and not using human-readable graphic codes, dmoz.org is making it inconvenient for visitors to find high quality websites and making it very frustrating for site submitters to get their sites posted in a reasonable amount of time, due to the amount of spam that editors need to go through.

I hope these are workable solutions. Please let me know if dmoz.org would like to discuss possible solutions further. I'm only trying to help.

Thanks!

-- Ed
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
That technique is very good for weeding out people who aren't detemined to submit -- and is even temporarily good for handling 'bots.

Unfortunately, our main problems are hundreds of thousands of individual spammers, each pretty determined (each believing that the universe owes him a remunerative living, the ODP is the official payout organization, and the more obnoxious he acts, the higher the payout will be.) On the other hand, the people we WANT to be helping may not be as determined even when giving the help we want most.

And finally, a large majority of the spam is not automatically detectable at all.
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top