Status of www.practical-home-theater-guide.com

Please let me know the status of http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com submitted in May 2004.

This site was submitted to http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information/Electronics/Home_Theater/

Thanks.

Your suggestion has been declined. The reason will be found within our Submission Guidelines.

Thanks for your quick response.

I have gone through the submisison guidelines as indicated in your reply but still, I cannot understand what was wrong with my original submission - can you please clarify.

Also, does this mean that I have to re-submit?

Thanks once again,
Andrew

No, that means you should NOT resubmit -- not ever, UNTIL you understand what was wrong with the original submittal.

Thanks just the same - if I had asked for some clarification, it is because as far as I can see, my submission was in line with the said guidelines, and in particular, with your requirements under Step 1.

That's fine. You might also check whether the misunderstanding might have been on the other foot: that is, whether the uniqueness of the information contained on the site was immediately apparent to visitors: and whether an unbiased observer might consider its intent primarily promotional (rather than informational, or to the detriment of its informational value.) If, of course, the content ISN'T unique, or IS solely promotional in intent, then ... you'll need to find people that share your interests to promote the site.

Hello again,

The site contents is primarily to serve as a guide to all that is related to the area of home theater - this also explains the site domain name "www.practical-home-theater-guide.com".

Surely, there are a few affiliate links like Google Adsense and so on that help to support the site but more than anything else, it is a hobby site built by an enthusiast to help others by providing information.

I cannot but state here that if one were to compare my site with some of the sites already included in the respective ODP category, there are a number of included sites that do contain a larger number of affiliate links and other promotional content than mine.

Regards,
Andrew

The question is never which site contains more promotional material. It is about the amount of NON-promotional material, and the editor's judgment of the primary purpose of the site. The editor's judgment.

These days, the editor's judgment is affected by the number of thousands of affiliate banner farms disguised as other things -- especially "promotional product infomercial" sites -- over the past couple of years. (The fact that a number of "product informercial" sites had turned "stone cold affiliate banner waste dump" after receiving an ODP listing is relevant also.) So our standards are much higher for those sites than they were in 2001 -- and you may be able to find listed sites that we wouldn't list now, and perhaps some sites with content we wouldn't have listed in 2001. You're welcome to report them, once you really understand why your site was such an easy reject for us.

Surely you have the right to reject or accept whichever site you want - after all ODP is yours not mine BUT:

1. I did not refer to sites that were included in 2001 - possibly one or two of these sites did not even exist at that time.

2. It is not in my interest nor it is my goal to report any of these sites - there are less than 50 sites within the said category and therefore it should not take much for one to check a sample of the included sites - (this is what I did - I did not check all sites).

3. My site has been online for about a year now. Since my submission in May 2004, the site contents has practically doubled. Now there are some 100 pages of content online - content that is surely far from being a "stone cold affiliate banner waste dump".

4. The argument that some sites turned into an "affiliate waste dump" after being accepted in the Directory - in my opinion - does not hold. One can only evaluate a site on its present contents and not on the assumption of what the site might turn into in the coming months or years.

5. You stated that "You're welcome to report them, once you really understand why your site was such an easy reject for us." As I said, you can reject whatever you want because it is your directory - obviously, I would have liked to be included and that is why I applied but then to say that my site was such an "easy reject" without giving any reason except a blunt reference to the submission guidelines is hardly acceptable. This I am saying as I know that there is nothing within my site contents that goes against any of your editorial or site submission policies as expressed in the ODP submission guidelines.

Finally, editors - like the rest of us - are all humans and therefore there is always an element of subjectivity involved in their decision. In these circumstances, I sincerely feel that this is all a mistake.

Andrew