Status on Colorado Web Pros ( http://www.coloradowebpros.com/ )

Hello, I am just wondering on the submission status of Colorado Web Pros. I believe the URL I submitted was /www.coloradowebpros.com/index.php.

It was under, Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Designers: Full Service: C

Date submitted was 5/03/04

Thank you for your time.

Shawn Bartholomew
Colorado Web Pros

Ummmmm..did you miss the part about the clickable link?

Ummm did you ever check to see if your forum automatically puts the URL tag in front of a link. DON'T BLAME ME FOR SOMETHING YOUR FORUM DOES.

You didn't answer my question, now answer it. Also deflate that head of yours a bit.

Also if your going to "correct" me by insultion, then do it to everyone else with a link in there post. There are quite a bit which I have pointed out. Don't discriminate.

Well, you can get as angry as you wish, but while you are doing so, consider this:

1. It is a requirement of this forum that you provide us with a clickable link to the category where you made your submission.

2. This requirement is extended to every single requester, so you are not being singled out for anything.

The guidelines for this forum which you agreed to follow upon joining say in part:

http://resource-zone.com/guidelines.php

Please remember that you are expected to be courteous and polite in all your communications.

If you fail to do this, and start hijacking other people's threads, you will be removed from the forum.

The guidelines for the site status forum http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=396 clearly state how you are required to post here, if you want an answer then follow those requirements. If you don't you will be told to, and if you take the time to read the other posts here, you will find that is happening to many other people.

You submitted your site a few hours ago. It's waiting review in http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Full_Service/C . If you feel the need, come back in six months and ask for another update in this thread.

Shawn,

Please immediately stop posting irrelevant and inappropriate comments in other people's status threads. Your initial post missed the required clickable links (see http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=396 ). Thanks.

He thought that you were complaining about the site URL being clickable - and edited it to make it not clickable.


If only people would stop and read that post at the top of the forum, the one titled
"Important: ATTENTION - Forum Guidelines - READ BEFORE POSTING" .....

Waiting over a year...http://www.coloradowebpros.com

It's been well over a year since submission and still nothing has been done. I know you said it takes time, but this is crazy.

Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development: Designers: Full Service: C

http://www.coloradowebpros.com

Colorado Web Pros

Colorado Web Pros is a full service webdesign company offering a wide range of services for any size of business. We will beat any competitors price.

Shawn@coloradowebpros.com

First submitted on 1/6/2004
Second submission 7/1/2004

You were last given a status on July 13 -- you are next eligible for a status update after Jan. 13 (yes, we are than sticky about the 6 month rule).

Ok it's the 14th. Status please? Six months should be quite sufficient to get this done, unless of course it's being purposely overlooked.

Not to be rude, but you guys complain about needing help, but reject many many good people. I know at least 15 people who applied to be an editor and were rejected, and they were very qualified.

>Six months should be quite sufficient to get this done, unless of course it's being purposely overlooked.

Let me take a stab at addressing the fundamental misunderstanding here. First, we don't work on websites. We work on categories. Someone who is working on Arts/Literature or Regional/Mongolia or World/Deutsch simply will not be able to "overlook" your site, because they won't see it.

Now, how many website developers have websites, do you suppose? How many of them have MULTIPLE websites, so that editors have to waste time weeding out the duplicates?

In other words, a website in Regional/..../Ulan_Bator is likely to have obvious possibilities of uniqueness; an editor can ferret around and pick out sites that are likely to be interesting and listable.

Is that true in Computers/Website_Development?

Huh, right.

No site is obviously unique. Any one, no matter how described, no matter what the homepage, has to be reviewed as if it's got Spamford Wallace's fingerprints (carefully disguised) all over it. Lots of work, very few listable sites per hour of work, not much sense of accomplishment.

Reckon that category might be deliberately overlooked, every day, by lots of editors? Right.

But as for your site in particular--it may be the center of the world to you, but it's one of a zillion website developers' sites to us -- in other words, like the other zillion WDS's, it's extremely easy to overlook. There's no rational reason to see that site singled out for special inattention -- why would anyone bother? and how (amidst all the general attention) could you tell?

You expect attention? from a single website? Build a portfolio, build a reputation, build a community.

How?

Are there any local civic, community, charitable, church, educational, etc., etc., organizations in your hometown that really don't have money for promotion, but would profit by having a website with their calendar, news, meeting location, contact information, events, mission statement?

Contact them. Offer to build them sites. A couple of dozen pages, a couple of day's work at most, ten minutes a month maintaining the site ... and a modest advertisement at the bottom of several critical pages: "this site provided as a public service by [your link here.]"

Think THOSE sites would get listed quickly? Think, possibly, just possibly, people contacting us about such sites (without pressure) would have their background checked out (and maybe listed) as a side effect? (No promises, but it's happened several times that I know of.) In any case, you'd have unbegrudged links from each of those public-service websites.

And you'd see something of the public spirit -- in the people you meet (many of whom also work in commercial establishments that need web development work) ... and in your own work.

I respectfully disagree Hutcheson. A web developer's site is every bit as unique as any other individual business. Do you think 689design.com doesn't deserve a listing because they are web developers? If you make sweeping decisions like that how can you ever hope to come close to being the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. A site should be listed or not based on its own merits rather than how interesting the category it belongs in is. While the category may be boring it would seem to be loaded with low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking.
And there is no such category as Computers/Website_Development. It would be Computers: Internet: Web Design and Development

edited to fix broken non-link

Hutcheson,

From a person who is suppose to be objective in their work, that post was severly discriminatory.

You clearly point you that you cater to the "big boys" and not the little ones.

You want to know my reasoning for purposly being overlooked, look at all the above posts. I got flamed because of a misunderstanding. Many of the editors posts are less then mature and respectful.

"You expect attention? from a single website? Build a portfolio, build a reputation, build a community."

That tells me right away you never even bothered to check the site. I've built over 100 websites. I have customers such as the USDA, US Governent, Colleges, Churches, and many other influential groups.

How would you like if I made some phone calls and had several people calling to inquire about your discrimination.

No site is obviously unique. Any one, no matter how described, no matter what the homepage, has to be reviewed as if it's got Spamford Wallace's fingerprints (carefully disguised) all over it. Lots of work, very few listable sites per hour of work, not much sense of accomplishment.

So your prediposition is to automatically assume every website sucks and that they are useless as every other website out there? Real mature attitude to take. Also, sorry, but your wrong, every site is unique. Even the "big boys" would agree with that. Also if people don't enjoying doing this work then why are they doing it? A worker with a poor attitude does a poor job.

Think THOSE sites would get listed quickly? Think, possibly, just possibly, people contacting us about such sites (without pressure) would have their background checked out (and maybe listed) as a side effect? (No promises, but it's happened several times that I know of.) In any case, you'd have unbegrudged links from each of those public-service websites.

With that statement you have just made clear you obviously make "big boys" a priority and overlook ones you consider frivulous.

For a goal to be number one in your field, your support, attidute, and performance are poor at best.

I wasn't going to disclose this, but I used to be an editor and left because of all the crap involved, so I know the way things work. You don't need to fluff up stuff for me. Yes it's a crap job, but at least I got things done.

You also completely avoided the people question. Oh yes...stringent requirement....I remember now. Of course there are no current editors with conflicts of interest here.....

Lastly, you may be a non-profit organization, but you still need to follow the law, and discrimination on a massive scale is generally not considered lawful. Remember you represent the companies view. Based on your comments, a class action suit with many people is very possible if someoen felt like it.

Please do not take this the wrong way, this is not a threat. I am just stating facts and possible outcomes. Please try and see where I am coming from.

DMOZ hat off...

A question, what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me how to spend my spare time which I'm donating for free. If you have been an editor you will know that no-one directs editors to tasks they must do or sets targets for how much they must do. So editors do as much as they want in areas that interest them personally. If that means community groups get listed before web designers, and hospices before online prescription stores, is that really a problem, do you really begrudge that? There are no laws that say that if I use my spare time to go skiing then I must go to Colorado next year because I went to Switzerland last year. And whose laws anyway? I and the majority of editors are way outside US jurisdiction and it would be easy enough to move the servers to Bogota if necessary.

You are frustrated your site hasn't been reviewed as yet. But why does it matter? We are just a bunch of volunteers working on a project to catalog the web, a project that is probably never-ending. And we work at our own pace not one dictated by anyone else. Perhaps it is because of the organisations that take the data we produce as a byproduct of the project. But we don't ask them to take the data, we just make it available. So your gripe should really be with those organisations using data that you think is somehow flawed in how it is produced. So take it up with them, not us, we are just little people minding our own business, which is anything but Internet marketing. Or go to any of the free and paid directories and search engines that set out to promote websites for webmasters and market your business that way.

Consider also how much is a DMOZ listing really worth? One more web design listing amongst 50,000. Will it make any difference whatsoever to your business? No. But a designer link on a dozen high quality high content community organization sites that editors are interested enough in to list quickly? Isn't that what hutcheson was saying. Hey, you flame us and insult us, and we still give you some constructive suggestions as to how to market yourself whilst your site is still pending review.

DMOZ hat back on...

Your site is still waiting for review, and we cannot predict when that review will take place. Fortunately for you perhaps editors rarely edit in order of date submitted these days, as the number of web design firms waiting for an editor to review their site runs into several tens of thousands and in date submitted order you are about 80% down. You wouldn't need all your fingers and toes to count the number of active named editors in that section either. So one site in tens of thousands and a handful of editors - a year is nothing, and it is simply beyond credibility to think someone is deliberately suppressing your site. But as you know neither the numbers of sites waiting nor the number of named editors count for anything in the when will my site be reviewed stakes. There are lots of other editors who might for a day or two lend a hand there. Your site may be picked entirely at random tomorrow or next week for review. Cross your fingers but don't hold your breath.

Your site also awaits review in http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...ado/Localities/W/Windsor/Business_and_Economy

Come back in 6 months and see if you've hit lucky.

Do you think 689design.com doesn't deserve a listing because they are web developers?

Click to expand...

hutcheson didn't say they shouldn't be listed, just that such areas are not enjoyable to edit in and thus tend to be avoided by large numbers of editors on a regular basis (myself included).

If you make sweeping decisions like that how can you ever hope to come close to being the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. A site should be listed or not based on its own merits rather than how interesting the category it belongs in is. While the category may be boring it would seem to be loaded with low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking.

Click to expand...

Sure, let's say it's loaded with low hanging fruit. It's also carpeted with rotting fruit that editor have to wade through to get to the low hanging fruit.

Lastly, you may be a non-profit organization, but you still need to follow the law, and discrimination on a massive scale is generally not considered lawful. Remember you represent the companies view. Based on your comments, a class action suit with many people is very possible if someoen felt like it.

Click to expand...

Just a reminder that threatening to sue is a very sure way to ensure that no editor can/will touch your site -- once legal action is threatened, we are required to leave the sites owned by the complainant completely alone pending resolution of the legal action. I realize you haven't personally threatened to sue but you're coming close. Me personally, I've never understood how people can think that they'd ever have a case for discrimination against a directory that specifically states upfront that they reserve the right to not list a site for any reasons they deem necessary and that they do not guarantee a review at all let alone in a specific time frame. The people who theaten or recommend legal action usually either have sites that don't meet our very public guidelines or that just haven't been reviewed yet.

I'm sure that any editor will be at this point, somewhat hesitant to deal with your site, your general attitude and posts in this thread might lead an editor to believe that if they did end up reviewing and listing your site and provided a description that you personally didn't like, you might sue them directly.

>I respectfully disagree Hutcheson. A web developer's site is every bit as unique as any other individual business.

Of course it is. I would never say otherwise.

What I DID say was that it couldn't POSSIBLY be as OBVIOUSLY unique. (That there's an adverb modifying an adjective, as indicated in the traditional way by its syntactic position.)

The web-developer's site's uniqueness, if any, could become apparent only after prolonged study and analysis.

In our context, "low-lying fruit" is the same thing as websites with "OBVIOUS uniqueness." In other words, not sites in businesses where there are lots of aliases, doorways, and other such deceptive marketing practices.

So editors looking for an efficient way to add value to the directory (and therefore looking for sites whose uniqueness IS immediately obvious), are going to be avoiding the categories mentioned.

Not because no sites there are unique -- there's no reason a web designer's work is any less unique than, say, a plumber's, of course! But the plumber isn't plagued with competitors creating sites under multiple aliases! Similarly, online pharmacies and florists are massively alias-spammed: it's relatively unproductive and absolutely painful to work there. Conversely, local libraries, churches, schools, etc., are easily found, easy recognized as unique, and often quickly listed. And also obviously, a real estate agent site lies somewhere between the two extremes: with name and state license number, creating aliases is hard, so editors can detect uniqueness with "some little" effort -- but there are enough stupid real estate agents to generate a fair amount of stupid (and therefore more easily detected) spam.

Uniqueness --- it's what it takes to get listed when you're reviewed.

OBVIOUS uniqueness -- it's what it takes to make it worthwhile for an editor to give a quick review.

OBSCURE uniqueness -- means a site gets passed over for quick reviews, and maybe passed over AFTER in-moderate-depth reviews, simply because it's not easy to be sure.

hutcheson didn't say they shouldn't be listed, just that such areas are not enjoyable to edit in and thus tend to be avoided by large numbers of editors on a regular basis (myself included).

Click to expand...

Then things aren't working properly. Someone who is an 'expert' in the field would find going through sites like that enjoyable and definitely a learning experience. If you can't find an expert for the field them thats why I say things aren't working properly. It's not meant as an indictment.

What I DID say was that it couldn't POSSIBLY be as OBVIOUSLY unique. (That there's an adverb modifying an adjective, as indicated in the traditional way by its syntactic position.)

Click to expand...

No, you never said that.

Not because no sites there are unique -- there's no reason a web designer's work is any less unique than, say, a plumber's, of course!

Click to expand...

That was the only point I was trying to make. A web designer's business is unique. His work is unique. As much or moreso than any other business.


And just to clear up any possible confusion
1. 689design.com is not mine, just what i hope to be.
2. I wasn't the one mentioning the lawsuit. (The order of motsa's quotes kinda gives that impression.)

That was the only point I was trying to make. A web designer's business is unique. His work is unique. As much or moreso than any other business.

Click to expand...

Every business is unique in its own right. However, if the website does not convey that uniqueness in an easy-to-find manner, then the changes of a speedy review and directory inclusion are greatly reduced.

I wasn't the one mentioning the lawsuit.

Click to expand...

No, you were not. The original poster was, and needs to tread very, very carefully in future postings.