Status please - http://www.goldimporter.com :)

Website submitted is:
http://www.goldimporter.com/

It was submitted ~1 month ago here:
http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Jewelry/Precious_Metals/

I'd really appreciate a status update, especially because I'm not sure if it was submitted to the right category but I wasn't sure where else would be more appropriate.

Thank you for your time.

Sorry but this site is lead generator for business that has a site that is already is listed and as such it would be struggle to have enough unique content to merit listing. The FAQ link seems to be broken but I strongly doubt that the contents of that page would change the situation significantly.

A lead generator??? Like an affiliate site? I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. This is a site specifically designed to "appraise" gold jewelry as scrap and offer to buy it. Usually for about 2-3x what a pawn shop is willing to pay for the gold/scrap. Definately something an end user would find useful. To get a quote on their scrap jewelry in the comfort of their own home and sell it for a very fair price.

The other sites I run/operate have nothing to do with BUYING gold/jewelry, they only SELL stuff.

Obviously running my jewelry sites (among others) I get people every once in a while call up and say "hi, i have this gold necklace and I want to sell it, do you guys buy stuff" ... and then I tell them "no sorry" because I can't be bothered to calculate what it's worth for them, etc...... but after enough people calling me and asking me to figure out what their gold is worth and put to gether an offer, I figured there was a need for a site like this and put it up.

But to be honest, I am very dissapointed you would call this a lead-generator site because it is definately not. I only make 100% unique sites, that are not affiliates, don't have keyword stuffed URL/domains that I try hard to brand and do so using clean/spam-free techniques with a visually appealing layout. I don't even sell the same products twice on any 2 websites I operate because I feel it is spamming and unethical. Sorry if this is a long rant, but to be honest, I am very shocked by your accusation.

BTW: I will fix the FAQs link, I didn't notice that, thank you for bringing it to my attention. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have one more thing to say about the "lack of content" issue.

There is virtually NO (ZERO!) websites online right now (to my knowledge) that will give you an appraisal for your scrap gold jewelry, base on you inputting the karat grade, weight, etc. in real time. This is an incredible service in itself, and to anyone considering pawning their gold, it would help them tremendously in trying to get the best deal they deserve or just giving them an idea of what their gold is worth.

They don't have to submit their info to me to get a quote, they get it right online and can leave freely without ever even bothering me (which is why I put it up in the first place).

&gt;The other sites I run/operate have nothing to do with BUYING gold/jewelry, they only SELL stuff.

Odd as it may seem, editors may consider "buying gold/jewelry" and "selling gold/jewelry" to be aspects of the same business.

Now, if you put a link from a listed "gold/jewelry selling" business to this new domain, and request an additional note on the description "also buys gold/jewelry; online appraisal calculator" or some such, IMO that would be a reasonable change and a benefit to our users.

hutchseon,

Almost every jewerlry store/business is not in the business of buying jewelry (legally) because to do so, they have to do some sort of checking to make sure it is not stolen, they have to hold it for a certain amount of days, etc. There is a permit you need to pawn jewelry, so to answer your question, most jewelry stores do not do this, and if they do, they tend to operate it seperately as a pawn shop in another store/location.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Now, if you put a link from a listed "gold/jewelry selling" business to this new domain, and request an additional note on the description "also buys gold/jewelry; online appraisal calculator" or some such, IMO that would be a reasonable change and a benefit to our users.

I'll probably link to this site from relevant sites such as my other jewelry sites, but are you saying I need to make changes to goldimporter.com before it is acceptable for inclusion in DMOZ?

Also, can someone tell me what the status of it is? All I've been told is that it is a "lead generator site" ... is this the final consensus of the DMOZ editors? Has it been deleted? I sure hope not because that would be a total waste.

Thank you.

...but are you saying I need to make changes to goldimporter.com before it is acceptable for inclusion in DMOZ?

Click to expand...

What is being said here is that goldimporter.com won't be listed, but if you set up a link to it from your listed jewelry site (dyjewels.com) it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask that the description for your already listed jewelry site be updated to include the fact that you also appraise/buy jewelry.

Also, can someone tell me what the status of it is? ... Has it been deleted?

Click to expand...

It isn't going to be listed therefore you can presume that the submission is no longer in the queue.

OK well I would like to know something because this fundamentally impacts how I view DMOZ.

It has always been my impression that if you create 100% unique sites with unique content, that it will be listed in DMOZ. Am I wrong here?

Otherwise I am creating all my new sites for nothing, because I am spending a ton of time creating highly useful, unique sites which do not even offer the same services. For example, I have a new site soon that will specialize in loose certified diamonds only, and will have a very cool build-your-own ring feature with 3D animation. I have another which will specialize in wedding favors and bridal accessories. I have another that will specialize in garden accessories.

Are you telling me that because my "certified diamonds" site is too similar to dyjewels.com that it won't get in DMOZ even though they don't sell the same stuff and ALL the content is completely different???

Please tell me how this site (goldimporter.com) does not contain 100% unique content and has no benefit to the user, because I just do not see it. If it is a lack of content that is something that can be corrected and I can reapply. But what you people are telling me is that I do not deserve multiple listings for each of my 100% unique busineses, and this can not be right because it goes against what the DMOZ strives to accept. 100% unique and useful sites Joe Public would appreciate.

Well try this for an analogy

If I walk into your store, do you have each counter set up as a single, discrete business with it's own unique product and sales staff? Does the customer have to walk out of the store, walk in a different door, walk up to a different counter with a different salesperson, to look at a different product.

No?
Well you are saying that that is how the online business works - they can't walk over to the other counter (link to other site). Thy must exit, then find the other door (url), enter that and deal with a staff member (site) that may, or may not, be part of the same store.

We tend to look at business (as opposed to informational) sites as a single entity. If a site owner chooses to make it impossible for editors to describe all the aspects of a business by not linking it, it's not our fault - we describe what is on a site. For our purposes a business has one site, whether listed on one page, one url, subdomains of a url, or spread over several domain names. Site structure is entirely up to the business owner. We describe what is available on the most appropriate site we can find for a business - if no links exist to part of the business it can't be described on the listed url. It also won't (normally) be listed seperately - that would be provoiding two listings for a company.

As with everything there are exceptions, but mostly count on that for businesses with completely unrelated sections of a site - If they manufacture pet supplies and industrial machinery, each part of the company *might* be listed in the disparate categories. If they sell /manufacture related products, the single site gets listed at the level where the products meet.

Manufacture gold widgets and green widget accessories
Rather than list in manufacturers/widgets/gold and manufacturers/widgets/green/accessories they would list in manufacturers/widgets.

If they split the products onto seperate domains and don't link them, we have to make a judgement call on which site to list at the upper level.

I'm really confused by why you would be creating sites for DMOZ. You should be creating them for customers.

Getting the customers in the door is not something we are concerned with - we just want the customer to know what is in the store *if they choose to go there*

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Only you can know if you are "wasting your time". An ODP listing is certainly not the only way to publicize a site, and it isn't necessary for marketing a site. If breaking your company's site into many pieces and destroying navigation between the sites is an effective way for you to generate business and for your users to find your business, then I'd say that you aren't wasting your time.

However, you also aren't going to get a separate ODP listing for each small subsite you create for your business. So if an ODP listing for each subsite is your goal, then yes, you are wasting your time.

As far as the ODP is concerned, your business will get one URL listed for all of its related business lines. We consider different URLs for the related businesses to be subsites of the main business site. How you choose to design your site to allow (or not allow) users to navigate between the subsites is up to you.

The ODP is not intended to be a catalog of individual web pages, nor should it be seen as a substitute for effective web design.

Gimmster, thank you for your logical response. I really do understand where you editors are coming from. So many webmasters out there register 50 domains like red-shiny-widget.com, red-furry-widget.com, red-fluffy-widget.com, etc... They spend 30 mins whipping up a new site and try to sell the same stuff. And they want to be listed for all 50 domains when they're essentially selling red widgets, widgets, or whatever.

Believe me, this is not the case here. I have gone through painstaking lengths to create unique and useful content. I sir, am not a spammer <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I would like to set something straight. These are all indeed seperate and unique businesses that other people I've hired take specialized roles in running, I don't oversee everything, therefor there is not one location of business, in fact I now have staff in offices in Las Vegas, NV (bridal) ... Los Angeles, CA (diamonds), and one opening in soon somewhere else in California for gardening products. (statues, water fountains, etc). I am overly ambitious with a strong entrepreneurial spirit and funding multiple online ventures, but I am not spamming.

I understand there is a lot of grey area here.. For example, Take a look at this "network of sites":
favorsdirect.com
alicebluebridals.com
annabellagio.com
ashmontengraving.com
cdcelebrations.com
denamariebridal.com
itsmymitzvah.com
orangeblossomtiaras.com
downhomegirl.com
corporate-gifts-direct.com
bellissimabridalshoes.com
aristova.com
.... I could go on and on. They have dozens of sites.

My point is, many of these sites have DMOZ listings, some in the same category! And they overlap and sell the same products, have similar layouts, etc. Some will say this is spam, some won't. To me, some sites are spamming because their themes/products overlap on several sites and they're essentially "pushing the same products" on multilpe sites... but I'm not the editors you are.

My point is, I can litterally name tons of such "networks" where they are allowed in DMOZ. But I'm not asking you guys to list all my "spammy sites" with similar themese/products with only say... 20% unique content each.

I'm asking you to list my sites which are 100% unique, and I just can't understand for the life of me, why you would deny my other businesses a listing simply because I own another seperate business which is already listed. DMOZ strives to be as complete as possible correct? So why would they choose to discount new unique content?

lachenm,

My goal is not to create as many "subsites" as possible. It is to create as many reasonably themed sites that can be branded on their own. I do not wish to create my own "walmart" online. I want my companies to be well established on their own, and yes, DMOZ / Yahoo listings are to be a part of this so I would expect to be included.

This is not a matter of partitioning my site to gain as many DMOZ listings as possible. This is about creating new businesses which target a specific type of product that deserve to be branded and grown on their own merits.

Please read The forum guidelines. This includes If your site has been rejected, please keep in mind that arguing about the editorial decision will not be tolerated. and Rejected, and not likely to be accepted anywhere" is a reasonable status.

We are not going to fill up the jewelry categories with multiple sites because you have decided to split up the contents of what you do. Gimmster explained this clearly with the explanation regarding the fact that in a brick and mortar store you wouldn't split up different jewelry counters in one store into multiple separate businesses. From our perspective, it is up to you how you want to split them up--but you will be given one listing for your one business that provides related jewelry services.

As for some sites having multiple listings, you are welcome to send me feedback providing sites that may have gained multiple listings and should not have and I will check each and every one out. This does not, however, change what is being told to you here.

I have seen good suggestions, such linking to your other sites and requesting an updated desc. I would say that is the best option, take your main page and offer the customer choices as to your other services--much as they would find if they walked into a store you owned. Splitting one business site into multiple urls to gain multiple listings isn't appropriate and I believe our position has been explained clearly.

Alright, well even though I think this of different theme, I respect your judgement that I don't deserve more sites within the "jewelry" category. I just hope when it comes time to me creating other businesses. (Bridal, Gardening, Electronics, etc) that I don't run into this problem again.

I won't be responding anymore to this thread, so feel free to "bash me" as much as you want. One thing that this has taught me, and that is DMOZ editors have an overly zealous thirst for spam to the point they have forgotten what is important here, and that is giving users as much access to unique content as possible.

Best wishes,
Yosef Adde

&gt;&gt;I just hope when it comes time to me creating other businesses. (Bridal, Gardening, Electronics, etc) that I don't run into this problem again.&lt;&lt;

If you own a business in a completely separate field, it may be eligible for a separate listing. For example, if you have one site selling jewelry and another for a web design business, we would almost certainly give you two listings.

I, for one, can't figure out why so many webmasters of small businesses think that the multiple listing policy is so bad for their business. Maybe they haven't stopped to think what would happen if the ODP allowed individual product pages or lines of business for sites like WalMart or Amazon.com. Their categories would be overwhelmed by listings from major companies, and it would be almost impossible to find the few listings for small businesses.

I hope you don't think anyone was bashing you personally.

In fact, no one even bashed your site. We didn't tell you what you could or couldn't put on your site -- or how to design it. That would be wrong of us and besides, we don't care. You can put any material on your site and organize it in any way you choose. All we told you is what our policy is regarding what to list (and not list) on our site.

&gt;&gt;One thing that this has taught me, and that is DMOZ editors have an overly zealous thirst for spam to the point they have forgotten what is important here, and that is giving users as much access to unique content as possible.&lt;&lt;

Actually, the ODP tries to give the users access to content. Unfortunately, the priorities of users and individual webmasters are not always the same, which is the source of your complaint, and of many others in this forum.

See, here's the funny thing: you are choosing how to deliver your content to your users. In other words, it's your choice regarding how much access to give them, not ours. If you design your site effectively, they should be able to find your content from the main URL -- which is the one that would be listed in the ODP. As I said before, the ODP is not intended as a substitute for effective web design.

born2dry -- I agree that it looks as if many people try too hard to "catch someone in the act" and not trying to determine if the site provides useful content to users. The purpose of a search engine should be to provide surfers with a list of possible matches for what they are looking for. Too much regulation is never good. For example, Iraq had too much regulation. Iran is another good example of too much regulation. There is always a happy medium for everything. These are just my personal opinions. I think banning a website for things like having multiple links from another website is pretty bad (reason my site was turned down).

I think that if your site provides a web surfer with good content that may be useful to them and isn't deceiving or lying, include it in a search engine. It may be just what one of your users are looking for. Again, this is just my opinion and is what I think search engines should be about, not just this one.

Anyways, like someone said up above, there are numerous ways to advertise your site and multiple search engines to get into.

I realize there are many opinions such as the one above, " I think that if your site provides a web surfer with good content that may be useful to them and isn't deceiving or lying, include it in a search engine. It may be just what one of your users are looking for." ODP isn't a search engine, rather it is a directory of sites that provide unique content. Many sites divide there content up into numerous urls in an attempt to gain numerous listings. This is not unique. I have seen as many as 60 urls for what would have been served in one listing. That does not serve the purpose of ODP and IMHO is just an attempt at getting as many listings as possible. It is also not fair to the sites that do provide one comprehensive url, they should not be punished by significantly less listings because a competitor decided to do all they can to gain multiple listings in many different areas of a branch. It is like stated above, say amazon.com was allowed a listing for each branch of products (which is numerous) they offer instead of the listing for amazon.com, how fair would that be? Really it is one business offering a variety of products, therefore the one listing for amazon.com is the fair result.
____________________________________________________


That said, I would like to let born2drv know I did receive his email and have resolved the problem. I will not be answering via email as I do not wish to further argue the point as your email seemed to indicate to me a belief on your part that because an editor did not catch that the two sites you named were related that it is proof your numerous sites should be listed. That is not true. One has nothing to do with the other. Actually that site had snuck through two subsites, which is a good example for why the policy against fraternal mirrors exists. Unfortunately, some sites manage to sneak through but are usually caught later. That site was not intentionally given multiple listings. I have removed the two subsites and moved the main listing to a more appropriate placement. Thank you for drawing it to my attention, and if you notice others I would be happy to look at them.

Lin