status www.mediarec.info

Alucard said:

Hutcheson was very very precise in his wording - he said it looks like an affiliate doorway. He made no judgment as to what it is or isn't.

See you have explained that you happen to be first to publish stuff that maybe only comes later on other web sites. That is probably not obvious from the site itself.

Editors can only review sites based on exactly what is on the site. They probably don't read this forum (very few do). If they see content that is essentially the same as on the official sites for the businesses, they have no way of knowing which one was first.

Click to expand...

True but they see that the news on that website is outdated, while my site has weekly new items, they must think, hey maybe this is a better resource.

But my question is still not answered, should i apply in an other category?

No, you should not submit to another category. If the editor thinks it's worth listing at all (which, as I say, is not obvious -- you might want to think about your "about us" page from that standpoint) then it'll be moved to a better category (if there is one).

The phrase "official fan site", oxymoron though it seems, is fairly common and usually means the webmaster is an officious and pompous idiot. BUT -- I hasten to add -- I remember than there is an author who HAS actually "approved" a "fan site" which has even more material than her publisher's site (even though it's an exceptionally web-oriented publisher!) So if you claim to be official, back that up with some kind of evidence (to avoid looking like the usual such claimants).

I still don't know if the site is listable at all. After all, press releases by definition aren't so _very_ unique. And (however outdated) the official official site is and has a unique authority: only the company itself can authoritatively proclaim who it is and what it'll do for money. A fan site, no matter how officiously material is connected, is (when repeating official material) merely one of many other second-hand sources.

Press releases by definition: not unique, no matter how many or how fresh. Affiliate links to buy recordings are also by definition not unique.Promotional material, no matter how original with you, simply isn't content: it's just another form of advertising we skip past looking for the real content.

For an ODP editor to recommend the site, there needs to be content with unique information or unique authority. For a site that looks like just-another-affiliate-link-farm-with-rehashed-promotional-material, you're going to need to make an effort to show uniqueness. After all, amazon.com has all the releases for all those national companies, and a good many more beside. And how many CD purchasers do you know who actually buy material based on the COMPANY that issues it?

Well anyway: that's the kind of thinking that'll drive the editorial decision. If you have unique content, you can be thinking of ways to feature it, to serve the kind of surfer the ODP is designed for. If you don't, you can, I suppose, abandon hope.

But a multitude of submittals cannot make up for an absence of content. And, as I mentioned, we're asking very specific questions about the content. If that's not the kind of content you're interested in providing ... that's OK, the ODP is not for you but it's a big internet.

Thx for your long reply, really appreciate it. You talk about press releases, but the biggest part of our site are the Discographies, we have almost 1500 albums on our site including Cover-scans and Trackrecords, this information is gathered by ourselves! Since 70% of our pageviews are in the discography section i think we provide a great and unique source for the artists of this label!

So i think we have enough unique content.

I think with the arguments you give, you can delete about 85% of all websites.

IE you can delete all the sites who are only displaying ODP or Wikipedia data, because they don't have ANY own content at all.

And you can also delete all metasearch engines, because they don't have also no own content.

We don't actually "delete" websites, we just decline to recommend them.

But yes, we probably recommend fewer than one-sixth or so of all sites. But don't emphasize what you have that's not unique (we don't actually MIND it; I've posted non-unique stuff myself!) -- emphasize what's unique.