submission status for nalasgallery.com

nalasgallery.com & "grey unreviewed queue"

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Which provokes (again) the question as to whether editors should arbitrarily reject sites that have the appearance of being affiliates, and spend their time editing more promising material.<p><hr></blockquote>
Which is what the editors are effectively doing by "leaving the affiliates looking sites in the unreviewed queue", and editing sites that looks more promising, just_browsing (BTW, I think you and old_crone would make very good editors /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif)

Hmm ... this prompted a thought about another unreviewed queue. So we have in order of "quality" ...

• Dark Green Greenbusted unreviewed (should be ready for click and publish)
• Green Normal unreviewed
• Grey Affiliates looking unreviewed (sent by editors from normal queue, for experienced affiliates cyber snoopers editors to get into)
  [/list:u]
  Then our status report for www.nalasgallery.com could be, waiting to be reviewed in "grey unreviewed".

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The above statement just proves that webmasters do not understand the definition of an affiliate. The keywords are "there will be dozens or even hundreds of sites with the same stock numbers" meaning they are affiliated with the company who manufactures and ships the products, thus they are affiliates.
<p><hr></blockquote>

That is not a good definition of affiliate. By that definition, since Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sites would sell the same books from the same publishers, then they all would be affiliates. Which they are not. By that definition, if target.com and walmart.com carry Eureka vacuum cleaners and Eureka has a site, then WalMart and Target would be affiliates, which they are not.

The generally accepted definition of an affiliate site is one which does not sell the product, but rather promtotes the product of another site in exchange for a commission for a sale, lead or click.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>do you know you can get one for $52.67 as opposed to $58 on Nalashome. <p><hr></blockquote>

This is NOT cool. If you all want to criticize my site, prices, polices and shopping carts, then that totally eliminates the purpose and usefulness of this forum. If that's the case, then everybody post a link to their site so we all can start giving unsolicited criticism.

I did not come here for ecommerce advice. Say what you will about my site or prices. If you have an income producing, product based, commerce enabled website then put your link here, so I can see how YOU roll. Otherwise, it's useless for you to continue giving opinions on what I need to do.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>But, being listed on the ODP is not going to make you a wallet full of money, right? So, no biggy if your sites aren't listed, right?
<p><hr></blockquote>

My only, let me repeat, my ONLY concern for getting in ODP is for, and only for, its influence upon google rankings. Obviously, there is heavy bias with respect to submission. And I would rather not be in the directory than to do a 360 with my site just to *possibly* get into ODP. You're right. If I do not get in, it is not a big deal. But I came here to check the status of a submission.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm afraid that's exactly what you will have to do, eventually, if you want to compete with all those thousands of other sites selling the same products as you. Your competition is only going to grow. Content is everything on the net and if yours isn't different, it will be passed over in favor of a site that is different. <p><hr></blockquote>

Maybe. But it's like saying there is limited room for companies on the net and it's either or. People who shop online don't look for "different" sites. They don't go to widgets.com and say, wow, that's not different, I will go to "gadgets.com." They don't search and search and search and search until they find a site that is different.

And Yes, I do understand that ODP exists for the benefit of the end user. But realistically, so does yahoo and the site that was submitted to yahoo was accepted without a hitch. I think that there is obvious bias that governs the way ODP operates.

If my site was rejected for not being unique, fine. But it's NOT an affiliate site. Let's be real, like ODP consists mostly of unique, substantially different sites. Within any one specific category, there WILL be similarity among sites. How can there not? How can you have dozens of art sites and none of them sell some of the same merchandise? How can you have dozens of books ites and none have overlap in products?

Re: nalasgallery.com & "grey unreviewed queue"

sabre23t, I am a very good editor, just not an editor for the ODP. I'm also in favor of all editors form all people powered directories offering information when possible. We have far more incommon than not and there's always someone who knows more than I do. If I'm not open to giving what I know, how will I know more?

The many post I've read on this forum has giving me food for thought, what more can one ask for? /images/icons/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p> Is it so you can be prepared or so you will know what products are being returned because it's not being returned to you? <p><hr></blockquote>

Regardless of what I may say, you all have already decided that I do not run my own businesses, that I am simply an affiliate of another company. For the record, yes ALL the returns are sent to me, to my PO box, where I pick them up myself, process the credits through my merchant account myself and send customers their receipts myself.

But the fact of the matter is, what impact should that have upon my listing in a directory? Where my products are returned to?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>ou truly have no clue as to what the editors have to contend with on a daily basis - without any pay for doing it!
<p><hr></blockquote>

You're right. I do NOT have a clue. And I should not need to have a clue in order to get listed in a directory. I suppose it is a thankless job, but so is the nature of much volunteer work, particularly when the volunteers are never seen. It was a choice.

I suppose I should argue that you may not know what it is like trying to earn income with an honest internet business without being attacked by anonymous people on a message board when trying to find the status of your submission to a volunteer-run directory that obviously has a few deep-seated biases. But I would not expect you to care.

If the directory is bombarded with useless, spammy, submissions, then I can definitely understand the frustration. But that doesn't mean that you all should start heavily criticizing someone coming to seek help. It's like if I go to the post office and ask if my package has arrived and they start going on and on about how I run my businesses, and how my packages should look and how they should be wrapped and how my postage was not appropriate.

It was unnecessary for people to go to the extreme to which they did to criticize my site.

FWIW these are my sites that I built and that I chose the inventory for which to sell. This is my company that is in my name that I registered that I run and I answer the phone and I process the orders and I process the payments and I handle the customer service.

I did not come here asking what you all thought of my site, or my cart, or my return policy, or my pricing, or my product selection. Yes, you might have opinions, but none of them were necessary to answering the initial question.

But you know, I'd like to see YOUR sites because if you're such a good critic of mine, then let's see what you have. You all have already dissected what I have.

"That is not a good definition of affiliate. By that definition, since Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sites would sell the same books from the same publishers, then they all would be affiliates. Which they are not. By that definition, if target.com and walmart.com carry Eureka vacuum cleaners and Eureka has a site, then WalMart and Target would be affiliates, which they are not. "

There's one big flaw in your argument. All the businesses you listed sell, handle, and ship the products. All but amazon have physical stores and amazon was the first to do what it does, thereby making it unique by definition. The others merely have website to support their physical locations and of course, take advantage of the net. They already have a targeted audience, no need for them to vie for placement anywhere!

"The generally accepted definition of an affiliate site is one which does not sell the product, but rather promtotes the product of another site in exchange for a commission for a sale, lead or click."

That is not my definition, nor is it the definition of the company I work for.

"Maybe. But it's like saying there is limited room for companies on the net and it's either or. People who shop online don't look for "different" sites. They don't go to widgets.com and say, wow, that's not different, I will go to "gadgets.com." They don't search and search and search and search until they find a site that is different."

No, I'm not saying there is a limited amount of room on the net for any one product or the many sites that sell them. What I am saying is if you want an edge over your growing competition, then you had better find a way to offer something different than all the rest.

You are absolutely right, people don't go out and search for something different. That job is for the people powered directories so they can give their users something different. Otherwise, there would be no point in having one, would there? There would be no reason for google to use the ODP, absolutely none!

Your only concern is to get a better page ranking on google so that people will find you in the top 20 or so. I'm saying that the best way to do that and to stay in the top 20 is to offer something unique along with your common products. You may not like my advice and you certainly don't have to follow it but I can promise you that your competition will only increase and your listing potential will decrease. Think content, content, content!

The ODP's only concern is to offer quality sites with unique content. The only way they can achieve that goal is to weed out redundant sites.

I'm done with this tread. I've said what I needed to say and now I'm becoming redundant. I completely understand your point of view as a webmaster trying to have an online business. But I also understand the situation from a directories point of view. You can make your own choice as to what to do with your site and so can the ODP. The two do not have to meet.

Besides, you may very well be listed on the ODP. I am no threat to that possibility.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>There's one big flaw in your argument. All the businesses you listed sell, handle, and ship the products. All but amazon have physical stores and amazon was the first to do what it does, thereby making it unique by definition. The others merely have website to support their physical locations and of course, take advantage of the net. They already have a targeted audience, no need for them to vie for placement anywhere!
<p><hr></blockquote>

That is not entirely true and again, must be based upon an assumption and not on research. Amazon has a relationship with one of the world's largest distributors of electronic products to handle the fulfillment of their electronics and computer products. As do many sites. So if the definition of a legitimate site is one that handles and ships their own product, then that eliminates probably 50-75% of the websites on the net as many of them do use third party fulfillment of some kind.

[edited to add]
So Amazon doesn't stock all it's own product. In fact, in the beginning most of their stock was drop-shipped direct from large distributors. I'm not sure how much of it still is now.

[end of added portion]

Even many brick and mortar stores that have websites do not handle and ship their own products. Matter of fact:

Sport Chalet
Dunham's Sports
The Sports Authority
DicksSportingGoods.com
Athlete's Foot
Fogdog Sports

All these companie above are listed in ODP. All these websites are operated by the same company, GSI Commerce, that has made arrangements with the companies to build and market websites under their brands, in turn giving these companies a share of revenue.

Now please don't go and remove them from the directory as they are great sites and should be in there, they do provide value. But it further illustrates my point about how my site was unfairly beig singled out because of the overlap in products of what I carry and what others carry.

There are many more commerce segments in which this type of thing is common-- electronics and computers being another where the majority of the merchants are not stocking, handling and shipping their own product. But again, that, in and of itself, has no bearing upon that site's suitability for inclusion in such a directory.

Okay, I'll concede to many companies using other companies to ship their products but that doesn't change the fact that they have an affiliation with the companies. So, tell me, do those sites have unique content?

Your site was singled out because you had three site that looked similar and appeared to sell similar products. That's a red flag for most editors. At least, that's what grabbed my attention. I also realize that this is a mistake new webmasters make, maybe because they have gotten bad advice, or because they just didn't know that it could look like spam. The single most problematic thing on the net is spam and it's growing by leaps and bounds!

Just for the record, I see no problem with the layout of your site, in fact, it's better than most. The redirect to a shopping cart is not a problem either. The three submissions, the user name and password, the authorization number were all red flags.

But I did learn something from all of this. I learned that my perception has become stilted with my experience of spammers and affiliate webmasters willing to do anything needed to get a listing. I automatically assume the worst instead of assuming the best. This will, in the future, help me to become a more understanding editor and remember to walk a bit more softly.

I apologize for the role I played in making you feel like you had to jump through hoops in order to get your site approved. I stand behind the advice I offered you, it is good advice.

What the editors on the ODP do with your submission is up to them.

Peace

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>the user name and password, the authorization number were all red flags.<p><hr></blockquote>

I understand the reference to the username/password for the cart, but I don't know what you mean by authorization number

This is ridiculous. The thread title was/is "submission status for nalasgallery.com"

The answer is "it is still waiting."

The END.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>So, tell me, do those sites have unique content?
<p><hr></blockquote>

No, they really do not. But they are all listed in ODP. This is not at all related to the topic of my submission, but there is an argument for having similar sites in the directory and that is to offer the end user choice.

Here's a very specific category of which I am familiar. We collect movie posters. Nearly all the movie poster sites have a 90% overlap in inventory. Most have identical pricing. There is value in being able to find all these sites in the same directory and that is choice. I may prefer one site over another for an arbitrary reason that makes no sense to anyone but me. Same with many consumers.

Maybe I like the one with 24 hour ordering, maybe I want faster shipping, maybe I want a company closer to me so i can get my product faster, maybe I want a company out of state so that I don't have to pay sales tax.

All things being considered, there is value in choice, even if that means that some sites do not have unique content.