Re: your site, browser problems, content, etc.
I looked through your site, too, and I must agree with other editors about the difficulties encountered when looking at the pages with most browsers, and with the content issues.
Code problems
There are errors in lines 14, 41, 85, 119 (object requested) which make several versions and types of browsers crash when attempting to open the page/s. The whole code you put in place is everything but “user friendly”, not even talking about validating W3C. Notice that having clean good validating Html isn’t an absolute
must for getting listed, but when a site fails to display its content, causes problems, or even causes browser crashes in several editor’s browsers, this may be a good reason for being rejected. I use different browsers, and different versions of each browser just because of my RL job, but you shouldn’t expect all editors being in a position to do so – same goes for the final user, which is the final target of your site and of our editorial job. I am sure that you can easily spot in your logs several aborted attempts to open your homepage (look at the calls, the time spent after each call, and the UserAgent, and you will spot the pattern and type of browsers who screamed when attempting to look at your site).
I also saw the "
Sorry, that function is disabled. This page is Copyrighted" statement, and understand your concerns about image hijacking, but this also confirms me that you (or whoever else made this site) don’t have a deep knowledge of Html and WebDesign in general. Your code
is visible, your images
can be stolen, and the whole site
is fully open to anybody willing to take it, just clicking for a ViewCode -- it just makes editor’s job a little harder. Notice that I don’t feel insulted, I don’t take it as an accusation of being willing to steal anything, and it’s not a reason in itself for rejecting a site: it just makes me wondering why several inexperienced webmasters still think that this is something that will “protect” their code, images, and content.
Content
Your site is a Shopping Directory (not a Shopping Guide). I do like shopping directories/guides, they can be useful when they present the final user with the possibility to choose among different retailers, prices, products (directories), and offer relevant information about the topic, or comparison/cross-matching possibilities (guides). They’re less useful when they’re just a list of retailers/shops. You can argue that the pure fact of putting together and organizing a list of retailers in the same field actually
is providing “content”, but we already do this in the ODP (organizing sites in categories), thus any “directory of sites” in a particular field is not considered useful content for the final user if the only information found is something that the user can already or potentially find in our categories. Moreover, Shopping Directories are not considered useful at all when the listings are not picked up and reviewed independently by the directory, but instead are paid listings where the site owner’s can choose the description, wording, etc. which is displayed in their listing. That is, these “directories” are not made for the final user, instead they are made for the business owners to offer them a venue to publicize their products. Your site falls in this last category, and as Apeuro said the "information" you provide on each store is full of marketing hype and “buy me” wording which
we (ODP) don’t consider useful to
our users (the surfers).
Please notice that we don’t discuss the business method, and we have nothing against Shopping Directories: actually, we don’t care at all about the business, we don’t care at all whether a site belongs to a small business or BigCompany.com, or whether a site has 10 or 100,000 uniques a month, whether a site makes 10 or 100,000 $ in monthly sales. Instead, we do care about the
final user’s experience. We do list sites, and we are pleased to list sites, when these sites comply with our Guidelines for inclusion and we find them useful for
the surfer. We reserve the right not to list sites we think are not compliant with our Guidelines, and/or are not useful for the surfer. Please, refer to the part of our Guidelines where it is said "no sites is guaranteed inclusion in the ODP".
Instead of thinking that someone here has hidden agendas, or we have something against you or Shopping Guides/Directories, you may therefore want to carefully read the comments made by other editors, make your site Guidelines-compliant (maybe also browsable without so many problems), then ask to be reviewed again *if you want to be listed in the ODP*.
That is, add
content to your site, to balance the pure marketing/buy me/hyped/business-owner-only-benefit information, since the load of information provided about each retailer that lists with you is
not enough to be considered “content” by us. You want to be considered a Shopping Guide about tobacco/cigarettes (again, by
ODP standards – we don’t pretend to set the WWW standards, but we reserve the right to decide the definition of our own ones, and list sites which comply with these)? Build up sections about tobacco and cigarettes with useful information for the consumer (articles, reviews, history, characteristics of the different brands and tobacco types…). In other words, support and backup the simple
featured list of online tobacco retailers with informational, non-commercial, or at least non-paid/controlled information about the tobacco & cigarettes industry.
Re: your comments.
>> The information is just hype? Not useful to customers? I guess that's why our top retailers are paying us over $300.00 a month
As I said above, the fact that business owners pay $300 or $3,000 a month for a listing doesn’t constitute “content” as per
ODP standards, neither proves that there is content useful for the final user, aside from a list of businesses who advertise themselves with marketing/promotional hype: it just proves that your business method is successful. We can be very happy for you, but this has nothing to do with listing a site.
>> we get emails all the time from our customers thanking us
As I said above, we don’t care about your
customers (the retailers who pay you for a listing), we do consider how useful the site is for the
surfers, who don’t pay you and could find a simple list of retailers (with more or less information, but always a list of retailers) in many other sites, ODP included.
>>
http://www.discount-cigarettes.org … He was in the ODP, until you just removed … I have more unique content than him.
I beg to disagree. I don’t want to start discussing and analyzing why this site was removed (this thread is about abcigs.com, right ?), but you may want to find on this site an attempt to build up sections with consumer info, manufacturers info, brands comparison, etc. Not enough unique content, though, for a variety of reasons.
>> The ODP doesn't say you have to sell a product to be listed with them.
No. We just ask for content.
>> You can offer a service too.
True. But a list of sites is not considered a service as per ODP standards.
>> 250 pages of information isn't enough? What do you expect me to add?
Even 1,000 pages with site listings are not enough information. We expect you (as any other site) to add content, as described above.
>> you've been giving the same hastle to anyone who owns a shopping guide
And we will continue stating our position, and definition of content, to anyone else applying for a listing in the ODP. Looks only fair, IMHO.
>> All I see here is editors who do their best to find reasons not to list someone
No, we do our best to list sites, but we want to list sites which we think are useful for the final users (the surfers). OTOH, what you see here is editors doing their best to explain to site owners that their oh-so-wonderful-and-successful sites cannot and will not be considered by us from the “business owner’s” point of view, which is a very difficult task. Side note – as an SEO I often have the same problem with my clients: explaining them the real meaning of “content is King”, which has often nothing to do with the number of pages, business plan/structure, revenue, etc.
>> And your talking about quality content... have you looked at your directory lately?
As already said in hundreds of different posts, you can pick nearly any category and find sites which are not Guidelines-compliant (switched to different/less content, were added a long time ago when there were less strict Guidelines, were added by inexperienced editors, or were added inappropriately). This doesn’t mean we want to add others, it just means that these sites should be removed (and will be as soon as we will review them and find them lacking content). Arguing that there are other sites listed which are in the same conditions as yours (assuming that this is actually the case, since as you see
our definition of “useful content” somewhat differs from most webmaster’s, in particular when they’re talking about
their sites) won’t therefore bring us anywhere, or add something to the discussion. OTOH, if you have a list of sites which you think are not Guidelines-compliant, we will appreciate your making it available to us, and we will be pleased to look into this issue.
>> I would like to know the real reason I am being discriminated against.
You are not discriminated. Please also notice that there’s a contradiction in terms, since you already stated that we gave the same answer to “anyone who owns a shopping guide”. We are therefore only being fair and applying the same evaluation method (our
Guidelines + editorial discretion), replying to every enquiry with the same attempt to explain what’s listable and what’s not in the ODP.
>> I've noticed that most webmasters and small business owners kiss up to the editors instead of speaking their minds.. for fear of retaliation. I'm sorry.. I speak my mind.
And you’ve probably noticed that we don’t care about whether someone kisses up to the editors. Being curteous and polite in your communications surely helps in putting us at ease and doing our best to answer your question (and is also requested by the
Forum Guidelines) but won’t guarantee a positive answer, or even speed up your listing. Speaking your mind, as long as it is done within the borders of polite communication, is not something that will change our opinion, review methods, or change the possibility of getting listed/rejected. Even abusive behaviour in this Forum won’t affect a site listing, but just prompt us to edit/delete a post, close a thread, and repeat or serious violations of the Forum Guidelines above may lead to the removal of your forum privileges. Again, anything to do with your site listing.
>> Other Webmasters and Small Business Owners: If you would like to post your comments on this thread, please be my guest.
Please don’t. This Forum is not a venue for other webmasters to discuss whether a site should or shouldn’t be listed, our Guidelines, or the ways in which ODP runs itself. Instead, this Forum (and this section in particular) is a venue where webmasters can ask questions about site submission status, and get answers by the editors. You asked a question, and you got plenty of answers, from different editors (and even some technical/structural suggestions, which is even something more). Please notice that while the ODP is based on democratic principles, it does not try to imitate a democratic government: you are therefore free to invite other webmasters to comment about why your site wasn’t listed, or anything else you want... somewhere else.
I (along with all my customers and clients) feel that ABCigs.com is a very useful tool to todays smokers.
We don’t, as per the ODP Guidelines. As I said in other threads, we won't pretend to hold The Final Truth in our hands, but as far as your site stands now, it won't be listed. Some of us may also understand the ramifications of being listed or rejected from the ODP, but please understand that these ramifications should not, as per our Guidelines, be of any interest whatsoever for our editors: the ODP lists sites for the benefit of the surfer, not for the webmasters', site owners', businesses', customers and clients.
Thanks for your understanding.
