submitting related sites for clarity

My wife invented a new skin care concept and technology explained at "keracell.com".
We produced a unique consumer product now sold at facegum.com (in the cue at shopping/health/beauty/skin_care/anti_aging).
We incorporated Andrea Abbott Cosmetics to help find business partners "andreaabbott.com".
It's a new concept and we find the info best understood by business or consumers one site at a time. We'd like to submit keracell.com to "health/beauty/skin_care" and the company site, "andreaabbott.com" to "business/industries/manufacturing/consumer_products/health_and_beauty/cosmetics" (no editor). We see larger companies dividing their information, but are we asking too much to list two or three sites to appropriate cats?

Thanks for your view in general.

TW

Well, I guess no response is an answer of sorts. Or the question was beyond comprehension!

I'll just have to do a bit more looking for related sites in the directory to see if such listings can be valid. But still open to comments...

TW

Sorry this one slipped through the cracks. Health patent nostrum are not every editor's cup of tea.

>>We produced a ... sold at facegum.com (in the queue at shopping/health/beauty/skin_care/anti_aging).

OK, that is probably somewhere close to the right neighborhood.

>>We incorporated Andrea Abbott Cosmetics to help find business partners "andreaabbott.com".

>>We'd like to submit keracell.com to "health/beauty/skin_care" and the company site, "andreaabbott.com" to "business/industries/manufacturing/consumer_products/health_and_beauty/cosmetics"

The latter is entirely inappropriate (you are a (retail) "business" but by no means a "manufacturer.") Since it is an online retail business, the right place for it is Shopping (where facegum has been submitted.)

The other is IMO also inappropriate. Its content is best described as "product information for facegum.com."

I believe our users are best served by a single site for the product.

It is your choice how many domain names you want; you surely know that big companies often purchase multiple domains for each of their brand names. (That's necessary and valuable, for various reasons.) But -- the ODP is not a domain name catalog; it's a website directory, and after reviewing the sites I think it would be most appropriate to consider them all as one website for one retail establishment (that currently happens to promoate and sell one product.)

Thank you very much for taking a look, hutcheson.

I'm OK with taking that route (listing only the facegum product sales site) at least for now. There are links out for those interested.

Incidentally, we are indeed the manufacturer (we contract it to a specialty plant - and it's not legal for anyone else to make it). The FDA would knock on our door with a problem. But you're right that we are not "offering the services of a manufacturer" to the public.

facegum.com is over 2 months' in the cue but I suspect it's one of the busiest areas. Good to know we are applying in the right spot.

This board is extremely helpful to use and to read: thanks to all participating DMOZ volunteer editors. Best for the holiday.

TW

>>we contract it to a specialty plant

I saw...Is the specialty plant listed? -- It should be.

http://www.liquidlabsltd.com

Apparently not: they have been slow to do much online, but we're nipping at them. They've done site upgrades so we'll remind them to submit. (...under "manufacturers"!)

Thanks.
TW

>>They've done site upgrades so we'll remind them to submit.

Hint, hint....From the (suppressed, heretical) FAQ:

Q: Who may submit a site?
A: Only its webmaster or accredited representative. If you do not share at least 50% of your genes with the webmaster, please include a notarized statement of your affiliation before submitting the site.

You know where it is, mon, and you know where it goes, right? So, submit it already!

Me? A Webmaster - heavens no. Except when under the gun for our own business...

I shall pass on your good advice to our manufacturer, but think I'll let them take any responsibility from there!!

Thanks.

TW