You've said your site is not a template site. I'll take your word on it.
I thought I had stated, as clearly as I could, that that DID not make a difference, and OUGHT not to make a difference. Obviously, I failed to make it clear enough.
••• Obviously, you did fail to make it clear ... because it always comes back to your stating a site using a feed partner to better serve their customers is not a "real" site and offers nothing unique to surfers.
>I'm not sure the Avon example applies here ... the online ticket market is growing tremendously and there is an ever growing demand. In order to succeed you need to work your butt off and have more than a template site.
Ah, growing demand, hard work, odd ideas about website development.
••• Yup you did lose me unless your being sarcastic ... what is "odd" about the above in reference to any field of business? Is choosing/working in a growing field, working your behind off to make it better for the customers a negative? Website sites don't build or market themselves ... I would find it odd if they did ... hell I would love it if they did ... that means I could acutally spend less time working.
In other words, EXACTLY like Avon. Have you switched sides here?
••• Lol...switched sides? EXACTLY like Avon? Not at all ... ticket market is nothing like the Avon market nor is the marketing of tickets anything like selling cosmetics to someone's mother in a living room. Its highly competitive field that requires attention, personal service where needed, always looking for great inventory and methods that offer your customers the best variety to choose from anywhere in the country ... when they need it. there is nothing cookie cutter about what I or other serious ticket sites offer.
>I do work extremely hard to produce and am one of the top sales sites with eventsinventory feed.
So the main purpose of the site is to be just another eventinventory feed, but to not look like just another eventinventory feed. Sounds like deception to me. And you work hard at it.
••• Are you being deliberately obtuse? No one is decieving you here ... there is no conspiracy. Simply EI offers a feed so we can offer a variety of national based events to our customers ... as stated in an earlier post there are many variables to a successful site its NOT just the EI feed. And thanks for taking the conversation in the direction of being offensive with accusing me of trying to be deceptive. Have I been disrespectful to you? Not at all. Prior to this I had nothing but respect for DMOZ and its editors and in turn I get disrespect from you and a condescending tone.
>Events inventory does not supply lists of their partners ... its up to us to get our sites out there and succeed.
OK, so the party most interested in the sites, and in the best position to create a list easily, definitely thinks it's not worthwhile to create such a list.
••• No not even close. Wow, this is amazing you just don't get it. EI is not in the business of advertising its partners sites ... they are just a service that offers ticket brokerages a database to enter their inventory so as it will be available to other brokers nationwide ... it is a COMPONONANT of a site it is NOT the site itself.
••• Since EI or any of the others are also not directories why would you/I have any expectation of them making a list of their partners. How many companies make their client lists public?
••• I was under the impression that DMOZ was in the business of making directories and their human editors were there to manually look at sites with human logic because automated process' were ineffective and unnwavering ... but apparently the editors are no different than machines. Do people sign up to become DMOZ editors to actually contribute to the areas they are in or do they do it to say ...well dig this .. I am a DMOZ editor?
I have less interest in creating such a list than eventinventory does.
••• Yes I can see you have no interet in looking deeper into this ... and I don't seem to understand why you think EI should be making lists or that if they did it would serve the same function as being listing in DMOZ. EI doesn't own the sites or develop the sites. They are an intermediary for the various brokerages not diretories designed to feed search engines to offer surfers the best opportunity to make and have choices of what sites to use.
It would be much harder for us to create such a list than it would be for eventinventory.
••• You keep making this sound like some earth shattering effort here ... what would you have to create at all ... just how much effort does it take to do a quick review of a site ... isn't that what the editors are supposed to be doing ... reveiwing sites and finding those sites that fit the catagorie they've taken on to offer a wide scope of choices? You have existing catagories for ticket brokers ... a broker submits their site to the specifc area they think they fit and if it fits the editors copy and paste a few lines of text and add a link and the job is done. What am I missing here or not getting across?
Little work, big interest == NOT worth it, according to ticketinventory.
And so how is "Lots of work and no interest" somehow conceivably worth it to us?
••• Again ... I seem to be missing what will make it "worth it to us?" What are you talking about? You keep speaking of "US" and I was under the impression that the DMOZ directory was about ALL of US ( developers, surfers, editors) not just the editor's likes/dislikes. You make it out to be like whn a site is submitted you're being requested to right a thesis/analysis about every site submission that comes in.
••• Maybe you can clarify what an editors job description is ... if not to review ( instead of being automated machines that summarily reject or accept ) new sites that would bring over more value and build the directories offerings. The way it sounds is ( no offense ) you really aren't familiar with what a EI feed offers/is in respect to ticket brokers needs and their sites.
I think you've done a far better job than I could, of justifying the current ODP policy.
••• And ( no offense ) you've done a great job of acting like a politician who is completely inflexible in looking at whether their policies may be flawed and/or in need of updating. Your right .. everyone else is wrong. Everyone offers the same thing ... no matter whether they do or not.
••• I decided to make an effort to have an intelligent discussion on this after talking to other brokers who warned me that the talking to the editors was a worthless effort ... that it was the most inhuman human situation they dealt with and I am inclined to agree now unfortunately.
••• I am giving it an honest effort to explain to you the diferences between a template site and an actual site ... but you don't see any difference. Apparently they are right you guys aren't interested in hearing anything but what you want to hear ... even if you aren't familar or up to date with the market your making these highly restrictive submission guidelines for. I understand that DMOZ has no obligation to list a site ... but being that its philosophy of offering a better directory it should allow for variances, markets served, human aspects ect of those submitted sites. Not everything is alike.
••• I thought DMOZ was growing and learning and changing to best fits their model of offering quality sites listings so the surfers out there could have the best choices .. but it looks more like you are limiting those choices and offering only what "you" think they should see not what will serve them best.
••• Your argument seems to come down to it would create work for the editors to have to actually look a site and the various applicable considerations why a site should be listed. That anything that uses a feed to enhance its inventory is a worthless site ... not to mention the best part / where you go on to being offensive when you infer that I am attempting to deceive you / lie to you. I have been nothing but honest and respectful in my discussion here and that was an uncalled for accussation.
••• In the same respect that you claim I have done a "far better job" of "justifying" the policy ... you've done a perfect job in "justifying" the things people say about DMOZ editors no longer being editors but more censors.
••• All I can say is thanks for your time ... I wish I could say that I am coming away with this knowing what it is that will bring my site/business to the "level" of quality and uniqueness DMOZ is requiring but I haven't. I have just come away feeling like DMOZ doesn't want to really take the time to look at what makes the catagories more valuable to the surfers.
