i submited several times but couldnot get included. i think i submit to the right category. maybe not good enough? this is my site: Make Laugh Not War
why is my site never get included?
- Thread starter ttfe
- Start date
No reason.
The problem is always the other side of the decision. We need a reason to list a site. If we don't have that, then we don't list it. The only possible reason for listing a site is "unique content."
Apparently the editor didn't find it.
The problem is always the other side of the decision. We need a reason to list a site. If we don't have that, then we don't list it. The only possible reason for listing a site is "unique content."
Apparently the editor didn't find it.
glasgowpanorama
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2
hutcheson said:
I saw this guy's site and it is a joke site. Then I searched dmoz and found many categories related to jokes and clicked on one of the sites listed. To be honest I can't see any difference between his site and the sites listed.
for example:
http://www.blonde-funny-jokes.com/
http://www.blondesville.com/
Is there something that I don't see?
And I should mention that I am not critisizing but trying to learn the criteria.
Really, the only way to learn the criteria is to try to apply them.
So ... go search Google for, say, a few thousand joke sites. Try to figure out what "unique content" means in this context.
And ... you might then see what you certainly don't see now -- the likeness between his site and the sites NOT listed (which is of course and obviously the thing most often not seen by people wondering about SPECIFIC sites NOT included.)
So ... go search Google for, say, a few thousand joke sites. Try to figure out what "unique content" means in this context.
And ... you might then see what you certainly don't see now -- the likeness between his site and the sites NOT listed (which is of course and obviously the thing most often not seen by people wondering about SPECIFIC sites NOT included.)
I can see both sides of this issue and understand both.
What it seems many are trying to say here is that you never receive any feedback, even that the submission was reviewed and then declined. It is not until a user breaks the guidelines in one of these posts by inserting their website and asking "why" or even "if" the listing has been denied or seen.
If, as the moderator has stated, that the submission was reviewed repeatedly and denied repeatedly, this is probably becasue the site was re-submitted. If the website owner gets no notification that the site was denied, they are really left in the dark and are left with the only option avialable to them which is to re-submit the site, only further wasting the editor's time.
What it seems many are trying to say here is that you never receive any feedback, even that the submission was reviewed and then declined. It is not until a user breaks the guidelines in one of these posts by inserting their website and asking "why" or even "if" the listing has been denied or seen.
If, as the moderator has stated, that the submission was reviewed repeatedly and denied repeatedly, this is probably becasue the site was re-submitted. If the website owner gets no notification that the site was denied, they are really left in the dark and are left with the only option avialable to them which is to re-submit the site, only further wasting the editor's time.
What it seems many are trying to say here is that you never receive any feedback, even that the submission was reviewed and then declined.
Absolutely. And they are saying that for the simple reason that it's just true.
>If, as the moderator has stated, that the submission was reviewed repeatedly and denied repeatedly, this is probably becasue the site was re-submitted.
Yes, almost certainly.
>If the website owner gets no notification that the site was denied, they are really left in the dark and are left with the only option avialable to them which is to re-submit the site, only further wasting the editor's time.
No, no, a thousand times no. There are two options. One is to follow the policies that are set up to protect editors, benefit users, and allow the most efficient review of large numbers of submitted sites (which incidentally benefits submitters.): submit once; wait; either submit once more or ask in the forums. That is the only option a polite person will even consider, and so it would be fair to say there's really only one option.
The other (reprehensible) option is to violate the submittal policies, assuming that rudeness will be rewarded by the victims. As one of the victims, I submit that's a very bad assumption. All you're doing is building a reputation for the site.
The editors aren't stupid. it won't take long before they rightly say, "this jerk has submitted this site x times, it was never worth warm spit before, and there's no reason for me to waste my time even looking at it again." Nuclear delete, and go on looking for sources that will help find useful sites.
To repeat: repeat submittals are not a good idea. They will not help you. They will not help your site. The only things they will raise are your gestank and the editors' hackles.
And it puzzles me why people can't see this obvious fact. Just assume editors are looking for good sites; assume the submittals are there to help them do that, and not for any other purpose at all; assume editors know that ... and all else follows. But none of those are secret.
Absolutely. And they are saying that for the simple reason that it's just true.
>If, as the moderator has stated, that the submission was reviewed repeatedly and denied repeatedly, this is probably becasue the site was re-submitted.
Yes, almost certainly.
>If the website owner gets no notification that the site was denied, they are really left in the dark and are left with the only option avialable to them which is to re-submit the site, only further wasting the editor's time.
No, no, a thousand times no. There are two options. One is to follow the policies that are set up to protect editors, benefit users, and allow the most efficient review of large numbers of submitted sites (which incidentally benefits submitters.): submit once; wait; either submit once more or ask in the forums. That is the only option a polite person will even consider, and so it would be fair to say there's really only one option.
The other (reprehensible) option is to violate the submittal policies, assuming that rudeness will be rewarded by the victims. As one of the victims, I submit that's a very bad assumption. All you're doing is building a reputation for the site.
The editors aren't stupid. it won't take long before they rightly say, "this jerk has submitted this site x times, it was never worth warm spit before, and there's no reason for me to waste my time even looking at it again." Nuclear delete, and go on looking for sources that will help find useful sites.
To repeat: repeat submittals are not a good idea. They will not help you. They will not help your site. The only things they will raise are your gestank and the editors' hackles.
And it puzzles me why people can't see this obvious fact. Just assume editors are looking for good sites; assume the submittals are there to help them do that, and not for any other purpose at all; assume editors know that ... and all else follows. But none of those are secret.
shritwod
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2002
- Messages
- 210
glasgowpanorama said:
The problem is that if there are ALREADY similar sites listed, then adding new sites with almost identical content doesn't actually add value to the directory from the perspective of the VISITOR. Ideally, we don't want categories with dozens and dozens of sites re-using the same content, what we actually want are sites that are similar but in some way have a unique quality that adds value and choice.
Look at it this way - if you go to the supermarket and find a whole shelfload of plain vanilla ice-cream and nothing else, when you actually wanted some Ben & Jerrys, then this isn't what you want as a CUSTOMER. If the store then adds more vanilla ice-cream, that doesn't help.. you still want ice-cream, but you want more of a choice.
So, as a directory we want to offer a diverse range of sites in each category, even though that category might be quite tightly themed.. a little like the ice-cream shelf.
(I think I must be developing an ice-cream fixation, sorry.)
chrisnomad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 4
Site not accepted
I tried twice to get my sit listed with your service. There was a gap of more than one month between the two attempts. The site was www.amalgamalternatives.co.nz which was created to inform people of the issues involved before having amalgam fillings removed. I found the correct category related to dental health issues and amalgam fillings. There were very few entries here and I really cannot understand why the site was not included. Thank you.
I tried twice to get my sit listed with your service. There was a gap of more than one month between the two attempts. The site was www.amalgamalternatives.co.nz which was created to inform people of the issues involved before having amalgam fillings removed. I found the correct category related to dental health issues and amalgam fillings. There were very few entries here and I really cannot understand why the site was not included. Thank you.
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
Simply speaking because we do not run a service. The fact that you used that terminology indicates a deep misunderstanding of the purposes of the directory, it's goals and ambitions.
You would benefit by reading the posting guidelines, the forum FAQ, and browsing through posts in the fourm - that might enlighten you as to what the ODP is.
The format of your post indicates that you did not bother to even read the posting guidlines - and to be honest, it kind of bugs me when people jump in to the forum with a complaint and don't have the courtesy to do that.
Oh, one other thing - you are listed.
You would benefit by reading the posting guidelines, the forum FAQ, and browsing through posts in the fourm - that might enlighten you as to what the ODP is.
The format of your post indicates that you did not bother to even read the posting guidlines - and to be honest, it kind of bugs me when people jump in to the forum with a complaint and don't have the courtesy to do that.
Oh, one other thing - you are listed.
chrisnomad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 4
Thanks for the help
<hostile post deleted>
<hostile post deleted>