www.topweddinglink.com

Thank you for bringing the Keywords issue to our attention… Before you mentioned it, we really did not think much of such issue. I guess you learn something new every day. I spoke to the webmaster and we made some corrections. We are not that much of website experts… so we learn as we go along in the midst of a very hectic work schedule to keep up with the demands imposed on us in maintaining our business… One thing we do well is provide good resources on our website for the brides and grooms planning their wedding and the vendors who are able to serve them in a courteous and professional manner.

If there is anything else we need to do before you reinstate our listing, please let us know.

>>>I'm sure you're mentioned in a textbook or two about SEO, if that's any consolation.<<<<
Forgive me for not knowing… but what does SEO mean?

>>>> I'm sorry about the health problems in your family.<<<<
Thank you…. It is extremely hard… No family or person should ever endure such traumatic challenges of life.

Warm regards,
Julie

The ODP rules are such that dishonest SEO (search engine optimization) techniques aren't a relevant issue to listing a site. Hidden keywords, and keyword stuffing would only be an issue if this was so extreme that basically that was mostly what the content was. The problem I see with your site is that this is a directory with an awful lot of categories with no content. When I first looked at this site, all the categories I checked were empty. Looking further, I see that some do indeed have content, while many don't. The obvious issue here: if an ODP editor reviews your site, and after checking 3 or 4 categories all which were empty, not listing it would be reasonable. Basically, it is a lottery whether or not an editor reviewing your site will find content, depending on what categories they check. As such, I have to question whether a directory which is laden with empty categories is listable.

>As such, I have to question whether a directory which is laden with empty categories is listable.

What's to question, mon? As an editor, you should know better <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> It's not.

I do not recommend wasting your time resubmitting this site. The bar for "unique content" for a directory rises as fast as the ODP grows, which is, presumably, much faster than you can add content to your own directory (not having thousands of volunteers to help.) If the site is not acceptable now, regardless of how much time you devote to it, it would be less acceptable by the next time it's reviewed. If you submit, realistically you should expect it to be rejected.

&gt;What's to question, mon? As an editor, you should know better It's not.

What we have here is an "if you build it, they will come" directory. What has been done is first creating a slew of empty categories, and then sit back waiting around for people to pay to submit (or, "pay" in the form of a link back.) With a directory, the idea is that you get content in the form if listable sites, and then create categories as needed to properly categorize that.

&gt;&gt;&gt; The ODP rules are such that dishonest SEO (search engine optimization) techniques aren't a relevant issue to listing a site. Hidden keywords, and keyword stuffing would only be an issue if this was so extreme that basically that was mostly what the content was.&lt;&lt;&lt;
rfgdxm, thank you so much for this important clarification of what SEO means… and for the important correction to the earlier guidance we received regarding the SEO that our site had too many keywords on the first page and other pages. So in summary, based on your guidance, we understand now that the SEO techniques, as well as our use of keywords, on the homepage are not relevant and should not have been reason to delete our listing by the Editor. We thank you for letting us know this.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The problem I see with your site is that this is a directory with an awful lot of categories with no content. When I first looked at this site, all the categories I checked were empty&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
We are somewhat surprised, we may not have reached our ultimate goal yet as most business go through a business S-Curve, but I can quickly list a lot categories that are filled with vendors in most states:

http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/ny/Videographers/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/nc/Reception_Sites/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/co/Honeymoon/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/hi/Wedding_Planners/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/ut/Music/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/fl/Ceremony_Sites/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/wy/Invitations/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/ca/Catering/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/ny/Decoration/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/sd/Favors/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/tx/Limousines/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/or/Photographers/
http://www.topweddinglinks.com/NationalDirectory/mi/Gowns_And_Tuxedos/

Furthermore, due to the nature of the wedding and honeymoon business, it is hard to fill every category in every state especially in the least populated states.

Add to that, that we also take a great measure of care as to what vendor to list in our directory instead of letting the submissions be posted unedited. We monitor, to the maximum extent possible, every submission made instead of filling categories.

Although we have been in business for just under a year and half, the fact remains that we are a top ranking site and have much more categories filled than most other wedding and honeymoon websites listed in DMOZ. Our vendors do appreciate and actually love our good service. We invite the Editor who removed us to verify directly with them at http://www.topweddinglinks.com/testimonials_vendors.html

We respectfully ask for equal treatment of ALL sites and not discriminate against us by singling our site out for the “understandable” imperfections of many. All sites are work in progress and many sites like ours are in a continuous improvement process.

If anyone scrutinizes other wedding sites listed in DMOZ as much as ours has been scrutinized, most if not all of them, using “equal” standards, would be promptly deleted just as fast as our site has been deleted. In fact, we checked many of the sites listed, and it is obvious that they all flagrantly suffer from the same deficiencies that our site has been accused of..

We would love to spend more money if we had it, and dedicate more time and human resources to further enhance our site to be of further help to the brides and grooms as well as the vendor who serve them, but no business has unlimited resources and the tragedies of life do get in the way in a very unexpected way…

At a time where most companies are outsourcing to countries outside the U.S., our business is an a US, woman owned business, and all our work force is right here in the U.S. contributing our share to the growth of the hard hit U.S. economy at an exceptional time of our Country’s history after 9/11.

As we stated earlier, our unique content may not be perfect but so is the unique content of almost all the wedding websites listed in DMOZ, some of which have little or no content. Having said that, our unique content is a great wedding and honeymoon resource that has been extremely useful to the tens of thousands of brides and grooms that visit us daily and who find us very helpful in planning their wedding and honeymoon, from the wedding reception timeline, to the Honeymoon Destinations, to the ethnic Wedding traditions, to the Chat forum, to the Wedding &amp; Ceremony Music, to the Wedding Software, and to the fun resources we have to help ease their stress of wedding planning.... We often receive testimonials from brides and grooms who love our content. We invite the Editor who removed our listing to read some of the testimonials we receive at http://www.topweddinglinks.com/testimonials_brides.html

Please let us know if we still need to do anything else to reinstate our listing.

I thank the good Editors who showed sincere sympathy. Today, I found my mother and father-in-law crying together thinking of the hard fate dealt to them with their terminal diseases (breast cancer and MD/ALS). It was a hard scene to deal with knowing I had to be strong for them and comfort them.

Once again, my wish for you all is that you may be spared the senseless tragedies of life and live healthy lives with your families.

warm regards,
Julie
America’s Top Wedding Links

Hutcheson:

I would respectfully like to point out that there may be an honest misunderstanding as far as to how empty our directory is. As I pointed out in my reply to rfgdxm , our Directory is far from empty… Although we may not have reached our goal, we are a top ranking site with tens of thousands of visitors daily and our directory has more vendors (thousands more) than many if not all of the other wedding websites listed on DMOZ.

As I indicated earlier, if anyone scrutinizes other wedding sites listed in DMOZ as much as ours has been scrutinized, most if not all of them, using “equal” standards, would be promptly deleted just as fast as our site has been deleted.

We respectfully ask for equal treatment of ALL sites and thank you all for your consideration.

Warm regards,
Julie
America’s Top Wedding Links

It is not a very good argument that your site may be better than some others listed. If so, then that may just mean that somebody should make a note to go through this category looking for sites that should be deleted. The ODP has lots of sites that really shouldn't be listed. Some are because the site has gone downhill since it was listed. Some because they were added years ago when the guidelines weren't as strict as today. And some because the editor just didn't do a good job and wasn't very selective. However, that there are some substandard sites in the ODP isn't justification for adding anything and everything.

I find all those empty categories a problem. That there are some categories with ample listings is no excuse for a directory to be laden with useless categories. If as an ODP editor I were to create a bunch of empty categories and say "someday I'll get around to adding sites in them", metas would be whacking me with a cluestick left and right for having done so. Thus, I'd have to question why the ODP should list directories that are doing things that would be considered unacceptable for ODP editors?

rfgdxm

Assuming that you are the esteemed Editor who deleted our site at such speed. Thank you for your response… But we must courteously disagree as many of the points you have made do not apply to our site.

&gt;&gt;&gt;If so, then that may just mean that somebody should make a note to go through this category looking for sites that should be deleted&lt;&lt;&lt;

That's exactly what applying “Equal” standards means! The “same” level of scrutiny should apply to all the wedding websites under http://dmoz.org/Society/Relationships/Weddings/Directories_and_Guides/United_States/

And
http://dmoz.org/Society/Relationships/Weddings/Directories_and_Guides

and other wedding related categories

Singling us out while leaving other wedding websites who do NOT meet ODP standards is simply a clear form of discrimination against us.

It took us little time today to browse through the other wedding sites listed under the two categories above and, applying “equal” standard of scrutiny and speed, most if not all of the sites could equally be deleted swiftly.

I am not one to promote removal of ANY other wedding site as I would safely assume, knowing many of them, that most if not all are very hard working people trying to offer the wedding industry a positive contribution in their own way.

My point is that since the other sites do not meet ODP standards (some more severely than ours), and since we are expressly reporting to ODP that they do not meet ODP standard, then applying the same standard of scrutiny should result in a quick review and fast deletion of most if not all of them.

I am not sure if it is ODP’s intent to remove all sites that do not meet ODP standards. If it is, then we are reporting to you that most if not all the wedding sites listed under the two DMOZ categories above do not meet ODP standards in a way or another. If it is not ODP’s intent to remove sites that do not meet ODP standards, then the “fair and equitable” thing to do is to reinstate our site until DMOZ brainstorms and fully agrees on ONE standard that can be applied fairly to all the wedding sites.

We do feel flagrantly singled out especially that we are expressly reporting to you (as ODP asks members of this forum to do, and we are members of this esteemed forum) that the other wedding sites in those two categories do NOT meet all ODP strict standards.

We have taken a fair measure of care to communicate with you in good faith, but it appears that we are being discriminated against no matter what.

For the record, our site has not gone downhill since it was listed a few months ago by one of your esteemed Editors (Hildea). On the contrary, our site has continually been going uphill since inception. There are many public benchmarks that you can refer to that unmistakably support such ascent.

Our site has NOT been listed years ago when the guidelines weren't as strict as today… It was listed few MONTHS ago following, we were told, the strictest ODP guidelines which included a change to the Category we requested and the site description that we submitted.

Our site is NOT a substandard site to the many brides grooms and vendors who use our site and we gave you enough backup information in our previous messages to support that.

Finally, we were assured by Hildea the Meta Editor that approved our site that she followed the strictest ODP guidelines in listing our site after consulting with many other Editors to be on the safe side. This is why she listed us under the USA Directory while other sites who have far less International content were CURRENTLY listed under the parent directory. It takes little time to identify all of such sites.

Where is the Meta Editor Hildea? Kindly summon her to express her opinion here since apparently there is not one standard applied to all wedding sites. How many ODP standards are there?

With the enormous pressures I have in my personal life, I don’t have time for this extended dialog. I sincerely put honest effort to address your comments. Now, I urge you to:

1. either extend a fair degree of leniency towards us,
or
2. apply the same strict standard to all the other wedding sites that do not meet ODP standards in the same speed our site was dealt with.

The premise that the useful content that we have already built in a record and reasonable time is not useful to brides and grooms is wrong as highly evidenced by the feedback from the brides and the grooms themselves as well as the vendors that we serve.

We courteously would like to bring to the attention of DMOZ that many of the categories that you referred to have recently been added as part of our site expansion. Businesses do expand…. How can a site expand? How can a well established and a top ranking business expand in the U.S.? While other wedding sites have had several years to build a vendor base that is much smaller than ours, you sure must agree that a reasonable time is needed by any business to market the new categories.

We recommend reinstating our listing and giving us a reasonable time to fill the empty categories or to remove them to be in compliance with ODP standards... We feel that this is a fair proposal.

In the meantime, our other categories have far more content and vendors than most if not all the other wedding sites listed under the two DMOZ Categories above.

Thank you so much…

warm regards,
Julie,
America’s Top Wedding Links

&gt;Assuming that you are the esteemed Editor who deleted our site at such speed. Thank you for your response…

Nope. You can check my editor profile page, which is public. I am not a listed editor in that category space, and am not on the editall or meta list. Thus, I couldn't possibly have deleted your site.

&gt;Singling us out while leaving other wedding websites who do NOT meet ODP standards is simply a clear form of discrimination against us.

Not true at all. For example, I edit category space with thiusands of listed profiles. If I spot one that doesn't belong and delete it, I ain't going to check every one of the thousands of other profiles to see if also they should be deleted. That other sites are listed that aren't guidelines compliant doesn't mean that deleting one that isn't is discrimination.

&gt;My point is that since the other sites do not meet ODP standards (some more severely than ours), and since we are expressly reporting to ODP that they do not meet ODP standard, then applying the same standard of scrutiny should result in a quick review and fast deletion of most if not all of them.

So you presume to dictate the speed at which unpaid volunteer editors must do things?

&gt;Where is the Meta Editor Hildea? Kindly summon her to express her opinion here since apparently there is not one standard applied to all wedding sites. How many ODP standards are there?

You forget editor discretion, which at the ODP is pretty broad. I've deleted sites other editors have added before because I thought they were inadequate, or didn't comply with the guidelines. It is possible in your case it is different editors based on their different discretions coming to different conclusions. Or, possibly the first editor didn't pay as close attention to your site as the first. Or, possibly you site has changed since it was added 8 months ago.

&gt;We recommend reinstating our listing and giving us a reasonable time to fill the empty categories or to remove them to be in compliance with ODP standards... We feel that this is a fair proposal.

How long does it take you to remove empty categories? Heck, I can't understand why you ever created empty categories in the first place. And, I think you are worrying too much about this ODP listing.

And, I think you are worrying too much about this ODP listing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!
Go look at surfsafely.com. Fill out a form (honestly), add a snippet of code generated from the form to the head of your pages (all of them if you like) and then submit. You'll be in their directory in less than two weeks, and you'll be helping to make the internet a safer place for kids. Its a proactive way to get away from the internet's ol' boys club. Oh yeah, better pr and more traffic than dmoz too.

In all honesty, does anyone get much traffic from surfsafely.com? Admittedly, traffic from dmoz.org and the clones isn't exactly massive. In the case of the this wedding directory, it not only has plenty of inbound links, these links are also from sites related to the topic. It also has a home page with a solid Google PageRank of 6. Any benefit this site would get from an ODP link is marginal. Thus, the owner may seriously want to question whether altering the site to comply with the ODP guidelines to get listed (and, one has to agree any directory laden with empty categories seems dubious) is something to worry about?

It appears to me that you are concerned with other site content in comparison with yours. When a site is denied it does not make sense that every other listed site be evaluated to be sure that those sites have more content than the denied site. Each site is evaluated case-by-case. If we did that every time, we'd be adding just a few sites a day or less. It is possible that the other sites need to be re-evaluated if the content is not there, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not your site qualifies for a listing.

As clearly stated in the rules for this forum, under Forum Guidelines - READ BEFORE POSTING If your site has been rejected, please keep in mind that arguing about the editorial decision will not be tolerated.

Ok, I'm not certain anything more productive will be gleaned from this discussion. Obviously all sites are subjected to editorial re-review from time to time, which means if there are sites out there with sub-standard content then they will be weeded out.

Members are encouraged to contact a meta editor if they believe there are sites in the index that fall below our standard for unique content. It's also instructive to remember hutcheson's point regarding directories. As the ODP itself grows and becomes more comprehensive, directory sites will be listed less and less, because by definition they will no longer be unique.

The directories that will continue to be listed will have some unique aspect to them that the ODP itself does not provide (i.e. more comprehensive reviews of sites for example)