www.florida-find.com

[spectregunner]

You have the right to go to the category where the site is presently listed, submit a URL Update request, and state (succinctly) what category you think it belongs in and why. An editor with lots of experience in that part of the directory will evaluate your request and make a determination.

 

We don't move sites as a result of forum postings.

[Alucard]

The point is, though, that if you are using ODP data, then, by definition, you are duplicating data which is already listed (in the ODP), and therefore, again by definition, your data is not unique.

 

If people want to get at the ODP data which you have duplicated, they can go directly to the ODP, or any other of the sites which duplicate our data. What value does it have to the surfer (the person we are building this directory for) to list it anywhere?

 

We are more than willing to document the various places that the ODP data is used - in a category that is set aside for that purpose.

 

You are more than welcome to submit an update request, though - I am merely explaining, from this editor's point of vierw, why I don't believe that such a move will take place.

 

[Caveat: I have not looked at the site - I am merely explaining some general principles]

[dajeffster]

Craven,

 

I am about to step outside the forum guidelines in this response, but will post it anyway in an attempt to explain.

 

I prefer to speak frankly, so please don't take anything I say as a personal affront.

 

It doesn't seem right to put Indiana Find under the category Sites Using DMOZ Data/I

 

Under ODP guidelines, sites that use ODP data are listed in Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Sites_Using_ODP_Data.

 

Our guidelines also state that a site may be listed twice if it is content rich in a second topic or content rich in Regional interest and adds value to the ODP category. [i'm paraphrasing]

 

If I were looking for a directory for Indiana I would look here http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Indiana/Guides_and_Directories/[/url"] and would never even think to look in the sites using dmoz data.

 

I would like to think if someone wanted a regionally focused directory, they would use the ODP! (It is, after all, what we do...)

Regional/North_America/United_States/Indiana

 

I would also like to think, we (as an editing community) strive to provide a comprehensive source (directory) of quality, content rich sites. To that goal, we list sites that are unique and are rich informational sources.

 

It is redundant, to say the least, to list a site that uses ODP data in a regional directories category, in the ODP.

 

It just seems like you're penalizing sites that are using the data.

 

Not at all! We are listing them exactly where someone looking for a site that uses ODP data should be looking.

 

We look for content rich sites that are unique and add value to a given topic in our directory. A site using ODP data as its centerpiece is neither unique nor does it add value to the ODP directory in most topic "directories" type categories. In an attempt to be a comprehensive directory, the only logical place to list these mirrors (in whole or in part) of the ODP, is in a category for sites that use ODP data. Then the site adds to the directory, because it is a unique example of how a site uses ODP data.

 

 

You are running a directory, would you list a site that uses your data as a source for the data you supply?

 

 

All that aside, this forum is not the place for further discussion about why we list or don't list sites. This forum is for status requests. So as a summary:

 

- Originally, you asked for a status check on Florida Find. We denied the listing because it violated the licensing agreement. This has been corrected on the site, so you are free to submit it to the appropriate category. The appropriate category is Sites Using ODP Data/F.

 

- Indiana Find is waiting for review in Sites Using ODP Data/I. Since it was originally misplaced, it has now been sent to the appropriate category. This misplace occurred because the site was violating the licensing agreement and was not thoroughly investigated when it was originally submitted or it would have been denied outright, 2 years ago.

 

- Indiana Find's mirror at furryhoops.com was found some time ago when the site changed content from basketball to a State Directory and was removed from the directory.

 

- Florida Find's mirror at stalbanswood.com was removed when it was discovered that its content also changed after the original submission.

 

 

 

Just for the sake of clarity there seem to be some misunderstands jumping out at me in some of the previous posts. (and for those of you playing along at home)

 

The time line of this thread shows you were well aware of the licensing agreement and had begun adjusting Florida Find but said nothing about Indiana Find (and as you later said "other sites" you own), until it was removed. The removal was an action which you thought "was kind of low."

 

Caring about quality control is not some kind of retribution, it may feel that way when it happens to your site, but it is really not. Correcting current problems and keeping them from reoccurring in the directory, is not some soopur sekrit cabal, no matter what the men in black suits lurking in the various webmaster forums think.

 

It is just operating in the directory's best interest, which is what editors are supposed to do.

 

Saying a mistake from 2 years ago should remain because of some implied mythical grandfather clause, is not considered a valid argument. Pointing to other sites is also an invalid reason for inclusion of a site. We try to improve the directory when we edit, lowering standards seems to be in direct opposition of this goal.

 

In my humble opinion, your sites will probably not be listed in any other category until there is substantially more unique and valuable content. As an editor, I don't think a directory site using ODP data and adding sites that may be ineligible for a ODP listing as an added value. I am offering this advice because you my find it frustrating waiting for months to be told the site was denied. You could use those months to add quality content.

 

This forum is not a venue to expedite any part of the submittal/review process, so there is no need to make any additional requests here. Please use established submitting procedures and status requests, as outlined the appropriate guidelines, from this point forward.

 

 

 

Personally, I'm none too sympathetic when I hear someone, who was violating the ODP Licensing Agreement, trying to explain how much work they did on a site as a cause for listing the site. By not placing proper attribution, it seems they weren't very interested in the work ODP editors did creating the data.

 

Switching content on sites already listed is borderline abuse in my opinion, but I will assume it was an innocent mistake. This has occurred twice I am aware of and could easily be seen as a developing submittal pattern. Please be aware of ODP guidelines on Spamming.

 

No offense, but I can't see how further discussion on this topic is necessary.