Guest Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 Hi. I just saw that the category we applied for was updated but I didn't see our listing... can someone please confirm the status for us? 9/15/02 Title: The Free Cell Phones Company Description: authorized ATT wireless dealer offers free cell phones with one year service activation url: http://www.free-cell-phones.net category: http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Consumer_Electronics/Communications/Wireless/Cellular_Phones/ Thanks:)
beebware Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 It was deleted from that queue on the 28th September. It looks like it was probably deleted as it seems to be an affiliate reseller site for AT+T Wireless (see "For example, sites which sell products or services provided by another company and make a small margin on the sale are affiliate mirrors.").
Guest Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 well...I'm not sure what to say about that.... we are an authorized dealer of ATT...I can can fax you the aggreement if you want. And as a dealer, I believe that is the correct category to apply to. Is there another forum to go to make an appeal?
beebware Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 Ok, I've familiarised myself with that category a bit more now (I personally avoid the Shopping/ branch if I can). It does appear that similar sites to yours are listed there, therefore I'm not quite sure why your site was rejected (there wasn't an explanation for its rejection that's why I wrote *probably*). You can try resubmitting and seeing if it is accepted this time - it might have just got muddled up in a load of spam and got deleted by accident. And don't worry about faxing the agreement - it won't be neccessary <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> We aren't the internet police (and don't pretend to be), we just check a site to ensure it meets the guidelines - not whether everything is all "above board".
Guest Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 ... thanks for the quick replies... I got a boss all over my ass right now so your last post will help me out a bit. So no one knows why? Can the editor just do that without saying why like that? That doesn't seem too fair... we waited 5 weeks and now we have to do it all again and it sounds like it could happen again. Do you think I should write the editor? I really need to something to tell my boss... I have been the one telling him that this listing would be so important, now I have to tell him it might of been deleted as an accident... that isn't going to fly with him... crap. Anyone with any ideas? Is there an appeals place I can go?
Meta hutcheson Posted October 24, 2002 Meta Posted October 24, 2002 >... thanks for the quick replies... I got a boss all over my ass right now so your last post will help me out a bit. Tell your boss to chew you out over something you can control, like the direction the sun comes up in the morning. (Well, at least it's PREDICTABLE.) >Can the editor just do that without saying why like that? Yes. >That doesn't seem too fair... we waited 5 weeks and now we have to do it all again and it sounds like it could happen again. Absolutely, it is not fair. You got something (a site review) that you paid nothing for, and you got it about 21 weeks faster than the average. Now you're getting answers that you didn't pay for either. If life were fair, you'd get nothing. But I'll tell you what--if you won't mention it, we'll overlook it also. >Do you think I should write the editor? You can. But first try putting yourself in the editor's place. Apparently they think you're spamming. Would YOU give a spammer your e-mail address? Not likely. Now, are you going to promise your boss that you'll get a response from the editor quickly? (see "sunrise, direction of") >I really need to something to tell my boss... I have been the one telling him that this listing would be so important, It must have taken what, five minutes to submit. Perhaps you should have emphasized what else you did that day. >now I have to tell him it might of been deleted as an accident... No accident, the editor did it on purpose. >that isn't going to fly with him... crap. Anyone with any ideas? Is there an appeals place I can go? I've had bosses with neither a clue nor a bucket to carry one in. The first place _I_ went was a headhunter. This is, regrettably, perhaps a bad time for that. The good news is that one of the purposes of this forum is to act as a way for editors to find out about sites that need a second review. It worked, and you found it. You should get both a review by an experienced editor and a response -- but don't put them on your PERT chart!
Guest Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 well, I'm not really sure what to say to that... my boss signs my paycheck, and as much as I would love to forward him to this thread, it wouldn't help me out. As far as not paying for anything, its not like DMOZ or this forum gives any option to pay.... and whether I paid or not, I think the real issue is an unbiased review of the site.... and I don't know if I got one the first time around because the guy didn't say why he rejected the site... you seem to think he did it on purpose because he thought it was spam. The other editor thought it was an affiliate reseller site. I don't know what else to say other than we are an Authorized Dealer of AT&T. Unlike an affiliate, we had to jump through a number of hoops including going through their compliance department, submitting a ton of paperwork, having them do an extensive background search on us, and then signing an agreement to activate a certain amount of phones per month... an affiliate doesn't have to any of that. The old company I worked for had thousands of affiliates and they barely had to do anything besides fill out 2 forms and slap a banner up on their site. Other than that, I know the site has been up 100% of the time and all programming glitches were solved moths ago before we relaunched the new backend. ...So I don't know what to say other than I would like to see the site get added to the directory and if there is a problem then I would like the opportunity to clear up whatever the misunderstanding was.
beebware Posted October 24, 2002 Posted October 24, 2002 Ok, let's get this right: * The editor did reject your site, but we are unable to tell you what the reason was. We are covered by a code of privacy (see also this forums guidelines). In this occasion it was because the note left by the editor for reason of deletion was not detailed enough to provide any information of use to a public forum. * >> you seem to think he did it on purpose because he thought it was spam <<. I mearly offered it as a possibility for the deletion, and even then I put it could have been an accidental deletion. * >> editor thought it was an affiliate reseller site <<. That'll be me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> To an untrained eye (i.e. one not familar with this particular Shopping category), it does appear that you are merely a direct affiliate/reseller of AT&T Wireless and offer nothing in addition to their service. A quick check shows that your physical location gives me the indication of a 'mail-drop' address (even though it may not be). The description of an 'affiliate' is shown in the ODP guidelines as including >> For example, sites which sell products or services provided by another company and make a small margin on the sale are affiliate mirrors << Apart from that, I have nothing really more to add than hutcheson said above - especially regarding your boss. [add] Actually, I just recalled that I do have a little bit more to add. If you go to the 'Add URL' page of ODP (which is displayed before you can add a site) you'll see the section marked "Editorial Discretion". I quote from that paragraph: >> You should not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. <<. If you have put your job at risk by guaranteeing a placement in the ODP, well, welcome to the realms of unemployment - but don't blame the ODP for it.
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 Ok... well if you are against dealers, I think you could weed out 95% of the sites in your category, because aside from the big guys like ATT, Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, etc there ARE NO SMALL GUYS... the sites you are listing are dealers... they don’t own the networks, they don't manufacture the phones.... here is the first part of the category.. http://www.airwaveswireless.com ...blank page http://www.all4cell.com .... Nokia Dealer and repair http://www.allcellstuff.com ... Strictly a Sprint Dealer http://www.allspring.com... under construction http://www.aacell.com ...requires the use of Flash to get in http://www.anythingwireless.com ....Verizon dealer http://www.arjay.net ... Authorized dealer for AT&T, Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, American Mobile Satellite, Comsat and ICO global Systems. http://www.blueridgewireless.com ...represent the following Carriers in Arizona and New Mexico: AT&T Wireless,Cricket Communications,Qwest Wireless,,Verizon Wireless ,T-Mobile http://www.wearecellular.com ...Cognigen agent/strictly affiliate site http://www.ccsglobe.com/ ...nothing to do with cell phones http://www.cellontherun.com/ affiliate of AT&T, Verizon, Voice Stream, Nextel, Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, Samsung, Audiovox, Panasonic http://www.cellphone-v-cellphone.com/ ...infomercial/affiliate ...so can you tell me why a site like http://www.allcellstuff.com that deals strictly in Sprint can be in this category, and our AT&T site can't? ...or when you click around in this site: Free Cellphone Guy - Offers a free cell phone from Sprint or AT&T, compare cellphones and cellular rates from several providers for best rate. ...how this guy got in here? fill in bogus info at the first form and you get strings like : https://secure3.wehostwebsites.com/~Freecellphoneguy/free_cell_phones_order.cfm?PreID=2460&AffiliateID=2002091457&BU= ...THAT is an Affiliate Site and he doesn't do anything when you call him up besides type in your information into his affiliate site panel. or this site: Mansfield Cellular & Wireless - A Verizon reseller for wireless service and products. ...it flat out says reseller.... where is the confusion in that? same with: Millennium Digital - Resells Nextel service and phones. and best of all... USFreeCellPhone.com - Offers free cell phones, and delivery with service activation of a cellular phone calling plan. That is *exactly* what we do... they are an AT&T Authorized Dealer too... I can tell by their site. In fact, many of the others listed above can’t possibly be Authorized because there is no way they could get these sites by AT&T compliance.... nothing but branded affiliate sites So I am just not following this line of logic... after looking through those sites I cant possibly see why our site would get rejected.
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 >A quick check shows that your physical location gives me the indication of a 'mail-drop' address Didn't you say you wern't "the internet police"?... sure sounds like you are a detective to me... but FYI this is where return orders go once they get an RMA. We put it on every page so people know how to contact us. As the .Net address implies, we do not have a retail store, nor do we claim to, nor do we want one, nor do we need one to be listed in this category. We have a very simple business model.... what we do is give free cell phones to people. We have found over the last few years that that is really what everyone wants. People also seem to get pretty confused when you start talking about rate plans and different companies so we rebuilt a new totally streamlined site and built a company around this model.... we only offer service from AT&T. As per their guidelines we have to run there zip code though the lookup script... we land them on a secure page and give them 2 options as far as phones go. If we can't offer service in their area, or they don't like the phones we offer, then they can go eleswhere. No more confusion or wasted time explaining the difference between different companies or plans.. We don't even have a toll free number anymore... and as a result we have cut our costs without sacrificing customer support or sales.... So, in short,that is why we submitted the following: Title: The Free Cell Phones Company Description: authorized ATT wireless dealer offers free cell phones with one year service activation ...that is what we do, and this is who we are. We don't write up bogus editorials and we don't give you 5 million options, but if you want a free cell phone, we do that very well... in less clicks than any other site out there. And in terms of clarity and focus, we beat out just about everybody including AT&T itself... and that is why it is frustrating to here that we got reject without knowing why. >If you have put your job at risk by guaranteeing a placement in the ODP, well, welcome to the realms of unemployment - but don't blame the ODP for it. My job is not at risk nor did I guarantee placement... but I am the one in charge of getting us listed in search engines and other marketing efforts, and now finding out that I have been wasting my time watching this category when we got deleted for some unknown reason a month ago, no, I wouldn't exactly say this is one of my better days. It never occurred to me that the site would get rejected... its head and shoulders above most of the sites in there. We are who we say we are and do exactly what we say we do. As far as I can tell you have listed other ATT dealers, dealers from other providers, as well as basic affiliates, but we were rejected... its just frustrating
Meta mngolden Posted October 25, 2002 Meta Posted October 25, 2002 Steven, as an editor who *does* frequent Shopping/ let me respond with a few generalities. Many other search engines and directories accept payment for listing sites. ODP does not. Often because a site has been listed in one of these other locations, site owners or webmasters feel they should be guaranteed a listing in ODP. The difference with ODP is that a volunteer person - not a computerized robot - is looking through the site. Commercial entities frequently purchase multiple domain names in an attempt to get their name plastered on as many places as possible on the web. In other engines and directories, it's entirely possible that all those various domain names could get listed (because someone has paid to have that done). At ODP, all the variations get submitted to a queue, and then manually get checked by an editor. As our human volunteer works their way through the (often lengthy) queue of submissions, they come across all of these mirrors and affiliates that may very well be listed elsewhere. At ODP these sites are subject to our editorial guidelines, and 9 times out of 10 they get deleted. However, before we delete the sites, we do our best to determine which is the *main/original* one. If it qualifies for content, we keep it. If not, out it goes. As webmasters get sneakier in their tactics, our tracking skills have to increase exponentially as well. Sometimes we screw up - after all, we're human. Just keep in mind that those of us who're volunteering end up slogging through (literally) hundreds and thousands of commercial sites, trying to make sense of it all. Hope this provides you with some better background information of where *we're* coming from. Marissa Shop/Clothing
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 Hi Marissa, Thanks for taking the time to go through that with me in in such a polite and professional manner. I really didn't mean to imply that just because we submitted a site odp is obligated to list it... and when I said you didn't offer a place to pay, I was just trying to defend myself against this: >"Absolutely, it is not fair. You got something (a site review) that you paid nothing for, and you got it about 21 weeks faster than the average. Now you're getting answers that you didn't pay for either. If life were fair, you'd get nothing. But I'll tell you what--if you won't mention it, we'll overlook it also." "If life were fair, you'd get nothing" ??? I'm not sure where this guy comes off with a rant like this... it's not professional and it isn't constructive. I do however see your point about the duplicate site thing and about trying to list the main source ...but in the cell phone industry, and the phone industry in general, their are many different levels of involvement. At the very top you have the carriers/service providers (like ATT) and the manufactures (like Nokia) ...there is only a handful of these. Beneath them is the distribution network. That ranges from Master Agents to affiliates. Responsibilities range from actually taking/processing the orders, doing the credit checks, etc (and getting paid on a recurring basis) to just sending sales leads to a dealer (and getting a $15- $20 one time commission.) the description for our category says: "Do not submit affiliate sites, mirror sites, non-English sites or sections of a larger site. This category is reserved for online shopping sites which sell to the whole world, or specifically the US and/or Canada." ...as I stated earlier, we are not an affiliate site, nor is this a mirror site... I can say this because I helped design this site from scratch along with the programmers. To be an affiliate or a mirror, there would have to be a 'parent' company... and other than ATT, there isn't one. The second part is the "This category is reserved for online shopping sites which sell to [...] the US"... and that is what we do... we did not apply for: http://dmoz.org/Business/Telecommunications/Carriers/ ...nor here: http://dmoz.org/Business/Telecommunications/Wireless/Service_Providers/ ... and this is why I believe we have met all the criteria we need to for a listing in this category.
old_crone Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 I'm curious by nature and since I haven't looked I'm wondering if you can tell me if the AT&T site sells the same product(s)/service(s) as you do? If so, why should someone use you instead of AT&T?
beebware Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 Yep, they do offer the same. Compare the details of the ATTWS Popular featured package - Refurbished Nokia 5165 and the Ericsson R3000LX. Exact same prices, exact same plans: only difference I can see is that the ATTWS (AT+T Wireless) makes it clear that you are purchasing a refurbished mobile/cell-phone. Both sites do prompt for a Zipcode, so I used "19808" to ensure a fair comparison.
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 no, they are not the same... ATT requires 2 year activation on that plan, we only require one... they make you buy the phone then give you a rebate to cover the cost.... we give you the phone for free AND the rebate.... so you end up with the phone and $50... and that is a better deal and that is why people use us. but it also confirms that we are using the same compliant database and hence we are a dealer... beebware, now tell me why there are other dealers in the category that offer the same type of packages and how they differ from ATT?
beebware Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 I don't know how they differ as I try and avoid Shopping/ as a rule. Plus my knowledge of the American mobile phone market is limited to knowing how the phone technology works and not how they are sold. Did you actually take the recommendation I made in the 4th post (way way at the top) of this thread: It does appear that similar sites to yours are listed there, therefore I'm not quite sure why your site was rejected (there wasn't an explanation for its rejection that's why I wrote *probably*). You can try resubmitting and seeing if it is accepted this time - it might have just got muddled up in a load of spam and got deleted by accident.
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 I didn't because of this: >The good news is that one of the purposes of this forum is to act as a way for editors to find out about sites that need a second review. It worked, and you found it. You should get both a review by an experienced editor and a response -- but don't put them on your PERT chart! ... so I didn't submit again because I took this to mean that it was NOT deleted by accident, someone would re-review it here, ...although I don't know who, nor when... but if that is what I should do, then I'm on my way... ...ok, there, it is resubmitted.
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 Although an editor may not reply if you contact him, it's nevertheless possible that he/she reads your message. You can try to send a kind, short feedback to the editor of the category to let him/her know that your site has been discussed here (include the URL of this thread). <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Guest Posted October 25, 2002 Posted October 25, 2002 ahhh... good idea. Thanks. This is what I wrote: Hello, I just found out that our site was rejected. I was not told if you were the editor who deleted it, but on the suggestion of Editall/Catmv 'beebware' and Editall/Catmv senox, the site was resubmitted today with the following information: Title: The Free Cell Phones Company Description: authorized ATT wireless dealer offers free cell phones with one year service activation url: http://www.free-cell-phones.net category: http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Consumer_Electronics/Communications/Wireless/Cellular_Phones/ The status request and rejection was discussed here: http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=status&Number=10769&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 As we were not told the reason for this rejection we don't know if it was by accident, or there was an actual problem with the site that led the editor to delete it. I was reminded that ODP is not obligated to list any site, but based on the other authorized dealer sites listed in the category, we are unaware of any reason that would prevent our site being listed with the others. We would like to ask that you re-review the site for possible inclusion. Thank You, Steven ---- ....oh, senox, I just realized that you didn't suggest that I resubmit... just that I should write a follow up note... sorry for throwing your name into the mix. Anyway, thanks for the direction. Happy Weekend.
thehelper Posted October 26, 2002 Posted October 26, 2002 I don't know after reading http://www.free-cell-phones.net/terms_and_conditions.html which seems to disclaim any information on the site. If it were unique content than it seems to me the site could be responsible -this thing says it is all other people's stuff. Pretty much disclaims all content - in my opinion.
Guest Posted October 28, 2002 Posted October 28, 2002 re: terms and conditions thehelper, I am marketer, not a lawyer, so while it’s not my job to defend our company in legal matters, I will still try to address your comments, as long as this discussion doesn’t get too technical. Even though our TOS were written by lawyers, they were still meant to be read and understood by normal people... and I think you have interpreted the document correctly, in that it basically states that we are not liable for anything. It means that if you choose to become one of our clients, you will never file suit against us, for any reason, at any time, forever. I am sure that you are aware that people in this county can sue you, and win, for some of the stupidest things imaginable. So instead of trying to write a document that outlines every possible scenario (for example, a customer’s battery ran out and they missed an important call, which caused them some form of damage... and because we provided them with the phone, they believe it is our fault and decide we should pay for their loss) we have universally stated that you can’t hold us liable for anything, across the board. If we assumed responsibility for anything, or certain things, it would open us up to all sorts of lawsuits which would cost us time and money, even if we won them. No lawyer in their right mind would write up a document that made us liable, nor would we post such a document online if one were presented to us. But I think if you are going to look at our terms of service, I think it is important that you also look at ATT’s terms of service located here: http://www.attws.com/terms/ ... because it is quite long, I am going to post a few excerpts that apply.... ----------------------------- From ‘Disclaimers’ THIS SITE AND THE MATERIALS CONTAINED THEREIN ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND [....] AS TO THE OPERATION OF THIS SITE OR THE INFORMATION, CONTENT, MATERIALS, PRODUCTS OR SERVICES INCLUDED ON THIS SITE. YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THIS SITE [....] IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER. AT&T WIRELESS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT AS TO THE INFORMATION, MATERIALS, CONTENT, SERVICES AND PRODUCTS ON THE SITE. AT&T Wireless DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT MATERIALS IN THIS SITE ARE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, RELIABLE, CURRENT, ERROR-FREE, SUBJECT TO CORRECTION [....] AT&T Wireless is not responsible for typographical errors or omissions relating to pricing, TEXT, OR photography. WHILE AT&T WIRELESS ATTEMPTS TO ENSURE YOUR ACCESS AND USE OF THE SITE IS SAFE, AT&T WIRELESS CANNOT AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THIS SITE OR ITS SERVER(S) WILL BE ERROR-FREE [....] OR OTHERWISE MEET CUSTOMER'S REQUIREMENTS. From ‘Limitation of Liability’ IN NO EVENT SHALL AT&T WIRELESS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY KIND [....] ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH (I) THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR THE CONTENT, MATERIALS, INFORMATION OR TRANSACTIONS PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE, OR (II) ANY CLAIM ATTRIBUTABLE TO ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR OTHER INACCURACIES IN THE SITE OR THE CONTENT, MATERIALS, INFORMATION, PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ON OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SITE, EVEN IF AT&T WIRELESS OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. From ‘Indemnification’ You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless AT&T Wireless, its officers, directors, employees, agents, licensors, suppliers and any third party information providers to the Site from and against all losses, expenses, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from any violation of this Agreement by you. ----------------------------- ...my point here is not just that much of this language is (not coincidentally) very similar to ours, but also, that as a dealer, we aren’t going to take responsibility for anything that is not only out of our own control, but is also out of the control of the service provider/carrier. Basically we are involved in an industry which relies on someone else doing something, and if they don’t do it, then the system can break down, and someone will end up holding the bag... and that ‘someone’ is not going to be us. Nor is it going to be the customer. We have our returns policy (on the same page you referenced) if the customer is not satisfied with the product or the service which was provided to them... so they are not without their own rights. I would encourage you to look at other sites in the Cellular Phones category and see what their TOS say. If you do, I am confident that you will see very similar contracts, as this is the standard in this industry and others. Take a look at ODP’s disclaimer. --------- Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY, QUALITY, TIMELINESS, AVAILABILITY, OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, OR OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE ODP, AND YOU SHOULD NOT RELY UPON THEM. WE PROVIDE THE ODP ON AN "AS IS, AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. YOU USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK, AND NETSCAPE, ITS EMPLOYEES, DISTRIBUTORS, DIRECTORS, AND AGENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ITS CONTENT OR DELIVERY, OR FOR ANY FORM OF LOSS OR DAMAGE (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, EVEN IF KNOWN TO US) THAT MAY RESULT FROM ITS USE. WE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. NO WARRANTY NOT SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE VALID. IF ANY OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ARE VOID UNDER GOVERNING LAW, OUR LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. -------------- I think, however, that there is a larger issue at hand that thehelper is trying to point out, namely that we are somehow not an Authorized Dealer. As we are talking about http://www.attws.com/terms/ I would like to point out the following paragraph on the same page: “You may not use, frame or utilize framing techniques to enclose any AT&T Wireless trademark, logo or other proprietary information (including the images found at this Site, the content of any text or the layout/design of any page or form contained on a page) without AT&T Wireless' express written consent. [.....] All violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Now if we weren’t an Authorized Dealer, our site would be in complete violation of their terms, on a number of levels, and we would be completely open to a massive lawsuit which we would undoubtably lose. But this isn’t the case. Not only are we allowed to use the ATT logos, but we HAVE to use these logos as part of our agreement with them. Their legal team is extremely aggressive and will go after you if you FRAME their page. Imagine what would happen to us if we had somehow mined their entire updated zip code database, along with their logos, plans, pricing, etc., and put all of this on our servers, blatantly misrepresented ourselves as one of their dealers, and then promoted ourselves all over the internet using the description we supplied you with. But I am done arguing this fact. I already offered to fax, and will still fax, an ODP decision maker our agreement, which would unequivocally prove that we have an Authorized Dealer Status with ATT, which would explain how we have permission to use their content to sell their products and services. So basically this point is not a subjective matter, nor is it disputable. The category we applied for is specifically for cellular dealers, not providers or carriers, and lists distribution dealers and affiliates for a number of larger parent companies. We have followed the guidelines for submitting a site to your directory, using the company name and single web address that is listed on our contract, and have been denied a listing for an unknown reason. I have attempted to satisfy all the comments made by editors here, and so far I believe that I have addressed every issue. As I stated in the letter to poncedeleon, I am aware that even though I have made a valid appeal against unknown charges, the site can still be rejected for any reason. But so far, no reason has been given. So if you are going to reject the site for ‘no reason’, then I guess I have no other arguments, but as far as implying that we are not authorized, or that you don’t list dealer sites, you have no grounds for your claims... not that you need any. So at this point I’m just going to wait for a review. Please let me know the status when it changes from being unreviewed. Thank you. Steven
Meta hutcheson Posted October 28, 2002 Meta Posted October 28, 2002 I'm a little puzzled about this "authorized dealer" bit. It's not that anyone DOESN'T believe that the dealership is "authorized" -- it's that nobody can figure out what the point is. Now, if you had said, "we CAN'T be an affiliate site, we're UNAUTHORIZED" -- that would have made sense, because it's obvious enough that the "affiliate" model can't work without some sort of "authorization" from the real retailer -- and so ALL affiliates MUST have some kind of "authorization agreement." And if you were to say, "sure, I'm an affiliate, I can prove it with this authorization agreement" -- again, that would have made logical sense. But what you said was, so far as I can tell, logically equivalent to "This site is a cow, not a dog -- see, I'll prove it, just watch me count the legs!" And, while there are surely some editors who could discuss the finer points of vertebrate anatomy, nearly all of us can count to four -- but that's not the problem.
Guest Posted October 29, 2002 Posted October 29, 2002 Your site has been accepted after a second review, it's now listed in the category you submitted to. <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Recommended Posts