Clarification on Submission Rules

[dogbows]

Thank you, I am honored!!!! And I can assure you that my input has not been self serving, (except for my personal category change), but hopefully informative to help make any changes that might come about be changes that will be beneficial to both the lister and the end user equally. With that combination all are winners!! Including the ODP!!

[thehelper]

Yes - the things I said about the dog bows category were simply my opinion. Any changes such as a dog bows category or anything like that are made by editor consensus in the internal forums.

[dogbows]

Appeciation!

 

Yes, I understand, and I appreciate everyone's generousity and patience. I really do hope I did not come across as argumentative as many members do in this forum. And I am very grateful that my input will be considered, although not necessarily adherred to. Alucard, I especially thank you, for your comment. It really lifted my spirits to know that you felt my input was useful. I know that you all know very well what you are doing, and I believe whatever changes are made in the future, will be changes for the better.

Thank you all!!

[raggedyrugs]

Have to admit it has been enlightening and pleasant to read this thread. As one of the "minor" participants in the re-org of Shopping/Pets, we have to look at http://dmoz.org/Shopping/desc.html and http://dmoz.org/Business/desc.html and use that as one of our guidelines in helping to decide where a site may belong according to our taxonomy.

 

Basically sites selling only "Business to Business" usually are sent off to Business. Hopefully---but not always, there is a related category in each branch. If and when 'retail' sales, (meaning in quantities normal people would purchase) is added, then "Shopping" would be the proper branch.

 

There isn't too many things that can't be changed (with proper discussion of course, which can and has been started here). The final decision as to what categories are created and the type of sites that belong in each category has to be made internally. (With necessary input from all learned sources)

 

Dogbows, We thank you for your input. Stay tuned, when all is said and done, we've hope that we've done it correctly..

[dogbows]

And thank you rr! My only real concern from the very beginning, was that the sub-category of grooming supplies would get lost in the shuffle. Whether it goes to Shopping or to Business, is not a concern to me at all, unless the grooming supplies category no longer exists, or if grooming supplies and pet supplies are merged. An @Link is an @Link! No matter where it ends. But, Pet Supplies are for Pets, and Grooming Supplies are for Groomers. That's it in a nut shell! And I am confident that the editors of ODP will most definitely do it correctly!

 

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY! To all the Mothers. There is no greater calling or responsibility!

 

This is an add-on! I feel one more point needs to be established here, about the possibility of Dog Bows having their own category.

 

Concerning this category: http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Pets/Supplies/Apparel/Dogs/

If Bows has it's own cat here, then it should be named Accessories as I mentioned before.

 

However, concerning this category:

http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Pets/Supplies/Grooming/

If Bows has it's own cat here, then it should be named Finishing Products. Because they are not referred to as Accessories in the grooming industry only in individual pets.

 

It appears to me that there are enough listings in Grooming Supplies to have three categories.

 

First Category: Bathing Supplies, which would include all the Shampoos, Conditioners, Dryers, Tables, etc.

 

Second Category: Clipper Services, which would include all Clipper Sales and Sevices as well as Shear Delight which offers sales and service for Scissors.

 

Third Category: Finishing Products, which would include all Bows and Bandanas (but only Bows and Bandanas that are produced in bulk for groomers, and not the ones for individuals that are currently in Apparel). And the Soft Paws that is listed in the grooming supplies category would also belong in Finishing Products.

 

Unless I counted wrong, there would be a minimum of seven or eight, in each category.

[sugieb]

I have done a little more researching. And have found many dog bow makers in the category below and they are all in the right category. (except for me which I expect to show up eventually in the grooming category since the helper said he moved me) I just hope he did not move these.

 

http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Pets/Supplies/Apparel/Dogs/

Always Fancy http://www.alwaysfancy.com/

Barking Beauties http://www.barkingbeauties.com/

Finishing Touch http://www.dog-bows.com/

Lainee Ltd https://www.laineeltd.com/

PerfectDogBows.com http://www.perfectdogbows.com/

Utopia's Bows http://www.utopiasbows.com/

All of these should remain where they are. They are appropiately categorized the way the directory stands at this time.

 

There is one listed here that caters to both individuals and groomers. However, it's primary is selling to individuals, I believe, and would also do better to stay in this category.

My Shelties http://www.myshelties.com

 

Actually, unless I missed one somewhere it appears that Bowtique Dog Bows and Fancy Pants Dog Bows(Me) are the only ones that were miscategorized, except of course the double listing for Bows by Haley.

 

I would ask for a consulting fee,

but I am sure that it would be the same wage as the editor's fee.

There is one listed here that caters to both individuals and groomers. However, it's primary is selling to individuals, I believe, and would also do better to stay in this category.

My Shelties http://www.myshelties.com

 

I recently submitted my site to the same category that this site is listed in. I have a question about this site (quote above). I notice that this site has two other domains in her links pages for this domain. So in total her listing covers 3 domains that she has, because her links are not pages but new domains. Is this acceptable? Also as an example, I see that there is hidden text keywords at the bottom of most of her pages, and I would like to know if this is okay also. I did not see any rules on ODP for posting spam keywords on the pages.

[bobrat]

I notice that this site has two other domains in her links pages for this domain.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

 

--------------------------------

 

Hidden text is not considered, it's what an editor sees, not what is hidden. Hidden text is used to manipulate search engines and ODP is not a search engine.

[sugieb]

3 domains to one ODP listing

 

http://www.myshelties.com/index/shelties.html

http://www.toy-poodles.us/

http://www.concretegardenart.com/

 

There are 3 domains/websites as links on her index page each to cover a new product. Is this allowed?:icon_ques

[bobrat]

The first is not really an problem - it's listed in a totally separate category. One is breeding, one is dog accessories.

 

The second is not an issue since it's not listed in ODP.

 

The third is not an issue since the web site does not exist.

[sugieb]

Clarification

 

Oh okay I see. I was more or less checking out some of the sites that were in the ODP listings to see what was considered a quality site listing and saw the keyword spam and the extra domains linked on that site. Truthfully I was surprised to see it, but I am interpreting your response to say that all is well with this. No response is required you have answered my question.

[bobrat]

Thanks for asking, and also making us aware that the second site is the same company. That has been noted for future reference. It may or may not be ok to have both sites, I did not spend time reviewing them, (since I do not edit in that area), but it's always better that editors are aware of possible conflicts.

[hutcheson]

You're confusing the absence of content (our measure of non-quality) with the presence of something else. Google is a quality website, even though 95+% of many search results are pure junk. It's the presence of the useful search results that matter.

 

The advantage of human reviewers is that they CAN ignore the idiot attempts at SERP perping, and the occasional bad links, and the unattractive page layout, and the witless Font-Plague-ish HTML generation, and many other vices THESE sites don't even have, and focus on the information.

 

If THAT'S not there, then we have a problem.