uneedtools Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Please let me know the status of http://www.uneedtools.com, submitted to http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Tools. Thank you.
uneedtools Posted March 9, 2005 Author Posted March 9, 2005 Can You Please Tell Me Why My Site Was Denied Can you please tell me why http://www.uneedtools.com was denied? Thanks.
oneeye Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 The answer to all rejections ultimately boils down to lack of sufficient original high quality content. Sufficient meaning enough quantity, original meaning not found elsewhere on the Internet, high quality meaning valuable to our users, content meaning information. Sites that fail on one or more of those factors don't make it in. Some sites, by their nature, are actually designed to fail on one or more, others are capable of remedial work to bring them up to standard. Critically examine all aspects of your site against the requirement for sufficient original high quality content. That will tell you where your site fails - if you can't work it out then you aren't being self-critical enough.
uneedtools Posted March 10, 2005 Author Posted March 10, 2005 Thank you for your quick response. Your comment, "...if you can't work it out then you aren't being self-critical enough." is total speculation, judgmental, offensive, and uncalled for. If I "can't work it out", you have no idea why, and furthermore, it could be totally unrelated to my level of "self-criticism". Your "job" is not to judge me and my level of self-criticism, but to examine my site to see if it meets criteria for inclusion in the project. Thus, you should leave it at that. Until you can show me that you are officially DMOZ's judge of a human being's perrsonality, leave the personal comments out, as I found them to be highly offensive and unnecessary. You have no place to tell me in a public forum that I am "not enough" (i.e. lacking) of anything.
Meta kokopeli Posted March 10, 2005 Meta Posted March 10, 2005 When I read oneeye's response I didn't read it to mean that he felt you were lacking in any way. How I read it (and this is just me) is that about 90% of the time the next comment to follow would be the webmaster stating that they cannot see how their site fits into what they have been told. I think oneeye was just trying to say it all at once. I don't believe it was meant to be a negative comment toward you, or even toward those who do post next and say they don't understand. This forum isn't for arguing the case of a specific site (I say this in general, not to imply you in particular) and because that is usually the path that these threads take in this case we often end up having to draw the line. I just read it to say that if when you first look you can't see it, to look deeper and it will be there.
oneeye Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Read it again in context please. Critically examine all aspects of your site against the requirement for sufficient original high quality content. That will tell you where your site fails - if you can't work it out then you aren't being self-critical enough. I am saying if you are critical enough about your own site when it comes to judging it against the criteria for listing you *will* find the same conclusion the editor came to. Your site has been adjudged as being unlistable, you asked why, I told you how you could find out the answer for yourself. If you do as I suggest and can't see why then the answer is to apply a greater degree of self-criticism with regard to the site - if you don't then you will never find out the problem and never be able to remedy it if it is capable of remedy. But it is up to you, policy here is not to spell out the specific reasons for rejection. [added - or what kokopeli said!]
uneedtools Posted March 10, 2005 Author Posted March 10, 2005 Don't assume that if a human being does anything that involves thinking, (we all know that "no two people think alike"), they will come to the same conclusion as someone else. No matter how they look at things or to what degree, no one knows the outcome until it is final. Furthermore, personal comments need to be avoided; that was my point. I could be "superlatively critical" about my site and still not "see what the editor sees." You have no way of knowing what conclusion I will come to about anything, regardless of how much "criticism" I put into what I see. The way that you worded the piece which I quoted, was taken in a negative way. That was my point. Getting personal, making personal comments, using the wording "you aren't being ... enough" can be, and was, misconstrued. I am fine with the fact that my site was rejected, as your explanation was thorough. Everything was ok until you told me what to do, how to do it, and in words that implied that if I didn't "do it right, I failed. Stick to the facts and don't get personal. Period.
oneeye Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 OK the facts are that your site has been rejected, policy is that reasons are not divulged, please ignore my misplaced attempts to assist you in determining the reasons for yourself. You are right, I should have just said "the policy is that reasons are not divulged". Have a nice day
uneedtools Posted March 10, 2005 Author Posted March 10, 2005 Thank you. Good night and best of luck to you in the future with this difficult and important task. :moz:
Recommended Posts