Psan Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 My network was submitted to Dmoz.org without my consent. Listing: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Hosted_Components_and_Services/Message_Boards/ It's currently listed as " Offers free phpBB based forum hosting. Ad-supported. " However Jconserv is the No.1 Free phpBB Forum Host. Our correct description is: Free Forum Hosting network offers free phpbb forum hosting. We offers more features than any other host, including, Instant Registration Pre-installed mods, 200+ templates, Unlimited bandwith, and subdomains . I clicked the "update listing" link weeks ago and got nothing back, although I'm sure it's been updated since then. So I would like my listing updated ASAP as it does not have the correct info.
Meta pvgool Posted May 18, 2005 Meta Posted May 18, 2005 My network was submitted to Dmoz.org without my consent. Maybe it wasn't suggested at all. We have many ways of finding sites worth a listing. And anybody can suggest a site, they don't need consent from the website owner. The description given by you will not be listed by DMOZ as it violates many of our guidelines. You can read more about how a description should look like at http://dmoz.org/add.html and http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#descriptions I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
Psan Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 In case the description breaks your rules (it doesn't) please contact me so we can work it out. However just saying "Free phpBB Forum hosing - ad supported" in not valid for our host as we are the No.1 free phpbb forum host. If you are going to list features of other hosts however not do the same for us I would like to talk to the owner directly.
Meta pvgool Posted May 18, 2005 Meta Posted May 18, 2005 Do you offer "free phpBB based forum hosting" : yes. Is it "Ad-supported" : yes Are you "No.1" : anyone can claim to be, noone can check this to be true, that is why it doesn't fit our guidelines and will not be used in a description Does the current description follow our guidelines : yes Is the current description comparable with descriptions of the other sites listed in that category : yes I see no reason to change the description to the one you want it to be. I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
Alucard Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 For additional reading, I would refer you to the page http://dmoz.org/add.html under the heading "Editorial Discretion":Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include' date=' where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion. You should not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. Please understand that an editor's exercise of discretion may not always treat all submissions equally. You may not always agree with our choices, but we hope you recognize that we do our best to make fair and reasonable decisions.[/quote']
Psan Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 Is the Correct description fit with your "rules": YES Is the new one more descriptive: YES Need I say more?
Alucard Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 There are close to an infinite number of titles and descriptions which would fit the guidelines. It is fully at the discretion of the reviewing editor which one they choose to use. They will more often than not take the initial suggestion by a submitter as a guideline, but it is fully their choice whether to use it or not. It has already been detailed here in some of the ways the description you propose does not follow our listing rules (see the posting from pvgool - that was only one example), so even given what I have said, your chances of getting that description to be approved are close to zero. So, to put this in a similar form that you used: Can the editor decide what description to use: YES Need I say more?
Meta hutcheson Posted May 18, 2005 Meta Posted May 18, 2005 Psan, you are simply wrong on both counts. The "#1" does NOT fit our rules. And it is NOT descriptive at all -- in fact, it is pure hype conveying no information whatsoever. You're welcome to put whatever self-description you wish on the site itself; editors will put whatever description they deem appropriate on the site they maintain. It would even be OK if the two descriptions directly contradict each other.
Psan Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 If this says: ForumExperts - XML based hosted forums for corporate and enthusiast websites. Logical threaded layout, markup features include images and formatting. Implemented through customizable control panel. and another Provides remotely hosted phpBB forums. Sub domain and multiple templates. Ad-free. What's wrong with: Jconserv's FFH (Free Forum Hosting) network offers free phpbb forum hosting. Jconserv offers more features than any other host, including, Instant Registration Pre-installed mods, 200+ templates, Unlimited bandwith, and subdomains . You could say both of those above have "hype conveying no information whatsoever." hutcheson - Do I have #1 in the description? Didn't think so... so you tell me..
Psan Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 "Forumer.com Offers banner-free Invision Board hosting services. Different skins and a support forum are available." Forumer is not, and hasn't been bannerless for 6-8 months. Why don't you correct the listings you have before going off at me with my "incorrect" info.
spectregunner Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Because you came here and raised the issue. What we are telling you is quite simple: -- we have guidelines for how to construct a site description -- the present site description complies with those guidelines -- the suggestions you make are very, very far from complying with those site descriptions. As a matter of practicality, we don't change site descriptions simply because a webmaster or site owner wants them changed. We are not a listing service for webmasters and the marketing needs and desires of the webmaster/owner/submitter are not given any consideration when we write a site description. We are open to changing descriptions when one is factually incorrect. You have pointed out one such site and it will receive the attention of an appropraite editor. Thank you for that. I won't try and teach you how we write a guidelines-compliant description, but I can tell you that statements such as best, most, better, bigger, faster, uglier, prettier, taller, shorter, etc. are the exact types of things we try to avoid. Are we 100% successful, no, but we put a lot of effort into it.
Meta andysands Posted May 18, 2005 Meta Posted May 18, 2005 "Forumer.com Offers banner-free Invision Board hosting services. Different skins and a support forum are available." Forumer is not, and hasn't been bannerless for 6-8 months. Why don't you correct the listings you have before going off at me with my "incorrect" info. Thanks for the heads up. I've updated the forumer listing to reflect the current site contents. Kind Regards, Andy
Psan Posted May 19, 2005 Author Posted May 19, 2005 Ok no problem, I wasn't aware that you don't change the description. I assumed because there was an "Update listing" tab the owner could change whatever he wanted on it. I apologize for the inconvenience. You may close this topic.
Editall/Catmv arubin Posted May 19, 2005 Editall/Catmv Posted May 19, 2005 Don't worry about closing the topic. The entire forum is closing in a few days....
Recommended Posts