Our Congrats to the ODP Editors

[Faxo]

For doing a fine job. We host the ODP data on our site with some value adds. The data is always readily available and just plain works. A ton of info at dmoz somehow manages to get compiled regularly and presented to the world. We appreciate all the hard work you do. Now if we could just get one of our six suggestions in the dmoz we'd be smitten

 

The Faxo Team

<url removed>

[jimnoble]

Thanks .

 

This might seem graceless, but your website doesn't provide the correct attribution.

 

On our Attribution page, we provide the code snippet to be used and state

($cat should be expanded to be the path to the category containing the data being displayed, e.g. "Arts/Movies")

You haven't done that .

[Faxo]

Jim thx for the incredibly rapid response! We will have the fix in TODAY!!! A million thanks!!!

[Faxo]

Jim,

 

We have implemented the fix for proper "attribution" and it is now live. We very much appreciate your rapid response. Does this mean we have to submit our site again? We submitted our open directory section of our site to the /Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Sites_Using_ODP_Data/F/ of odp 3 months ago. (among other dmoz submissions for other sections of our site - games, search engine, etc.)

 

 

Thanks again,

 

Faxo Team Minus 1 (somebody got fired for that last error!!!...lol)

[jimnoble]

There's no need to suggest your website again and doing so can be counter-productive.

[Faxo]

Jim we're heading towards top 10k on both Alexa and Quantcast with global traffic in excess of 60k uniques and 500k page views per day. Many of the sites in the categories we've applied for don't even have a rating and some don't even exist anymore. We have a great respect for the DMOZ as we host it as well. We would greatly appreciate your input as to why all the submissions in the categories we have applied for have been rejected. We are quite perplexed.

[photofox]

Many of the sites in the categories we've applied for don't even have a rating and some don't even exist anymore.

Site traffic is not something we take into account when reviewing a site for inclusion in a category. If you know of any sites that are no longer operating and are still listed, please report them in our Quality Control thread.

 

all the submissions in the categories we have applied for have been rejected.

How do you know they have been rejected?

[jimnoble]

all the submissions in the categories we have applied for

Why are you using plurals? Our suggestion guidelines require that a website be suggested once to the one best category.

[Faxo]

yahoo and google have dozens of listings (search engines, web portals, directories, news, sports, etc.). We are a portal like them and have many logically different domains. I believe we actually just made 3 suggestions for 3 different domains on our site: /Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Sites_Using_ODP_Data/F/ , /Games/Video_Games/Browser_Based/Collections/ , and /Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Web_Portals/

[pvgool]

Than you might have misunderstood our guidelines.

 

People are only allowed to suggest a website once. And websites related to that one suggested website may not be suggested at all.

 

Editors can decide to list a website more than once. They can also decide to list related websites or to list deeplinks.

 

But only editors can do such things.

 

Suggesting a website deliberatly to more than one category is seen as spam. And we do not like spam.

[Faxo]

Understood. So if for example if we were accepted under the "portal" category the editors might decide to also include our odp site in a different category? would the editors actually do the writeup for that site?

[lmocr]

Editors typically write the descriptions for all sites listed. I say typically, because there is the occasional submittor who writes a guidelines compliant description that can be used.

[Faxo]

ok thanks. applied for becoming an editor too a while back didn't get that either. never thought we'd get rejected as a volunteer. oh well. we're not gonna hold it against you guys....we still love ya...and we still believe wholeheartedly in the ideals of the open directory... we're set to roll out the big guns shortly... we'll see you in the top 1k....

[makrhod]

never thought we'd get rejected as a volunteer.

Don't take it personally. A great many current editors were not successful with their first or even second applications. It was only after attending to all the issues detailed in the feedback they received, that they prepared a more acceptable application.

Unless you were specifically asked not to re-apply, you are welcome to do the same.

 

It is very easy to become an editor, and there are many resources available to help. The principle requirement is to complete the form carefully and honestly.