There are similarities, I suppose. I try to be warm and fuzzy, but it just doesn't quite take, . You'll notice though, that I've been very consistant in my comments, and the reason I can do that in all these threads is because the truth never changes.
Fair enough (I saw your pic and said damn, SC, joined DMOZ ). Next time we'll find the partners Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson so the trilogy can be completed.
But to who? Listed sites get sorted if there is a problem then non-listed sites for me and most other editors. For instance, I look at updates first, sites marked not working and try and find a different site and then submitted sites. That must be unfair to submitted sites, we should dump any site as soon as it goes 404 and not relist until it is submitted again. That gives the new sites a fair chance. Now you would agree with that, wouldn't you Q? Ah sorry yours went 404, got de-listed and then someone checked it, instead of looking at those brand spanking new sites and leaving those that had gone 404, and lo and behold it got listed again. Grossly unfair, I expect you to be lodging a complaint with the Editor in Chief, in fact with you being so sqeaky clean, expect you have sent it already. Just tell us the date you did it Q. Now where was I, oh yes fairness. We try to be fair to editors who have already worked on sites and spent their time checking etc, so we try and ensure that their work is not just flushed down the pan. But that might not be fair to new submitters. Oh God, do we have to please everyone? Sites are only left in when they do not meet up with present sriteria if editors agree that they should, for whatever reason. So the editing community decides. If they say out, then out it goes. There are some perennial chesnuts that crop up every few months or years. Someone raises the issue and it is debated again, who knows the outcome. Fairness is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.
I want to suggest my site to open directory but I am not able to finish because of this problem. First I clicked on suggest a URL then there are choices of categories and I drill down to find one that would be good for my site but when I get there the suggest a site at the top of the page is not a choice anymore. Please help
That usually means they don't accept submissions in that category, I think. What category was it, I don't edit in that area, but I'd be happy to take a look over there. If you go to the category page, and click on "Description" up in the right hand corner, which is the "Category Description", it should tell you submissions aren't accepted there, and suggest a few other categories you could submit to, . I'd like to see submissions shut off at the State levels of the US, in Regional. Most of the site suggestions that get submitted there belong at the locality (city) level, and we spend a great deal of our time moving sites from State down to locality level, instead of reviewing sites.
Ya know, I'd really not have minded my site getting de-listed for having server trouble (note I did NOT say 404, if it was 404 it was an error on the side of the editor) if that was what happened to all sites. But no...there are CNN links that have sat around in real 404 status for months on end. Is it fair that those pages are still listed, but mine gets nixed for going down for 15 minutes? And by an editor that has little to no interest in the category, but had/has a current dislike for me? Yeah...truly in the eye of the beholder. Unbiased and and fair, truly true examples!
I don't know that an editor did do that, it might have been a QC tool, but an editor did apparently investigate it and relist it, which is a very common task that many of us do daily, . Most of our QC tools have an editor name on them (the creator of the tool), so it could look like an editor delisted (not deleted) a site for investigation. If it was something that was intended to harm you, it would have just been deleted from the Directory, not readded, . What happened was unbiased editing, and very common.
Is it also common for editors to point out that your site was delisted and why? Though, really, I don't see it as unbiased, not when there are sites that have been in actual 404 status for months on end that are still there, but sites that go down for a few minutes get removed. If it was unbiased, then all sites would be treated the same, and as such, my site should have been allowed to remain in 404 status for months (which I say again, was never in 404 status) or those other sites should have been removed months ago. Or is your definition of unbiased different then everyone elses? How is it unbiased to remove one site that goes down for 15 minutes but leaving page after page from another site that have all been down for months? How on earth does that help the end user in any way shape or form? How is that control of quality in the slightest?
I would consider that as possible, and perhaps very strange and unusual timing, but the end result of the site being relisted as normal, unbiased editing. If it were done quickly, however, with all of the other similar listings that need to be investigated, then I would question whether some kind of favoritism was shown to that site, and perhaps it should be looked into, and both the editor and the site should be removed permanently. If I were you, I'd definately file an abuse form, so the matter could be corrected.
So it's abuse to relist a site quickly, but a matter of QC to remove one that had 15 minutes of Down Time? Yes, yes... certainly a clear cut case of favoritism and abuse Though, I suspect that it getting relisted in such a short amount of time was based on the publicity it got by an editor publicaly stating why it was removed, and the fact that an abuse report was filed on it's removal. I do find it sad that any editor would feel that the relisting of a site that should have never really been delisted is a sign of abuse. Again, you redefine "unbiased" and once again show the mindset of many editors. My site was removed because it supposedly went 404, yet there are categories simply FILLED with such listings, and my site was singled out? Unbiased? Sites that have been 404 for months retain their listings, but when a site is added back from being delisted, it's abuse. Unbiased? And then you wonder why so many people wonder if their sites are in the queue or not. Anyone can read the guidelines of the ODP, but what good are the guidelines if they apply to only a certain number of sites?
Please give us the categories, so we can correct those. Anything that I have access to, I'll handle personally, today. Mainly, anything in Regional/US, anything in all 50 states..
I've been neglecting my editing by being over here chattin, and I've got a couple of team projects I need to attend to, but I'll check back.
The CNN archives would be a good place to start... ya know those automated listings within the worlds largest human edited directory though I do not think you have access to them, so maybe a nice editall, or meta will start to rummage. Better still, maybe a staff member will happen upon them and just nix the entire project, or possibly contact CNN to find if there are more suitable links to be had.
Let me get this staright Q. You consistently advise webmasters to submit and 4get and 4get to submit and when your site goes 404 and an editor, by chance, checking your site to see how it got listed, notices it is down and de-lists and you submit an abuse allegation. And you further complain that the editor should not have been looking at your site, because you claim it was only down for a few minutes, but should have been doing something else at the time and because the editor was not doing something else you think it is unfair? Is that the right story? You also commment that you think the abuse report had something to do with its return, you really think that the report you made pushed a meta to go and re-list. Get real. I think that the ODP is magnificent to rise above all the abuse you chuck at them to even bother re-listing your site. You obviously were very keen to keep it in ODP or you would not have filed that report, and this is the first time you are brave enough to mention it. Good job we favor sites that editors have already reviewed and work on those before new submissions. If I were you I would be extolling that virtue, or you might be still languishing in unreview. And there has been some debate about how we should treat ODP haters and some have suggested just de-listing. I would watch that mouth of yours, you just never know, do you?
Are you trying to blackmail him to be quite? With such behaviors, no wonder an admin was claiming that organized crime is involved in DMOZ and people should be afraid and keep quite when they see abuse.
Awww, can't believe you'd compare us to "organized crime". Cmon, we're not really all that organized.
I am talking about the ADMIN who was telling the editors that organized crime is involved in DMOZ and they should be quite and don't complain about abuse.