I can answer some of these - but don't have the ability to edit the others. 3. Sites are listed where they're located. The office is located in Las Vegas. 5. The URL used is the one where the site opens. Perhaps the redirect was suggested - if it was it would have been changed to the current URL. 6. It works fine for me. Maybe it has to do with the browser you're using. It appears to be set up as a framed site, the menu is stable while the text scrolls. 8. The bio appears unique - I didn't check anything else. Duplicate content is typically ignored, just as adsense, pop ups, and keywords are, when looking at the suggestions. If there is sufficient unique content, it will probably be listed. 9. The about me page is here - http://www.vegashomeexpert.com/content/article.html/16797 That's all I had time for - my granddaughter just woke up from her nap.
I took a look at a few of the sites (internet access very slow tonight, so I didn't cover all of them). The ones I looked at: 1. Thanks 2. Now dead, but Google cache of a few weeks ago. If it's still dead next time our link checker comes through, it will be removed. 3, 4. Need attention, thanks. 5. Fixed redirect, thanks. 6. Works for me. 7. Real estate agents listed by office address, so this one is properly placed. 14. Changed agency name, thanks. As you undoubtedly know, the real estate business is dynamic, with agents switching agencies frequently. They often keep their websites, but neglect to ask for an update, so the listing gets outdated.
Yes I understand that agents do change offices quite often, my point with placing those there was to show that maybe the editor that has that category is not keeping it updated. I am sure you are also aware that sites are sold often and content changes with these sites. Where the first submission that was included might have met the ODP standards, after it was sold and changed they may not. I must also admit that most of the sites I saw are garbage and leads me to ask myself, why wasnt any of my sites included? I do not know why if most of the sites I saw were IMO garbage, their designs, content and overall look were not even close to some of my past sites. It has always been my impression that DMOZ was looking for well designed, content rich sites that benefit your directory and most of what I glanced at were none of those, given there were a few but not many. Also some of the descriptions were terrible, I am sure you might agree. Thank You For Looking.
While as editors we prefer to look at well-designed sites, our criteria for listing revolve around content. Poorly designed sites that provide information not found on other sites (you referred to discussions with hutcheson on content requirements for real estate - you can be sure he's a good bit more familiar with them than I am) are listable (as long as they are navigable), and there are no "degrees of listability" - sites are either listable or not, and are therefore not listed in order of quality of design. Without knowing anything about the particulars of your sites, I have to assume that they are still waiting in unreviewed. Unfortunately, the spammier a category, the fewer editors are inclined to keep up with it. Maybe I should incite my LV cousin (in the construction sales business) to take up editing
Yes I would agree that the section of DMOZ I pointed out is not reviewed to often I would imagine, or it doesnt look that way. I am not a webmaster and even though I have sites or a site that would be listable in that category, I applied to become an editor and of course I was turn down. Just to clarify, I did disclose in my app I had sites / site that would be listable for that category. I did and still do feel I could be fair in handling a category such as that but I can understand being declined that opportunity. My skill level as a so called webmaster is very limited and I may not have the knowledge to handle any category within DMOZ, but at that time I was trying to do something positive instead of complaining about the issues of the long wait times to be listed and the preceived need for editors.
My understanding is that newbies don't get real estate sections because of the "heat" on the category. Instead you edit somewhere less strenuous and work up. When I started I picked a non-category because I didn't understand how the @links worked - all my subcats were @links and so I had nothing to do. Instead I scraped the sites of a local web developer, got 400 "greens" and worked through putting them into the right category. This was a huge learning curve - some I deleted rather than moved because they were crap, and I learnt alot about the breadth of the directory in my local area. And because I then had 400 edits my next category application was looked at more favourably. The other benefit is that local companies got listed - where the developer hadn't even submitted them. I'd actually recommend all new editors did this, rather than being given a category straight off. It would be a really good apprenticeship.
I'm the agent for vegashomehunt.com and I'm not sure what you mean by "scraper site," Tauren. However, in your profile your link to "http://www.las-vegas-homefinder.com/" takes me to a parked page. If, by "scraper site" you mean I post info about projects, then you would be correct, just as you do at your other site "http://www.wayneandfriends.com/"