| 11:09 pm on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Tell me the URL and I'll remove it right now. We don't want dead URLs for weeks and weeks, no matter the reason. Robozilla may very well have found it already and flagged it for review. You need to have the site working before an editor checks the error message, or at that time it will be pulled.
| 2:01 am on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Tell me the URL and I'll remove it right now. |
Is there an advantage for him in that solution?
I mean, will he have to be back in the queue until someone gets around to relisting it?
Or will he be able to have you relist it as soon as it's back up?
Because if it's the former, I think I'd take my chances that it's fixed before Robozilla gets to it.
But that's just me...
| 3:27 am on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Robzilla may not notice for a month.
When I see the Robzilla reds -- which is normally within a week of Robzilla flagging it, I'll try the site and, if it is still dead, move it to "unreviewed".
I'll check it again a week or two later, try some SEs to see if the URL has changed. And then if I can't find it, normally, I'll delete it.
So that's anything up to about two months for the categories I edit, but it could be as fast as three weeks.
If you are in a category with no active editor, your site could remain listed throughout your outage period. That's one advantage of having slow or no editors.
| 6:14 am on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Seeing as it can take quite a while to get listed, if there was a technical problem with my site and it was going to be down for a little while, there is no way I'd volunteer the URL so it could be removed even more quickly....unless, of course, there was assurance it would be placed back in with the original listing once it went back online.
| 2:03 pm on Apr 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The danger is that if this site will be offline for at least a couple more weeks, this is enough time for an editor to have spotted it, and after noticing that it just isn't a one day outage or such delete it. Thus, instead of it being removed with a note it is temporarily down, it might be permanently deleted.
| 6:46 pm on Apr 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When I see a Robozilla Red, I move the site to unreviewed. Then I search for a new copy of the site. For hospitals, I even call them asking if they have a new site. If I can't find a new copy, I leave it in unreviewed for a month or two, checking it weekly. Some editors delete sites quickly. Others take their time. I suggest you email the editor of the category telling them that the site is down and giving an ETA on it's re-launch. That way they'll know not to delete it.
| 4:12 am on Apr 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok, so maybe it's an advantage that my category has no editor (and, for that matter, that I removed the URL listing from my WW profile).
Thanks for the advice folks. Took me 8+ months to get listed; here's to hoping no one bothers removing it.
| 5:47 am on Apr 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Ok, so maybe it's an advantage that my category has no editor (and, for that matter, that I removed the URL listing from my WW profile).
Which could work to your disadvantage. If the cat had a very attentive editor, and that was his only cat, he might be more inclined to be patient. If dealt with by some overworked editor in charge of a large cat space, with tons of greens and other such to worry about, after seeing the site was down for weeks and weeks might be more likely to give it a quick delete.
| 5:55 pm on Apr 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well laisha, he never said what he wanted. He just said his site will be unavailable for an unknown amount of time.
| 6:27 pm on Apr 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Well laisha, he never said what he wanted. He just said his site will be unavailable for an unknown amount of time.
And, you might have done him a favor if the site was moved to unreviewed with a note that the webmaster had indicated it would be back in a few weeks. The ODP has a feature that an editor can add a site to a watchlist, where the software reminds the editor after so many days to check again. As this site has been offline for 2 weeks already, I can easily see an editor assuming it is gone for good and just deleting it.
| 6:50 pm on Apr 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
He is deliberately hiding which site it is. That being said, if I found it by accident I would have no idea that this thread is about that site -- and it would either be deleted or unreviewed without any special comment.
| 7:01 pm on Apr 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> 8+ months to get listed
and 59 minutes to get zapped, thats service!
| 10:34 pm on Apr 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, if we knew what site it was we could add a note pointing back to this thread, so that the site could be left in unreviewed until it comes back online. There is no point leaving a dead link in the public side of the directory, and it will be flagged as dead in days to weeks automatically anyway. The alternative to moving it to the unreviewed side but with a note attached, is simply that when the dead link is found, it is monitored for a few weeks, and if it still shows no sign of returning then it will get deleted, forgotten, and will have to go through the whole submit process again from the very beginning if the site ever comes back on line.
I don't understand why the site is going off anyway? Why can't the content reside on a free host temporarily, even in a cut down form?
| 10:54 pm on Apr 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>I don't understand why the site is going off anyway? Why can't the content reside on a free host temporarily, even in a cut down form?
I agree, that is your best bet. If for whatever obscure reason you cannot get your site to function on the current server, then put it up on some free space, and alter the nameservers to point there. Just move the pointers back when you want to return to the original servers
That way kctipton will never be able to remove it from DMOZ ;)
| 4:41 pm on Apr 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm not the only one who may do it if the site is discovered not working...