Forum Moderators: open
Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, I'm guessing that only two pages out of 50 odd are the culprits and the site can very easily be brought within the guidelines.... and make a positive contribution to its category which is why it was submitted in the first place.
Can one of our ODP members advise the correct way to resubmit a site in such a way that the reviewing editor knows the site has seen remedial action since the original rejection.... and that it is not exactly the same same being submitted again.
Feel free to sticky me if you prefer.
TIA
Fruit and vegetables posted throughout the world. Site includes catalogue, pricing details and online ordering. [editor - please note that I submitted this before and have substantially changed the content on the site following [link]this[/link] discussion on the ODP public forum - please re-review, thanks!]
The editor can then delete the note in the description field if they feel that the site is now listable.
:)
So go ahead, do what John proposes if you wish...but realize you're probably asking punctilious questions about what color of spam the editor likes best.
I think you may be taking this off on a tangent. The 2 pages in question were an affiliate trial and it was only after re-reading the ODP Guidelines that I saw the statement "Affiliate links should never be added to the directory." (I know, there are some qualifiers a few paras down)
It crossed my mind that if an editor follows that edict with a zero tolerance, that would be a possible reason for declining it. But if the 2 pages are removed would it be acceptable? That's an editors call which is why (IMO) its worth asking for a second look.
Its that simple.... nobody is trying to slide spam under your radar. Hell, if this was about spam, why would it be limited to 2 pages and why would I be posting about it in the a major public forum?
As for unique content, that's a very subjective assessment. We all know that editors are doing a herculean job trying to police the flood of spam submissions. Not surprisingly, some cats fall behind in housekeeping.. a regional cat in this case.
So what becomes a determining factor for "no unique content" ... the fact that there are already (say) 20+ similar sounding sites already there?
What if (due to that housekeeping I mentioned) the 20+ are comprised of 404's, directories, wrong cat placements, sites converted to affiliates, pop-up platforms, duplicates, years out of date... what if there are only 6-8 sites that would pass your guidelines?
I'd like to think we should be submitting suitable sites to those cats when there is an opportunity to do so.
Paraphrasing the editors' guidelines by memory: Look at a website, ignoring the advertisements if possible. If what is left is adequate unique content, then list it.
Note that affiliate links off of your site are merely one flavor of advertisement.
Side note on the "if possible" phrase: for instance, three or more popups are generally considered well-nigh impossible to ignore, as are popups on every page (and popunders are like popups, except more malicious.)
Now, two pages out of fifty really aren't going to be hard to ignore (unless all the navigation sucks you into them, like kittens through the Schwarzschild Radius). So either there's been an editing mistake (unlikely but possible), or your navigation is really viscious, like a roach hotel for surfers, or you're still haring down the wrong primrose path. In other words, it can't be the presence of non-unique content on two advertising pages, it must be the non-presence of unique relevant content on the other pages.
As for the broken links, there are several ways to report them, and they generally get fixed VERY fast (that is, we think it's a very high priority to fix them.) So if you think your target category would look more underdeveloped after some cleanup (and you're looking for a guaranteed way to attract an editor into working in a category), then you have the best tool in the world: just use it.
No pop-ups or unders
No "sucker" navigation to money pages
No other ads apart from Adsense
Comprehensive navigation from all pages
12-20 paras per page of custom written content x 50 odd pages
links out to authority sites off every page
no seo black hat nonsense
If we are to remove the 2 affiliate pages from the equation, and we know there is no shortage of relevant content, then as you say we seem to be left with only the question of uniqueness.
Which brings me back to the scenario of cats seemingly full of similar content sites, thus the new content can't possibly be unique, can it? It would be very easy to arrive at that conclusion because of the number of sites, not what they actually deliver.
It all comes down to editors choice as to whether the new submission makes a better contribution to the cat than those already in it... and that can only happen when the existing sites are scrutinised. Without that you can end up throwing out the baby and hanging on to the bathwater.
An editors life is not an easy one.
My impression of the site is that it is neither obviously listable, nor obviously non-listable. (I stand by my "two pages of affiliate links ain't the problem." The advertising on the site is NOT excessive.) So it's going to be the editor's call as to whether the site is listable or not, and that will involve looking at the other sites to see if this one really adds enough to be worth listing. I wouldn't second-guess the local category editors either way for this site -- if added, I would not delete; but I would not review to add either.
Generating unique information for a site takes a lot of work, and you're competing with established firms that can use recycled research from prior print projects: and so have economy of scale. The only way to start competing in an environment like that is to focus. Florida is too large a focus: start by creating the best guide to some underrepresented tourist place. You've done a fairly nice job of incorporating links to other, more detailed, summary sites -- this is both a strength (you come across as willing not to replicate or copy work) and a weakness (it shows how shallow your own content is.) You can't start out beating the big guys on breadth. So go for focused depth. So create the best St. Augustine, or Clearwater, or whatever locality guide (whatever is NEEDED because nobody else has done a good job), still linking out (but to specific attraction sites: individual state parks, museums, etc., in context).
Then, with that subsite as an anchor, do the same thing with several minor tourist sites (minor == "not much touristy stuff, and not overloaded by guides already").
Now on your main page, you can distinguish these "in=depth guides" in some way ("Exclusive features").
This isn't exactly meant to be a site review, which is not strictly within the bounds for this forum. This site is a good example of one of the larger classes of "unlistable sites that might be made listable." My hypothetical approach is broadly applicable, I believe: focused depth; earn links (at the ODP and elsewhere) by featuring less popular but underrepresented content; ensure that site features are prominent in site navigation.
I don't have to say to you, but should say to many people: don't go overboard on the ads. (You need deep-probing visitors to make the ads pay; and visitors won't check out your interior pages if you look like an affiliate banner farm in drag.)
I appreciate the time you've put into this thread... and lets hope the advice transfers to others as well.
