A SOLUTION to submission status request

Many people, (such as I), are very frustrated at this long wait... especially after a year (such as I). I'm still waiting for my homework help site to be submitted, when a solution just occurred to me....

Why not have the editors automatically email the webmaster the status of the submission? If it's accepted or denied, then an email can be sent out to the webmaster. No email means it is still pending!

This way, you guys don't have to reply to all of these requests, and spend more time accepting/ rejecting sites!

What would you do if you got an email stating that your site was declined?

Or no email means your spam filter is too tight. Or you misspelled your email address...Or...

Then there's the whole "who do you email?" quandary -- sites can be submitted by someone other than the webmaster so do you email the webmaster or the submitter? And if the webmaster, then how do you know what that address is? Scan the page? Can't do that automatically because you can't necessaily tell which is the webmaster's. Expecting us to do it manually is more work than answering here (or not answering at all). And...well, you get the point.

There are too many issues with that suggestion (this isn't the first time it's been suggested, here or in other venues) for it to really fly. Especially when you keep in mind (and you really should) that the Suggest a Site option is there as a courtesy, as a way for you to suggest worthy (or unworthy) sites for inclusion, not as a service that requires any kind of response. If this forum were to disappear tomorrow, it would not be replaced by any other "check your status" option.

Why I don't e-mail submitters:

• If I accept it, they can see that themselves within a week or so. (If they care enough to look.)
  
• If I don't, they'll probably want to argue with me.
  
• I don't want a lot of nasty e-mail.
  
• And sometimes even friendly people, asking for advice can take up an incredible amount of time.
  

I like Resource-zone because it has controls built in. It doesn't totally remove all risk on my part, but it reduces it. It shares the work load amongst a team of editors, and people aren't going to take it personally that I declined their site, because they know that I probably had nothing to do with it, I'm just reporting the facts.

Mind you, we have our problems here too. People get inpatient. Threads get missed. Submitters claim they submitted two months ago, when it was really only last week...

The goal of starting this forum was not to give status checks, it's just something people asked for, and we were willing to do. Not realizing how time consuming it would become.

Open doesn't mean not accountable.

I hope your problem is the METHOD of accountablility and not the act of being held accountable.

A simple blind list of who has been denied and WHY? would not be unreasonable to expect. I have noticed that the entire hunting and firearm section is going on YEARS of neglect and its impossible to get an editor into that category that has a clue what their looking at. For this reason it appears that politics is taking place. Meaning the word OPEN is only true for those who follow a similiar train of thought.

I hope your problem is the METHOD of accountablility and not the act of being held accountable.

Click to expand...

Accountable to whom? If you believe that the ODP editors are accountable to Website owners, then you are mistaken.

gunmuse said:

I hope your problem is the METHOD of accountablility and not the act of being held accountable.

A simple blind list of who has been denied and WHY? would not be unreasonable to expect. I have noticed that the entire hunting and firearm section is going on YEARS of neglect and its impossible to get an editor into that category that has a clue what their looking at. For this reason it appears that politics is taking place. Meaning the word OPEN is only true for those who follow a similiar train of thought.

Click to expand...

I think you (and many others) misunderstand what the open in ODP stands for. It means the same as in Open Source Software.
Anyone is allowed to use our content for free as long as they put a reference to our site next to this content.

Open has nothing to do with "open for any site to be listed" or "open to webmasters to promote their site" or "open to anyone to become an editor".

This has been discussed many times here and I'm sure it will come up many more times.

There is a prevailing misconception that ODP exists to serve those who develop, own, or submit a site for inclusion. On the contrary, the primary "customer" or benefactor is the end user who finds the directory useful in locating information.

Also remember that sites that are submitted are only considered as suggestions and is only one of many sources that editors use to build the directory.

If Time IS Money... Then...

LPan82's original question is a good one and after reading all the ODP editor replies..."time" seems to be the common thought.

If the Status check was added as an after thought which has now gotten a bit out of hand I would say.... and, since the editors are volunteering their "time" to make additions to the directory....and answering status checks has become "too time-consuming" of late. Then why not add an area in each persons profile of this forum where it ties into the editors actions? In other words, make everyone who wants to submit a site register HERE at the resource center first. Then they can submit a site which will automatically be tracked in their profile. A status meter of "Pending" could be seen by anyone logging into this site and they can see for themselves their status of a particular site. Editors then save time answering all the inquires... user's can get 24/7 access to their status... and once a site is approved and added... the Status is automatically changed to "Included" or "Disapproved".

Then if an editor wants to pop into this form and address someone's concern for being disapproved... they can voluntarily. But at least the their time would be better used working their Pending list rather than answering all the Status inquires. Time better spent for everyone. Besides... forcing people to register HERE to submit a site helps validate the email, the person submitting and future edits need to their listing.

I agree that the OPD is not for us the site owners... it IS for the end users. But, without the content of the sites... the user's have no valuable experience in ODP. Of course there is plenty of content out there... but I'd like to think that the "time" we as site owners wait for a review inclusion seems to be attached to the heavy load put on the Editor's. If we can save them time... we get what we want in most case... at least a more timely result of the submission process would be achieved and owners with Disapproved status can get on with making some changes to their sites as advised by other forum member suggestions... albeit Editors or just other helpful members offering their input.

Sorry for the length... just thought it might add to the thread thought and possibly lead to a better solution for all.

Doc

Quick Follow Up Thought...

A quick follow up to my previous post...

Then editors do not have to send emails as notifications ... (an idea suggested and dismissed as unrealistic in this thread... which I agree with and would not be a good use of time)

I would be up to each person making a submission to visit this Resouce Site, which by the way... has a huge amount of useful info, tips, guidelines etc. that anyone who wants to be included into the ODP should be exposed to.

Amazingly, many people do not even read the main post guidelines to learn the proper format BEFORE asking for a Status Update.

Expose more people "routinely" to this site and I think it helps the education and efficiency of the whole process.

That's my take.... what's yours?

The editors' perspective is simple enough. We do not need this feature to do our job. If the status requests get too onerous, we'll stop doing them. And, as has been explained multiple times in the forum, the actual value of the information is vanishingly small for 99% of all honest submitters -- people who simply follow the submittal policy will in nearly every case achieve the optimum result for themselves and waste a minimum of effort for all concerned. It's a waste of time to explain why in one particular case the usual rule applies. It's easier just to whack people who act as if the rules are just for everyone else.

Our customers' perspective is ... no customer has EVER asked for this feature. None. Ever.

Our sponsor's perspective is ... implementing any such feature would waste unavailable resources sending out a message that should not be sent.

This forum is not an official part of the ODP and thus there is no way that this forum could be tied into anything like that regarding site suggestions.