Affiliate Links and Inclusion

How does the excessive affiliate link rule work?

I work for a large comparison shopping site (guess?) that has a great deal of trouble being included in the appropriate category on the ODP. I've been working to change this for six months and the company has been around since 1996.

Home > Consumer Information > Price Comparisons

This category seems to make the most sense, but we have several listings/links in less relevant categories.

1) Shopping > Publications > Books > Directories
2) Home > Consumer Information > Computers and Internet > Hardware > Printers

I'm most concerned with getting into a category that makes sense but we've had no luck despite protracted efforts.

In pursuing this, I was told by an editor (possibly former) that the site qualifies as "spam" by virtue of the presence of affiliate links -- a necessary component to provide a price comparison service. And sites widely acknowledged by the press as our direct competition have the same type of affiliate links but are included in this category. In fact, the ratings featured on our site are used exclusively by Consumer Reports -- my only point being that the value of the content is tough to dispute.


Is there something we are doing that other sites in this category are not?

The site in question being BizRate.com, linked from user BizRate's profile.

Can anyone help?
I'm trying to better understand how the ODP works.

(not the clever immolation ref wasn't helpful, but...)

It's not going to be listed. It seems that every search leads to a list of products, all of which have special links to track purchases. Where's the content that doesn't jump people over to fogdog and wherever else you have connections?

Your site apparently doesn't even have the content provided by someone reviewing all of the books they've ever read and providing links to amazon.com in order to make a little money if someone buys one of the books.

You are defining an affiliate link as "a special link to track purchases." That's helpful. We now have a definition.

Next we need a definition of content. You've asked where the content is that "doesn't jump people over to fogdog and wherever else you have connections." To set the record straight with regards to "connections" you may notice that many merchants receive poor ratings on our site. This is not a favor to a merchant, this is an honest and unique service we provide to online shoppers. We're very proud of this rating system and many people rely upon its integrity when they shop. This is original content. For any store you can click the link next to "customer certified" and you will find a breakdown of ratings and actual comments collected about the store.

The purpose of the site is to provide essential information to online shoppers before they make a purchase. A price comparison site should have price comparison content, correct? We provide price comparisons much the same way our competitors provide these comparisons. Here is an example:

http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/search/search__cat_id--402,prod_id--6325814,de_id--325,pos--1.html

Here are the matching pages from our competitors who are currently listed in this category in the ODP:



[url=www.dealtime.com/CompareDeals/DoItem/1]http://www.dealtime.com/CompareDeals/DoItem/1,2642,7185-3-1-1-150251-1,00.html?GSID={0DB6303D-519B-4272-A509-1FC47ED20E39}

All of these pages contain the same types of "affiliate links" that our pages contain but I would contend they have far less price comparison content. Follow the links from the same page above at BizRate and you will find a summary of customer product reviews, full product reviews, product details and specifications, a comparison of similar products, and customer reviews of every store that features the product. All of this content is readily available without following a single "affiliate link."

Is it in fact the use of affiliate links or a lack of original content that is keeping us from being included in this category?

[Edited to remove thread-stretching URL: apeuro]

Interesting problem here. BizRate clearly offers outstanding premium content of use to any surfer.

MySimon, which offers a similar service, is listed twice in DMOZ and is described as such: "Useful international site that searches over 2,000 different online shops covering all kinds of products. Simply surf to a category, rather like a search engine, and enter the name of a product to be presented with a comparison list."

It is cooled in Home: Consumer Information: Price Comparisons.

BizRate appears in the search results because some of the businesses listed in DMOZ are proud of their BizRate rating:

Cigars-cigars.com - A bizrate customer certified gold site with over 600 cigar varieties in stock.
-- http://www.cigars-cigars.com Shopping: Tobacco: Cigars (1)

Whole Health Discount Center - Wide selection of popular alternative health products (herbs, dietary supplements, vitamins) each one hand-selected and reviewed. Free shipping available. Top-rated customer service by BizRate.com.

BizRate is listed in the directory, but in my opinion, the listing is inadequate.

BizRate.com : Printers - Comparison pricing for printers, along with store profiles.
-- http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/category/cat_front.xpml?cat_id=420 Home: Consumer Information: Computers and Internet: Hardware: Printers (1)

Cjtripnewton wrote: “Interesting problem here.”

That simon description is obviously stuffed and its even cooled … Very intriguing dilemma indeed.

IMHO your site should be just as prominently placed as those others you’ve mentioned, unfortunately I’m not an editor. Anyway I have to say I found those comments regarding your site to be rude, unjust, and unacceptable, but once again I’m not an editor so my opinions don’t mean squat.

I've looked at the site again, and is it the whole line of smileyfaces which is supposed to be the ratings system? Is the location of the blue ribbon significant? Is far left or far right the best rating? To me, far left = bad. Perhaps a numerical scale or better-organized graphics would help your cause (and help reviewers and visitors actually "see" the ratings thing). It could be that I'm viewing your site in the wrong browser -- I really don't see something which would guide me as to which store would be "best."

We've had a ratings system for online stores since 1996. To date, it has taken several forms with the "smiley scale" representing our most recent effort. We found that people tend to hesitate when determining what 4/5 stars versus 4.5/5 stars might actually mean. This scale takes it another step and actually provides some interpretation in a readily understood, commonly accepted format.

Left and right are irrelevant. Red frown versus a green glowing smile are pretty self-explanatory in their meaning. Our hope was to provide users with the ability to quickly scan through a list of stores by whatever criteria they deem most important.

kctipton, I think you're just looking at the promotional graphics. You have to actually enter the site. This link, available from any page on our site, will help to better explain the system in detail, but I think you will find it pretty straightforward once you try it.

http://www.bizrate.com/content/new_at_bizrate__de_id--300.html

I appreciate all of the responses but I still cannot find a single, credible reason why either the affiliate link rule or a lack of relevant content could serve to block this site from inclusion. Anyone?

If the purpose of this Public Forum is to aid the public in understanding and properly using the ODP, then those involved with the ODP must actually respond to the issues posted.

So far this has been completely futile -- some groundless criticism and very little effort to actually understand the issue being raised. Where is the moderator?

I see a lot of viewing but very little interaction. Speaking in very general but commonly understood terms, the ODP is not exactly well known for being responsive. Please don't let this become another parade of uselessness.

To anyone reading, if you believe you have something to contribute to this issue or to aid in better understanding it, please post a response.

This is, in the nature of things, not something for which a quick positive response can be given. Patience is required.

Remember that affiliate spam is the single most serious problem for EVERYONE that tries to find information on the net -- search engines, directories, surfers. Some of the perps will generate dozens of new sites a week, all with the same perfect-lack-of-uniqueness of content but possibly wearing different fright wigs and glorying in distinctive aliases. It takes time to track these down. Patience is needed.

It is nearly always true that the ODP editing community is discussing old and new forms of the pestilence, refining the rules to restrict forms that are going epidemic, cleaning up the deluge of unreviewed sites, and some reviewed sites in categories that have been buried deepest in toxic waste, etc. This takes patience.

Now, you have a site that in many respects fits the profile of an affiliate site. One of the respects in which it fits the profile closely is: that it purports to have some bit of "unique" content -- even though its apparent purpose is to induce surfers to traverse its affiliate links. This is not the kind of site most editors enjoy reviewing -- in fact, it takes a great deal of patience.

If this site is reconsidered, there are a number of considerations. You can easily see in these forums, how easily, and with how little excuse, the shrill cries of "his affiliate site is in, why don't you go add mine right now, you unfair monopolists, it's probably owned by an editor, etc., etc., etc.?" Would adding this site trigger a new round of expostulary importunations? Can we really justify it? That kind of discussion will take place in the editing community, not the affiliate-site-generating community. So you won't see it here. Patience is called for.

What the public most needs to understand about this is that of the hundreds of thousands of sites waiting review, sites like this will not be the easiest to list (if they are listed at all -- they are among the easier to reject). Patience seems indicated.

And if, after reconsideration of the community, it is determined that new listings won't be added for ANY class of sites, it is VERY unlikely that the conclusions will be debated with the persons who are considered the source of the problem. The basic problem is that, whatever form the discussion takes, the issues spammers are concerned with are not those which concern the editing community: one wants profit to go to a particular site, the other wants information to flow most efficiently. And we know, from experience, that the spammers will, lawyer-like, introduce utterly specious arguments from religion, philosophy, politics, economics, statistics, biology, and quantum thermodynamics -- even though all that matters is "YOU HAVE TO UNFAIRLY PROMOTE MY SITE RIGHT NOW!" A lack of understanding of this difference of issues, and a lack of appreciation of the time it takes a diverse volunteer community to come to agreement on even necessary changes of direction, will, whatever the merits of the site in hand, make the site owner look like the prototypical spammer. But even a spammer can look like an honest person, given enough patience.

If the community can agree that there really IS some issue here besides "I don't want people to get where they want to go without paying roadtax to my affiliate program", it will address it. (That still doesn't mean that this site, unlike all others on the web, is GUARANTEED a listing.) But remember that the ODP's reputation for nonresponsiveness to spammers is a significant part of its quality control effort.

bizrate wrote: "Speaking in very general but commonly understood terms, the ODP is not exactly well known for being responsive. Please don't let this become another parade of uselessness."

Very good observations - something worth taking note of!

As I stated above as a non-editor I think your site would be a worthwhile addition to the directory. It appears that the editors whom have taken the time to respond to your inquiry haven’t been very cordial. (Thats to be expected.)

I personally think it is totally irrelevant whether you use stars, smileys or $%^&@ it’s a mute point. I have the utmost confidence that your end users will be intelligent enough to figure it out on their own.

Secondly, I find the latest reply totally useless – one word sums it all up “incompetence!” It seems the same scripted responses, attacks, and insinuations are always quick to fly when a submitter questions the almighty editors.

You are correct your volunteers and thats a choice - if you dont like doing it quit. But if your going to do it you should do it to the best of your ability which should by all means include acceptable public relations.

The site had been reviewed, more than several times, already. But I don't think I'm betraying any confidentiality to say that we are reconsidering it. As indicated before, such reconsideration is not done in a vacuum, and the decision may not be quick.

-- I'd particularly call your attention to the submittal guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.html , which actually responded to some of your questions before they were asked here:

"We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted. Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed."

"Identify the single best category for your site.... You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed."

"Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites."

Your, um, inattention to these guidelines will inevitably be a factor in the reconsideration of the site.

I've spent some time going through the site and its history; and give a few of my own immediate reactions:

-- I think I see what you were describing as "unique content." It is, um, not one of the site's more prominent aspects of the site.

-- This site is not particularly friendly for the surfer: it definitely caters to the ad-banner-pushing folks. (A "shopping" site makes it easy for surfers to find the page that sells what they are looking for; a "marketing" site makes it easy for advertisers to display the page they want the public to see. It is easy to characterize this site on that scale.)

-- The site is not particularly useful for the shopping surfer. I tried areas that I frequently shop on the web, looking for some items that I knew existed...with little or no success.

-- Some categories have absolutely nothing useful...just a single affiliate link to another affiliate site. If, in the process of sampling the content to verify its uniqueness, an editor looked first or primarily at such categories, they ought to have rejected out of hand. This may well have happened more than once. (Bear in mind that the editor is not expected to hunt down the three sentences of unique content in the footnotes of the 438th page in an exhaustive breadth-first traversal -- a truly useful site will prominently feature unique content directly relevant to the category. This site certainly doesn't do a GOOD job of that.

-- I was surprised to eventually discover that the price comparisions do sometimes work. Again, a typical reviewer may not try comparing price on more than a couple of items -- if both fail, it is reasonable to guess that feature doesn't work at all. It would be very irrational and inefficient to keep trying these database probes, hoping that the 101st would succeeded if the first 100 failed. It would be much more responsible to reject the site and go look at one of the many other submittals that showed less lack-of-promise.

-- At times I had the feeling that bizrate.com was little more than a (fairly close, but partial) knockoff of smartshopper.com's categories and listings, and in that context the argument "it's no less unique than smartshopper.com" sounded especially, um, curious.

-- I am not surprised that wayfarer likes the site: understandably so, since it certainly emphasises the issues with which he is most concerned. But everyone will have concerns that the ODP cannot, or by design does not, address.

My own conclusion is that, when I am buying something on the web, I would appreciate not having to navigate or circumnavigate this site on the way to the site that really sells it. I suspect that this will be most shoppers' reactions. But in this case I won't make the final call -- we'll see if we can actually get some other shoppers' actual opinions.

The site has worked hard to give a number of obvious good reasons for a quick rejection; acceptance may not be so quick, and is certainly not certain.

Hutcheson wrote: “I am not surprised that wayfarer likes the site: understandably so, since it certainly [spelling correction] emphasis the issues with which he is most concerned. But everyone will have concerns that the ODP cannot, or by design does not, address.”

Firstly, I didn’t necessarily say I liked the site – I only stated that after reviewing it and several of the competitor’s sites I felt it should be just a prominently displayed. The only thing I am concerned about is fairness – once I am satisfied that the submission process if fair for each and every submitter I will be a very happy camper.

If ODP does not wish to address that issue then something needs to be done.

>>... certainly [spelling correction] emphasis ...

All right, wayfarer, that does it: dictionaries and phrase-structure grammars at dawn. Name your second. I'll see if hotpink [founder of the ODP spell-Czech team] is available, and I'll bring my OED just for the swank of it, even though it's overkill.

You're welcome to bone up on verb accidence in the Indo-European languages beforehand.

[ROFL]

Can we sell tickets to this event? Is it on Pay-Per-View? /images/icons/smile.gif

LOL – mission accomplished I knew I could get you riled up about something! Now if I could only get you only half as excited about editing the directory. LOL - It never ceases to amaze me how easily editors can be persuaded to act in commonly expected manners.

That’s why it’s not surprising to see your cohorts quick to join in on the action with a meaningless jab. How many sites could have been edited during the time he spent making that useless post? Yah I know – “there’re over a million in unreviewed so editing one site is a waste of time; we’ll just maintain what we have!”

As for tickets - don’t worry the janitor gets in free.

Have a great weekend and happy editing. /images/icons/wink.gif Donald, I noticed that you won a few Best Editing Awards ... I was curious what "Sites of Mine" meant in your Bookmarks? What's your association (if any) with those sites?

Not donald, but sites to mine are usually sites which an editor finds that has many links, and they plan on going through to add those links to the directory as appropriate.
See the category description.

Yes indeed that would be "Sites to Mine". Meaning sites that I need to mine, as in digging through, to find sites that can be added to the directory. And the Best Editing Team was actually for us being nominated. We didn't win /images/icons/smile.gif

I think it is very interesting how different people interpret different statements /images/icons/smile.gif I didn't get the impression from hutcheson's post that he was "riled". I thought that he was being very light-hearted and was trying to inject an element of humour into the situation. Also "cohorts" is an interesting word to choose. I don't think hutcheson and I have ever actually spoken, so I don't think we would qualify as cohorts. Our areas of expertise are quite far apart and other than seeing hutcheson's posts here in this forum we don't have much reason to communicate.

hutcheson's posts are usually my favourite to read on here. They are well thought out, and extremely well written. I wish I could communicate my thoughts half as well as that.

And now I'll be off to do some more reviewing on a Saturday night /images/icons/smile.gif

First Id like to apologize to bizrate - it seems that the topic has went astray.

ahh I see - I guess my eyes had played tricks on me. I had wondered because I had seen at least one of the sites listed there already listed at the very top of a subcat and the descript seemed rather content.

He sure seemed riled to me - Ive never seen him so quick to defend himself over a petty issue. Rather amusing how he fell right into the trap though. Im not sure if Id call "swank of it" very well written - heh.

Anyway lets help get bizrates site added in the proper categories. Oh and sorry to hear you didnt win - with your dedication to edit on a weekend its surprising you didnt.

I know a few cats that need assistance if your in the editing mood - heh.