how to contact an editor?
- Thread starter asoka
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,204
Welcome to Resource-Zone!
First of all: You have been posting in the german section of this forum. This section is reserved for discussions in german, so I moved your posting.
Regarding contacting an editor: Editors are listed at the bottom of any category they have direct access to. Additionally, every editor has access to all categories below those he is listed in.. If you click the editors name, you will get to the profile page where a feedback option is available. But thinking about it, contacting an editor usually is usually not something you should do.
If you want a site to be listed, usggest it via the "Suggest URL" link. Please do not send feedback to an editor requesting a site to be listed. This only causes additional workload for the editor (reading the mail), but he won't act on it anyway.
If you want someone to change an existing entry, uise the "Update Listing" link in the category.
If you have a generic question, you can post it in the forum.
First of all: You have been posting in the german section of this forum. This section is reserved for discussions in german, so I moved your posting.
Regarding contacting an editor: Editors are listed at the bottom of any category they have direct access to. Additionally, every editor has access to all categories below those he is listed in.. If you click the editors name, you will get to the profile page where a feedback option is available. But thinking about it, contacting an editor usually is usually not something you should do.
If you want a site to be listed, usggest it via the "Suggest URL" link. Please do not send feedback to an editor requesting a site to be listed. This only causes additional workload for the editor (reading the mail), but he won't act on it anyway.
If you want someone to change an existing entry, uise the "Update Listing" link in the category.
If you have a generic question, you can post it in the forum.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
To expand upon one very important point:
If you do decide to ignore our advice and directly contact an editor, do not expect a reply.
In fact, there is a good chance your e-mail will not even be read.
Editors are fierce in their independence, and many feel not the slightest obligation to webmasters and site owners. Why? Because there is absolutely nothing that requires one to directly contact an editor, thus any contact is viewed with suspicion and distrust.
Not trying to be mean or rude, just perfectly clear.
If you do decide to ignore our advice and directly contact an editor, do not expect a reply.
In fact, there is a good chance your e-mail will not even be read.
Editors are fierce in their independence, and many feel not the slightest obligation to webmasters and site owners. Why? Because there is absolutely nothing that requires one to directly contact an editor, thus any contact is viewed with suspicion and distrust.
Not trying to be mean or rude, just perfectly clear.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
No. We do not contact owners and webmasters to advise them of our editing actions.
If we accept a site, it get listed.
If we decline a site, there is no use waving it in the face of the webmaster since in all likelihood the site cnnot be repaired -- it is funamentally unlistable.
In the rare instances when there is some sometimes the editor reaches out an attempts to communicate with the webmaster -- and braces for the abuse that usually follows.
If we accept a site, it get listed.
If we decline a site, there is no use waving it in the face of the webmaster since in all likelihood the site cnnot be repaired -- it is funamentally unlistable.
In the rare instances when there is some sometimes the editor reaches out an attempts to communicate with the webmaster -- and braces for the abuse that usually follows.
Mooreito said:
You just have to simply wait, just simply re-submit every year and some day you might get in.
I have been waiting 1 and half year so far,
the category i have submitted in has no editor and is out of date with dead links.
i applied to become an editor so i can maintain the category but got declined.
Theres not much you can do
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
There is no need to suggest the site more than once.
No category "has no editor". That there is no named editor doesn't mean that nobody edits there, and if there is one, it doesn't mean that that person is active. If there are dead links in a category, we really appreciate it if you help us out by telling us.
And a lot of the current editors had to apply several times before they were accepted. The rejection email includes information about what you need to think about if and why you re-apply.
in category
Top: Regional: Oceania: New Zealand: Business and Economy: Classifieds: Personal Advertisements
the two url's "Findsomeone" and "MateFinder" are linked to the same website.
"Matefinder" link was dead earlier buti guess findsomeone got the domain and redirected to them sinces its already on dmoz.
and thanks for clarifying that if there is no editor listed that does not mean there is no editors editing that category, i have more hope of being listed now.
Top: Regional: Oceania: New Zealand: Business and Economy: Classifieds: Personal Advertisements
the two url's "Findsomeone" and "MateFinder" are linked to the same website.
"Matefinder" link was dead earlier buti guess findsomeone got the domain and redirected to them sinces its already on dmoz.
and thanks for clarifying that if there is no editor listed that does not mean there is no editors editing that category, i have more hope of being listed now.
Hello is anyone out there.....
If you apply to be an editor, you can receive a rejection notice in less than a week. If you submit a site, you could wait for eternity.
I have to say that some type of notification would be very nice to know if a site is accepted or rejected. Rejections could be sent from a do-not-reply address so at least the submitter would be aware that their site had been reviewed. That way the editor would be free from the responses and the submitter wouldn't be left to wonder if anyone had ever seen their submission. If a site was rejected for listing, an appeal process or a remediation process that would allow a submitter the opertunity to resolve those issues that prevent them from being listed would be invaluable.
I have tried to get a site listed that fully complies with the submission guidlines and is glaringly missing for the category so I fully understand the frustration with the process. I am a supporter of the Open Directory Project and I salute the faithful editors who give of their time to this worthwhile cause. I would simply suggest that the submission process could be improved by being more OPEN about the status of submissions. And being a baseball fan, I think that having more than one chance to get a hit would make be more in line with the human aspect of ODP. To error is Human; To forgive devine.
If you apply to be an editor, you can receive a rejection notice in less than a week. If you submit a site, you could wait for eternity.
I have to say that some type of notification would be very nice to know if a site is accepted or rejected. Rejections could be sent from a do-not-reply address so at least the submitter would be aware that their site had been reviewed. That way the editor would be free from the responses and the submitter wouldn't be left to wonder if anyone had ever seen their submission. If a site was rejected for listing, an appeal process or a remediation process that would allow a submitter the opertunity to resolve those issues that prevent them from being listed would be invaluable.
I have tried to get a site listed that fully complies with the submission guidlines and is glaringly missing for the category so I fully understand the frustration with the process. I am a supporter of the Open Directory Project and I salute the faithful editors who give of their time to this worthwhile cause. I would simply suggest that the submission process could be improved by being more OPEN about the status of submissions. And being a baseball fan, I think that having more than one chance to get a hit would make be more in line with the human aspect of ODP. To error is Human; To forgive devine.
chaos127
Curlie Admin
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,344
This has been suggested many times on this forum, and many times editors have provided reasons why this wouldn't really help further the directory's aims and hence is not a particularly good use of our (rather limited) resources. You'll find more information about why this isn't likely to happen any time soon by doing a forum search.
There is no mystery as to what it takes to make a listable site; our Editorial Guidelines and site selection criteria are public. In the vast majority of cases suggested sites are either perfectly listable, or completely unlistable -- and those in the latter group aren't going to change status unless the author completely changes the site's focus or their business model. In the (very very few) borderline cases where a minor change (eg. providing location details for a Business wanting to be listed in Regional/) would make a site listable, then editors can and do contact the site owner to suggest a change.
If you can be objective, you can see for yourself what the outcome of a review will be. So if a suggested site that you believe is listable hasn't been listed yet, the most likely reason is that one of our volunteer editors hasn't got round to reviewing it yet. But remember, all our editors are volunteers, suggested sites are only one source of new sites to add, and adding new sites is only one of the tasks editors need to do to build and maintain a useful directory.
Unfortunately, not all site suggesters are the honest type, like yourself, and that would give the dishonest ones more opportunity to refine their methods, and make more work for us, which would increase your waiting time.
A submission to us is actually a suggestion that's meant to help us in our goal of building good categories (a collection of websites) for the web surfer looking for information, not a request to be listed, as we're not a listing service.
I think people get confused about that.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
Out of curiosity what are you waiting for? There is no reason to 'wait' on anything. Suggest a site and move on with promoting and building it to the satisfaction of the target audience. Worrying about whether one directory or another has given you a link (especially one whose editors are voluntary in nature) or worse waiting on it when its not a guarantee isn't going to result in anything but frustration in most cases. I recommend suggesting your site and carrying on as if DMOZ didn't exist. What you will end up with is a well designed site that meets the needs of the customers its intended for, then if dmoz lists it, its simply icing on the proverbial cake.
shadow575 said:Out of curiosity what are you waiting for? There is no reason to 'wait' on anything. Suggest a site and move on with promoting and building it to the satisfaction of the target audience. Worrying about whether one directory or another has given you a link (especially one whose editors are voluntary in nature) or worse waiting on it when its not a guarantee isn't going to result in anything but frustration in most cases. I recommend suggesting your site and carrying on as if DMOZ didn't exist. What you will end up with is a well designed site that meets the needs of the customers its intended for, then if dmoz lists it, its simply icing on the proverbial cake.
Well noted and I have already moved on. It's just that I recognize the value of ODP and it's the only place left on my list where I'm not listed. Since many of the search engines put value on ODP listings, not being listed leaves one feeling like a second class citizen. My cake is done and I'm ready for the icing.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
What is the value beyond being 1 more link? I have never understood this line of reasoning, I guess I most likely never will.pawj said:Well noted and I have already moved on. It's just that I recognize the value of ODP and it's the only place left on my list where I'm not listed. Since many of the search engines put value on ODP listings, not being listed leaves one feeling like a second class citizen. My cake is done and I'm ready for the icing.
shadow575 said:
ODP is the most important link in my book. Because it's human edited and you can't pay to get there. I consider it to be the most important link a site can have. When I'm checking a site out, I always look to see if they're listed. Am I misguided in my faith in the ODP? Reading your response makes me think I haven't understood the purpose of ODP. I better re-read the about ODP page.
I re-read the about page. Guess I'm stuck on the headline "The Definitive Catalog of the Web". I'll pipe down and go back to my comfy chair now. Keep up the good work. and Best Regards to you.
Why is this commercial ?
I don't accept the position of the ODP on checking submission status. I listed my small business site over two years ago, so how do I know when to give up hope of it ever getting listed
It is very upsetting to see the sites of commercial competitors with weaker content, or with vastly more expensive production values, being listed on the ODP itself and multiple spin-off directory sites, while my own website venture resides in the internet doldrums
Individual rejection notices would help the creators of sites to improve or redesign them before resubmitting, even if the editor merely had to select from a short list of stock reasons. This may not be a primary function of the directory, but it seems like a small courtesy to issue a final decision. People get frustrated when there is no closure on something like this that is important to them .
Just how difficult would it be to enable a site suggester to automatically check the status of their request ? :icon_idea Given the importance of the ODP, I believe strongly it needs to overcome this deficiency.
OK, so the editors are volunteers, but their whim can directly influence the success or failure of commercial websites with limited budgets, and while the ODP is a non-commercial entity, it has a commercial role. Not least, it provides a free service to corporations with vast budgets for their web-sites (to get them right first time).
I admire the goals of the ODP, but my experience has been terribly soured by receiving no feedback and I feel unfairly treated, as do many others.
I don't accept the position of the ODP on checking submission status. I listed my small business site over two years ago, so how do I know when to give up hope of it ever getting listed
It is very upsetting to see the sites of commercial competitors with weaker content, or with vastly more expensive production values, being listed on the ODP itself and multiple spin-off directory sites, while my own website venture resides in the internet doldrums
Individual rejection notices would help the creators of sites to improve or redesign them before resubmitting, even if the editor merely had to select from a short list of stock reasons
. This may not be a primary function of the directory, but it seems like a small courtesy to issue a final decision. People get frustrated when there is no closure on something like this that is important to them .Just how difficult would it be to enable a site suggester to automatically check the status of their request ? :icon_idea Given the importance of the ODP, I believe strongly it needs to overcome this deficiency.
OK, so the editors are volunteers, but their whim can directly influence the success or failure of commercial websites with limited budgets, and while the ODP is a non-commercial entity, it has a commercial role. Not least, it provides a free service to corporations with vast budgets for their web-sites (to get them right first time)
.I admire the goals of the ODP, but my experience has been terribly soured by receiving no feedback and I feel unfairly treated, as do many others
.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
OK, you've had your say, here are some blunt answers.
It really does not matter what you do or do not accept. Our position remains unchanged and we have sufficient experience that we choose not to revisit our decision.
Upsetting or not, we never promised you or anyone else a listings, we never accepted payment or fee, we never entered into a contract with you (beyond our social contract), we are under no obligation to list your site.
No, they would not. We tried this through the feedback process, and we discovered two important things:
You also overlook the fact that a good number of editors do privately let site owners know if there is somethign that can easily be fixed. In my experience, three fourths of the notices I send are ignored, of the remaining twenty five percent, about have of hte sites get fixed and the other half end up in me getting unprintable e-mails.
It is exceptionally easy. We simply choose not to do it.
Unfairness suggests we have deliberately singled you out for some sort of special, unkind treatment. We have treated you exactly like we have treated everyone else. We do not give status reports. They are unproductive and casue more problems than they resolve. What apparently chafes you is that we have not provided something to you that we have not provided to anyone else: a status report. We have no remedy for that.
I have not said this to be unkind or mean, but rather to be as plain spoken as possible.
It really does not matter what you do or do not accept. Our position remains unchanged and we have sufficient experience that we choose not to revisit our decision.
Upsetting or not, we never promised you or anyone else a listings, we never accepted payment or fee, we never entered into a contract with you (beyond our social contract), we are under no obligation to list your site.
No, they would not. We tried this through the feedback process, and we discovered two important things:
- The vast majority of the time we reject a site it is not for something that can be easily fixed. The site is simply not listable. Period.
- On the rare instances where a site is fixable, we found that the site owners would rather argue with us that fix the site. Look at the archives.
You also overlook the fact that a good number of editors do privately let site owners know if there is somethign that can easily be fixed. In my experience, three fourths of the notices I send are ignored, of the remaining twenty five percent, about have of hte sites get fixed and the other half end up in me getting unprintable e-mails.
It is exceptionally easy. We simply choose not to do it.
Unfairness suggests we have deliberately singled you out for some sort of special, unkind treatment. We have treated you exactly like we have treated everyone else. We do not give status reports. They are unproductive and casue more problems than they resolve. What apparently chafes you is that we have not provided something to you that we have not provided to anyone else: a status report. We have no remedy for that.
I have not said this to be unkind or mean, but rather to be as plain spoken as possible.
chaos127
Curlie Admin
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,344
There's usually one reason for rejecting a site, namely that it doesn't meet our (publicly available) site selection criteria -- site owners (if they can be objective enough) should already be able to judge for themselves whether this is the case.
However, what I think most people fail to realise is just how many site suggestions we receive, and, as a consequence, how long it's likely to take for an editor to get around to reviewing any particular site. To make matters worse, the most 'popular' categories with those suggesting sites, tend to be the ones with the most 'junk' suggestions, and therefore the least popular with editors. If you've suggested a site that you believe is listable, and it hasn't yet been listed, the most likely explanation is that no-one's got around to reviewing it yet. I'm afraid you'll just have to be patient...