Is there any way to establish if a site has been turned down?

IMO, it is impossible to obtain a quality result without a quality process.

Click to expand...

I most strongly disagree. Both in real life and in the ODP.

Certainly, a quality process can often lead to a quality result -- we could both probably wave around telephone-book-like documentary evidence of that. So I see no argument on that point.

Where I differ from you probably centers on one word: impossible. Had you said difficult, I would have agreed. But "impossible" precludes any exceptions -- and exceptions do exist.

One of the things that I have seen around here over the years, is that-well meaning, well-educated individuals often come along and try to share the benefits of their experience and wisdom. For my purposes, we'll forget the idiots and spammers, and just concentrate on people, such as yourself, who obviously mean well and have a lot to offer.

On one hand, it is educational for this old boy to see how these people approach what they see as the problem, and the solutions they offer. I'd bet that if we were making widgits or something similar, just by listening, our "performance" would improve and we would be producing widgits at a record pace.

The problem is that almost invariably, there is a rift right at the beginning of this process. Maybe rift isn't the right word -- I received my education at the School of Combat Operations, University of South Vietnam, which is clearly not an Ivy-league school. Where this rift or breakdown starts to break down is with the definition of the problem.

Two quick examples:

1. Folks often feel that the fact that site "X" has not been listed in "Y" amount of time is a problem. The average editor may not see this as a problem.
2. Folks often feel that what they describe as "the backlog" is a problem. Very few editors even think of the pool of suggested sites as a backlog and thus may not recognize this as a problem.

So, herein lies the rub.It really doesn't do anyone any good at all for people to be offering suggestions for "improvement", "quality", or "productivity" if there isn't even basic agreement as to the definition of the problem. Because, what happens is twofold:

1. The editors roll their eyes at the suggestions, thinking "here we go again."
2. The people making suggestions roll their eyes, thinking "@#%@$# arrogant know-it-all editors."

Because, in my opinion, until the basic problem definitions can be agreed upon, the editors are gonig to continue to be perceived as entrenched and inflexible, and the people offering to help will be perceived as control freaks and micromanagers.

Just my uneducated opinion.

lmocr said:

How can you say that the lack of defined process is evident? Unless you mean that as a compliment (which I don't think you intended )?

Click to expand...

I was quoting an editor.

It is that very "lack of defined process" that has led to the listing of almost 5 MILLION sites in the Open Directory Project.

Click to expand...

The number of sites listed is irrelevant to quality. I know that there are many hard working editors who do a great job. There are also editors who include sites that are nothing short of horrid. Moreover, maintenance is sorely lacking. I can go to almost any category and probably find bad links, redirects, listings completely divorced from their description, affiliate programs, sites under construction. I don't know if it's part of the protocal but I would think that accurate whois data is also a requirement of a quality site.

Maintenance is, fortunately, something that anyone can help with -- not just editors. If you find bad links, you can report them in the "quality feedback", and enjoy the quick response.

Good reply and you are right. I should not indulge in absolutes.

spectregunner said:

Two quick examples:

1. Folks often feel that the fact that site "X" has not been listed in "Y" amount of time is a problem. The average editor may not see this as a problem.
2. Folks often feel that what they describe as "the backlog" is a problem. Very few editors even think of the pool of suggested sites as a backlog and thus may not recognize this as a problem.

Click to expand...

The real problem, IMO, is that nobody knows what the problem is. For all we know, some suggestions go to /dev/null. The process has never been explained. I haven't a clue why it might take years for a good site to get listed.

Suppose, for example, someone checks an otherwise excellent site on a day when the DNS provider's servers have a collective migraine. The site is not included. Would that site every be re-checked? Meanwhile the site owner figures that "these things take time."

Look, I know that there are lots of commercial sites selling mediocre products whose site owners believe that a listing in the ODP is worth substantial revenues. When not immediately listed, they become a pain in the ass. OTOH, it should be obvious that there are some frustrated site owners with legitimate concerns.

>OTOH, it should be obvious that there are some frustrated site owners with legitimate concerns.

NO, that isn't obvious. What is obvious, to anyone who has actually investigated a few hundred or few thousand cases, is that the greater the degree of frustration expressed, the greater likelihood that the site owner is an affiliate doorway spammer.

It is further obvious even that most people who are pushing their sites, don't have sites worth pushing. Now, are there some diamonds in that sewer? It is not obvious that there are, it is not obvious that there aren't.

I expect that legitimate business owners will be too busy trying to build their business by legitimate advertising and promotional venues, to be hanging around the forums whining about the ODP volunteers. And ... I've yet to see the counterexample. Oh, some people fooled me -- hiding their sites and shoveling out lies so smoothly that I didn't spot them for months. But many eyes make all lies implausible, and other editors were onto them like flies.

And there have been a few cases where business owners needed to have the nature of the ODP explained to them -- once.

But after that first explanation, PERSISTENT whiners can be assured that we figure they're spammers on whome we haven't yet finished the abuse investigation.

hutcheson said:

>OTOH, it should be obvious that there are some frustrated site owners with legitimate concerns.

NO, that isn't obvious. What is obvious, to anyone who has actually investigated a few hundred or few thousand cases, is that the greater the degree of frustration expressed, the greater likelihood that the site owner is an affiliate doorway spammer.

Click to expand...

A. I am entirely unaware of any means to request or obtain an investigation.
B. I am frustrated. I run a TOTALLY non-commercial site devoted to a free spam solution, resources and information. We're not a gateway to anything.

It is further obvious even that most people who are pushing their sites, don't have sites worth pushing. Now, are there some diamonds in that sewer? It is not obvious that there are, it is not obvious that there aren't.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you there. As I said I wouid suspect that most problems are associated with mediocre sites selling mediocre goods and services whose site owners are wed to the idea that an ODP listing is the path to great riches.

I expect that legitimate business owners will be too busy trying to build their business by legitimate advertising and promotional venues, to be hanging around the forums whining about the ODP volunteers. And ... I've yet to see the counterexample. Oh, some people fooled me -- hiding their sites and shoveling out lies so smoothly that I didn't spot them for months. But many eyes make all lies implausible, and other editors were onto them like flies.

Click to expand...

You have a sad and bitter view of society - everyone consipiring to screw you. Someone tried to murder me (I'm recovering from a gunshot wound). Yet, I still embrace the belief that most people are good and honest.

No, I don't think these spamming whiners are reflective of society at all. Society is -- legitimate business owners, content to be paid for services they provide. Society is -- volunteers, content to be NOT paid for services they provide. Society is -- associations, working together for common goals. Society is -- people working on their own, for THEIR OWN goals. Society is -- people, enjoying the benefits of society.

Society ISN'T -- people whining about how hard banks are to rob these days, how reluctant people are to hand out handouts in the absence of threats of violence, how selfish other people are not to have my interests at heart. That's antisocial behavior.


But -- there are always antisocial people: thieves, liars, cons. And the thing is, social people don't get frustrated on days when no stranger offers them any valuable gifts. And social people don't generate affiliate doorway pages. No surprise, then, that we see antisocial acts come in clusters. And this isn't "perception" -- this is the result of hundreds of investigations.

>As I said I wouid suspect that most problems are associated with mediocre sites selling mediocre goods and services ...

No, you're dead wrong. OBVIOUSLY, ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the goods and services sold. Nothing whatsoever. A thief can steal and sell a Mercedes just as fast, maybe faster, than a Chevy.

I run a TOTALLY non-commercial site devoted to a free spam solution, resources and information. We're not a gateway to anything.

Click to expand...

Color me confused - why is it so important that your site isn't listed yet (assuming that it isn't and that it is listable -since I haven't seen the site)?

There are other ways for people to find informational sites besides the ODP. Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to continue building your site for your visitors, then to worry about why our site doesn't have something on it that you want it to have?

eyecon - I fully understand your frustration. It is natural for a webmaster to be frustrated waiting for a listing in a directory.

I have a non-profit site, so I would never pay for fast review in any directory. I confine myself to free submissions. Currently I am waiting to see if submissions to three directories will be successful. They were made in May, July and December last year. Naturally I would love to know when they will be processed or if they have been already rejected.

It is very easy to get impatient and blame the editors. What are they doing? Why is it taking so long? Being an editor myself I do have some insight. I know that the ODP is almost crushed with the weight of submissions/suggestions. Stories have emerged from other directories telling a similar tale - overwhelming numbers of submissions, most of which are inappropriate for the directory.

The speed at which a suggestion is processed in a directory staffed by volunteers generally depends on two factors: how popular that area of the directory is with submitters and how popular it is with editors. As you may imagine, the two rarely coincide. Volunteers are far more likely to be interested in helping out in categories that reflect their hobbies and interests, or in their home town, than in commercial categories deluged with spam.

In fact the more likely a category is to be crushed by spam submissions, the less likely it is that an editor will be interested in submissions there at all. The editor may find it quicker to keep an eye on sources of news about websites in the field. After all they would be doing that anyway, if they have an interest! Spending weeks wading through literally thousands of suggestions, only to reject all except the one or two that would be picked up from news anyway starts to to look like a hopelessly ineffectual way of operating.

However in other areas of the directory there are so few submissions and such keen editors that any suggestion will be dealt with in days. Those submissions may be very helpful. So to have just one way of operating throughout the directory (e.g. just stop taking submissions) would not work well.

Hi Jean:

I appreciate the thoughful reply.

It is very easy to get impatient and blame the editors. What are they doing? Why is it taking so long?

Click to expand...

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. If someone said to me "It may take a year or two to get your site reviewed. We'll let you know when we do." That would be perfectly fine with me. I can be very patient.

There are 7,389 listed editors covering 19,896 categories that are listed as having an editor. I don't know but I suspect that a portion of those editors are inactive. It's very easy for me to understand that this is a very small number of people to handle any reasonable presumption of the volume of submissions. Moreover, there is no finish line. The sites just keep on coming.

What the OP was expressing and what I concur with is an entirely differrent concern. When a site is reviewed and declined for listing why cannot someone just send something that says "your site has been reviewed and cannot be included in the ODP at this time because . . . "?

If a site has been reviewed and the editor decides not to include it, is a re-submission required to get it reviewed again?

ODP does not want submission spam. Doesn't the current system encourage multiple submissions because people are completely in the dark?

ODP cannot control patience. As far as I am concerned it's just too bad if someone thinks that they should get listed faster than the process allows. ODP CAN control frustration.

Just a note: In the past, as you are aware, I have gone through categories for bad links, redirects and inappropriate content. In all candor, I did so to prove a point. In the future, I will do so only to make a contribution. I once withdrew an editor's application while it was in process. Culturally, it would have been a terrible fit. Going through edited categories is a different challenge.

ANY FURTHER REPLIES on my part, in this thread, would be repetitive. I have made my point - right or wrong. I'm done.

When a site is reviewed and declined for listing why cannot someone just send something that says "your site has been reviewed and cannot be included in the ODP at this time because . . . "?

Click to expand...

That idea has occurred to many people inside and outside the directory and has been seriously considered. After carefully weighing the pros and cons, if was felt that the latter outweighed the former. The advantages have been fully argued. There is no aspect that hasn't been considered. But the disadvantages are greater. These include the burden on the resources of what is essentially a non-profit.

There are 7,389 listed editors covering 19,896 categories that are listed as having an editor.

Click to expand...

While this is correct, is is also not right

If an editor is the named editor in a given category they are, by default, also able to edit in all categories directly below that one.

Thus, since I am a named editor in Regional/North_America/United_States I am not restricted to that single category, I can edit in any of the tens of thousands of subcategories that sit below that one category. Simply put, I can edit in any regional category within the United States.

What does that really mean? If someone were looking at that single category where I am a named editor, and tried to see levels of my activity, they would probably die of old age before they saw me do anything there. I'mnot sure I even have a single edit in that category. Yet, more than 2/3rds of all my edits have been in Regional within the US.

Similarly if someone just looked at Society/Military/Aviation/Aircraft they would not see much of my editing and would certainly have missed the category building I have done recently in Society/Military/Aviation/Aircraft/Unmanned_Air_Vehicles where there is no named editor.

Thanks Again, All

Whlle my opinion is unchanged, I have made my case. Any further replies on my part would be redundant - if not a distraction.