Is this an editor power trip?

I Have been following threads in the DMOZ for a while now particularly in the site status category and I think that the Open Directory is a great resource and that there are alot of really helpful and knowledgeable editors out there. However I must say that I am appalled at how some of the editors respond to webmasters. I am only referring to a handful and I am sure that they know who they are. What I have observed is that webmasters go out of their way to be curteous and helpful to the editors (as recomended) and then an editor comes back and slaps them in the face with totally unhelpful and sarcastic comments.
I appreciate the usefulness of the Open Directory and also that it is run by volunteers, but why volunteer when you are not enjoying it or is it just for the power trip? I have seen threads whereby certain editors even verbally abuse other editors and so what sort of image is that creating? Plus the editors themselves (the few bad eggs that I am referring to) don't seem to have a full understanding of the guidelines and just like to SHOUT and bad mouth others.
Who monitors the editors and how can we eliminate the ones that don't have any "useful content" to contribute?

This forum is monitored by a number of meta editors.

Tangent from a sociolinguist...

This is all my completely unofficial opinion as an individual here... but "useful content to contribute," where ODP editors are concerned, does and should refer to their contributions to the *directory*. As in, how many good sites we add, how many bad ones we delete, how many positive changes we make to the category. Our primary goal as an organization is not free promotional services for webmasters. In fact, processing site submissions at all is not our top priority, nor what we signed onto this project to accomplish.

As for what's helpful and polite, unfortunately that's in the eye of the beholder a lot. Editors and submitters from all over the world, with different cultures, personalities, and native languages, use this board, and remarks that seem very constructive to the editor posting them may be taken badly by a webmaster, and remarks that may seem sarcastic and pointless to one webmaster may be of invaluable help to another. A very friendly and encouraging answer to a general question was recently taken as "impolite" by a forum user, for no reason at all that I can fathom. People simply have different communicative styles and expectations, and it would be both fruitless and unfair to all involved to try to force all editor responses to conform to one style when that style may not suit all questioners anyway.

I've only just found out that my website was rejected for inclusion despite adhering to most of the guidelines. I was not given a reason for the rejection but I have a feeling that it was merely because of the fact that I had affiliate links on my website. This is sad because so many websites that offer quality content (ejem.. like mine) have no other way of financing their websites than that of being part of affiliate programs.

In my case it would have been great if Editors did have the power and flexibiity to individually assess whether a website is rich in content or not and of value to relevant users. Unfortunately this isn't do as they have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to keep in line with DMOZ's principles (principles which I'm all for).

Yes it was disappointing news to have been rejected especially when us webmasters but so much effort into our websites but I recognise the Editors are simply doing a job they have volunteered to do.

http://www.betmoney.co.uk

We do not give specific reasons on why we choose to not list sites. It is this forums policy as well as a general dmoz.org policy. Its not that we are picking on you. We apply this rule to everyone. Just because we choose not to list your site does not mean it is a bad site. Many people have successful websites and are not listed in dmoz.org. I wish you all the luck in the world in your promotional endeavors. Have a Great Day!

The guidelines aren't as inflexible as you think, but your site does indeed trip over the guidelines for inclusion. Gambling guides/directories are notoriously unable to get around the affiliate links section.

thehelper said:

We do not give specific reasons on why we choose to not list sites. It is this forums policy as well as a general dmoz.org policy. Its not that we are picking on you. We apply this rule to everyone. Just because we choose not to list your site does not mean it is a bad site. Many people have successful websites and are not listed in dmoz.org. I wish you all the luck in the world in your promotional endeavors. Have a Great Day!

Click to expand...

Thank you, and I really do understand what you are saying. I'm not having a go at Editors or DMOZ, I respect what they do and your support has thus far been professional.

My opinion (and it may understandably be bias) is quite simply that in this case the Editors may be getting it wrong.

My website would have been ideal to fall into the following category:
http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Recreation_and_Sports/Gambling/

Whilst I recognise there are very reputable websites listed I also think there are links of a far lower quality to http://www.betmoney.co.uk

Sadly this is a matter of opinion that DMOZ's editors do not share with me... or maybe they do but are too restricted by their given guidelines.

:O)

So we can agree to disagree. That sounds like a good close to that part of this discussion.

Alucard said:

So we can agree to disagree. That sounds like a good close to that part of this discussion.

Click to expand...

lol ok... by the way Alucard... nice Avatar

Flicker thanks for your very valid point about the editors being worlwide and therefore from different cultures etc. But surely there is a line between what is considered politeness and what is considered rude and unhelpful no matter what your cultural beliefs and which part of the world that you come from. I just feel that certain editors cross that line a bit too often and it doesn't help the image of the Open Directory. This is just my personal observation.

Since Bet Money UK brought up the subject of affiliate links, a question that I would like to ask is, where in the guidelines for editors does it say that a site with affiliate links should NOT be entered in the directory? I have noticed that certain editors have a serious allergy to affiliate links and will not under any circumstances allow a site in if they see ANY affiliate code in the browser. Is that DMOZ policy?
I often see remarks like "because you don't sell anything yourself then you are not considered to have any unique content and you are considered to be affiliate spam". Could someone please explain?

Nicole said:

I often see remarks like "because you don't sell anything yourself then you are not considered to have any unique content and you are considered to be affiliate spam". Could someone please explain?

Click to expand...

Start out by not misrepresenting us. That's not what we say. We say nothing about "are considered". It is not anybody's "consideration." It is a simple fact: affiliate links ARE NOT unique content. You can find them a dime a zillion at any of zillions of FFA link farms. You can make your own affiliate banner farms as fast as you can cut and paste links. And even as we speak there are zillions of people doing just that. (And the same goes for any of the other forbidden kinds of sites. Whenever we see lots of different people copying the same tired old content with different fright masks, we add a new category to our list of spammers.)

And that bit about "are considered spam" is really a misrepresentation, too. True, one man's spam is another man's reading material. But -- and this is the important point -- nobody on earth but the recipient gets a vote as to whether something is spam or not! There is no discussion, there is only definition, and the recipient defines it unilaterally.

For site submittals, we are the recipients, and we tell everyone, right up front in the submittal policies, that submittals of affiliate sites are not appreciated. So that's an end of it. You can mail the site to your neighbor, and it may not be spam -- that's HIS vote, not yours or mine -- but when you submit it to the ODP, it IS spam and you ARE a spammer. There's no need for discussion, either. The policies are there, and anyone can look at them to see how not to be a spammer.

What's difficult to understand about that?

And, once you figure that out, what's so difficult about seeing why we can't tell these people how to fix their sites? That's like giving viagra to a mannikin, and then asking about the most romantic places to take it to dinner. There's nothing you can do but dump it and go rent a date.

Hutcheson I think that you just made my point in your attitude and sarcastic remarks.
Have you ever read this: "Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP"? - It is a copy of part of the DMOZ guidelines for editors in case you were wondering.

Nicole said:

But surely there is a line between what is considered politeness and what is considered rude and unhelpful no matter what your cultural beliefs and which part of the world that you come from.

Click to expand...

Speaking also as a linguist - no, there is no such line. It's a fascinating subject, but it's a bit off-topic...

But it's also true, seen from a non-linguistic perspective, that rudeness, like spam, is in the eye of the recipient, and then it's less relevant what the intention is. (If somebody on a public discussion board calls me "brainless moron" I'll be hurt even if the person saying it meant it as an endearment.) It can be useful to remember how many almost-identically phrased questions the editors here respond to each day; to be sure we do it voluntarily but all the same efficiency sometimes overrides politeness... and we are not only human, hence prey to our own emotions, but non-professionals, answering questions about our hobby!

Nicole said:

Hutcheson I think that you just made my point in your attitude and sarcastic remarks.

Click to expand...

See, that's exactly what I was talking about in my previous point - what I see as thoughtful and well-reasoned representation of fact you see as bad attitude and sarcasm.

Have you ever read this: "Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP"? - It is a copy of part of the DMOZ guidelines for editors in case you were wondering.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, but those guidelines are about sites containing affiliate links. That is NOT the same as affiliate sites. The distinction is pointed out in the same section of the guidelines you quoted (they are located here.)

Constructive discussion is generally made more difficult when you don't talk about the same thing.

Nea, that is exactly the point I am trying to make regarding what your said about the diffierence between sites with affiliate links and affiliate sites. I agree that there is a huge difference but if the ODP will not list sites with affiliate links which seems to be the case (I feel that certain editors confuse affiliate sites and sites with affiliate links), then why don't they make that really clear. That would save the editors an awful lot of work, stop all these affiliate dsicussions and cat and mouse games and save webmasters the angst and headache of submitting (or not as the case may be) their sites which have the odd affiliate link. We would all know where we stand and the world would be a happier and calmer place.
By the way, how do I attach a quote like you did in your previous post?

In this context, in discussing exactly how editors should implement the guidelines, our Editor in Chief has repeatedly enunciated this rule of thumb: if (in the judgment of the editor) a site exists primarily to drive business to some other site, then it must not be listed. This is much more general than just affiliate links! The links don't have to be affiliate-tagged: any kind of "doorway" or "mirror" site fails this test also. And a focus on "affiliate links" as if they were somehow specially and unfairly deprecated, is yet another way of misrepresenting the ODP guidelines and the ODP editors.

You can apply this test yourself. It's very simple. If you wouldn't have created the site had it not been for the anticipated advertising income from it, then ... when you submit it to the ODP, you know you're spamming. And this is whether or not the site has even a single affiliate link.

OK let's leave it there otherwise we shall be going back and forth for ever. I didn't realise that getting any form of revenue from advertising income was not acceptable on the Open Directory so sorry to have wasted your time and energy - mine too! Maybe that could be made more clear in the submission guidelines.

Nicole said:

I didn't realise that getting any form of revenue from advertising income was not acceptable on the Open Directory

Click to expand...

It is not. You are totaly free to earn money with your site or with advertisements on your site. And the site still can be listed in ODP.
But (as stated) if the sites only purpose is to drive visitors to an other site it won't be listed.

I didn't realise that getting any form of revenue from advertising income was not acceptable on the Open Directory

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't let this statement stand.

Sites may receive revenue from advertising on the site.

We do not, however, list advertising.

We list sites that add unique content to the category it is being listed in.

Note the add. This means that new sites must have more extensive information about something, or provide a unique service relevant to the category, than those already listed there.

As for the offsite links, whether affiliate tagged or not, if they are offsite they are, by definition, not content on the site.

Affiliate sites sell a product or service on behalf of someone else, and receive a fee for doing so. Since the same product and/or service is available from the actual provider, we list that site (the providers)

:tree:

Another false rumour about ODP in the making. I have sites in ODP, and they have advertising on them, and some of those ads are affiliates ads. And I didn't add them, other editors did, some before I became an editor - so the addition was nothing to do with me being an editor.

But they are an "extra" to the site, it's clear that the site has content and the ads are an addition. As opposed to those sites which started with the ads, and the webmaster added a bunch of text to surround the advertising.