I had a site that was in ODP for a few years and then was deleted in February. A meta-editor put it back in. The site was then deleted again in May. I contacted an editor and they put it back in. I then emailed the category editor trying to find out what the problem was so this wouldn't happen again. Here is the reply I got: "There is no benefit to the ODP or the volunteers to make sure your site is listed. There is no guarantee to be listed at the ODP. Just be grateful the site was ever listed, period. The reason why it was removed was legitimate to the ODP, and the ODP doesn't owe you a listing or an explanation. They granted an exception, and that means that they are allowing your URL be listed there (in spite of it's tag for removal). They can remove it when they want, despite your frustration and anger (they owe you nothing remember?). They could make a rule against webmasters named [My Name], and use that against you if they wanted. I have donated enough of my minutes to your issue, it was resolved already. Case closed. Your welcome." -- Is this really how the editors view us webmasters? What am I going to do if the site is deleted again? I feel somone has it out for me over there.
Is this ODP policy?
- Thread starter 92122
- Start date
It it's important to you to be listed in the ODP, one solution is to become an editor.
You will be given an explanation, treated with more respect, you'll have a better idea of what's going on, and you'll be able to better address issues that arise.
You will be given an explanation, treated with more respect, you'll have a better idea of what's going on, and you'll be able to better address issues that arise.
Was that an exact and complete (aside from the deletion of your name) rendering of an email you got from an ODP editor?
If so, I would appreciate your either filling out an abuse report or sending a message to anyone here with the tag "meta" next to their name, and let us know who sent it to you.
Please don't post the editor name here. We insist on dealing with such accusations privately.
Oh, and if that was a paraphrasing of what you think the editor meant by what was actually said, don't bother.
And re tshephard, if your only reason for wanting to become an editor is to list or improve the listing of your own site or sites, please don't bother. If, on the other hand, you want to list your site and those of your competitors evenhandedly, please apply and I hope you're accepted.
If so, I would appreciate your either filling out an abuse report or sending a message to anyone here with the tag "meta" next to their name, and let us know who sent it to you.
Please don't post the editor name here. We insist on dealing with such accusations privately.
Oh, and if that was a paraphrasing of what you think the editor meant by what was actually said, don't bother.
And re tshephard, if your only reason for wanting to become an editor is to list or improve the listing of your own site or sites, please don't bother. If, on the other hand, you want to list your site and those of your competitors evenhandedly, please apply and I hope you're accepted.
I can quote responses like that from these forums. Can we fill out an abuse report on those?
As for the other, please read what I wrote and then read what you wrote.
You guys just can't give a fellow the benefit of the doubt, can you.
As for the other, please read what I wrote and then read what you wrote.
You guys just can't give a fellow the benefit of the doubt, can you.
brmehlman said:
92122:
If the site meets our listing guidelines, it won't be deleted. If it doesn't it will. If not now as a result of calling attention to it, then later when a senior editor runs across it.
So, if your site is genuinely listable you have nothing to lose by sending me the email with all headers. If the site isn't listable and slipped through, I'd still like to see it but I'm not exactly expecting it.
tshephard:
Please find or start your own thread rather than hijacking others' with off-topic posts.
If the site meets our listing guidelines, it won't be deleted. If it doesn't it will. If not now as a result of calling attention to it, then later when a senior editor runs across it.
So, if your site is genuinely listable you have nothing to lose by sending me the email with all headers. If the site isn't listable and slipped through, I'd still like to see it but I'm not exactly expecting it.
tshephard:
Please find or start your own thread rather than hijacking others' with off-topic posts.
He asked what he could do to make sure his site didn't get deleted. I suggested becoming an editor to find out what's going on and to get more respect.
What's wrong with that? Are you guys purposely looking to alienate absolutely everyone under the sun?
What's wrong with that? Are you guys purposely looking to alienate absolutely everyone under the sun?
OK, there are several issues here, and as usual they are being conflated.
(1) The bit about not being guaranteed a listing and not being guaranteed a permanent listing is true. We don't do that, and there's nothing you can get to get us to do that, and so far as it goes, that's the right answer.
(2) But we don't want listable sites being removed. So if that happens, your recourse is to ask about the site specifically, and we'll look at it. If (in the opinion of the reviewing editor) the site shouldn't have been removed, we can put it back -- we generally do that quickly -- and caution the editor who removed it. (If it happens multiple times, we appoint a new ex-editor.) This isn't your right as a webmaster, it's our commitment to the users to provide as comprehensive a directory as possible, and we can't have that with editors working at cross purposes.
(3) If you think an editor gets a more favorable response when trying to use his position to promote his site, you've got a wonderful fantasy. Abusive webmasters are just pestilential, but abusive editors are _treacherous_. If they persist, they are likely to get removed -- and a lot of the webmasters you see being treated least obsequiously in public forums are promoting ex-editors' sites. Editors can see each others' notes, which is not really helpful for cases like this: it doesn't matter why the editor said he deleted the site, all that matters is whether it should have been deleted, and that the note can't say. And editors had an abuse reporting system before the public did, but now everyone has the same access.
(4) Were you really wasting the editor's time asking for assurances that he could not possibly give, and that you should have known he could not possibly give? Absolutely you were!
Suppose the guidelines change, can the editor say "Oh, we can't bring up this listing to conform to the guidelines, I promised the webmaster!" Suppose the editor moves on to other activities, what will the next editor know or care of any foolish promises he might have made? Suppose another editor inappropriately (abusively) removes the site (it happens, as you know, although it is not so common as abusive webmasters think), would that editor be able to restrain the abuser? And how could he know ahead of time what sites would be abusively removed?
No, that was an inappropriate question, and it demanded a frank representation of my answer #1 (which is what you got -- perhaps a bit more tact wouldn't have hurt, although I'm probably not the person to say that). If you had asked, "what should I do if this happens again?", you should have received a representation of my issue #2.
(1) The bit about not being guaranteed a listing and not being guaranteed a permanent listing is true. We don't do that, and there's nothing you can get to get us to do that, and so far as it goes, that's the right answer.
(2) But we don't want listable sites being removed. So if that happens, your recourse is to ask about the site specifically, and we'll look at it. If (in the opinion of the reviewing editor) the site shouldn't have been removed, we can put it back -- we generally do that quickly -- and caution the editor who removed it. (If it happens multiple times, we appoint a new ex-editor.) This isn't your right as a webmaster, it's our commitment to the users to provide as comprehensive a directory as possible, and we can't have that with editors working at cross purposes.
(3) If you think an editor gets a more favorable response when trying to use his position to promote his site, you've got a wonderful fantasy. Abusive webmasters are just pestilential, but abusive editors are _treacherous_. If they persist, they are likely to get removed -- and a lot of the webmasters you see being treated least obsequiously in public forums are promoting ex-editors' sites. Editors can see each others' notes, which is not really helpful for cases like this: it doesn't matter why the editor said he deleted the site, all that matters is whether it should have been deleted, and that the note can't say. And editors had an abuse reporting system before the public did, but now everyone has the same access.
(4) Were you really wasting the editor's time asking for assurances that he could not possibly give, and that you should have known he could not possibly give? Absolutely you were!
Suppose the guidelines change, can the editor say "Oh, we can't bring up this listing to conform to the guidelines, I promised the webmaster!" Suppose the editor moves on to other activities, what will the next editor know or care of any foolish promises he might have made? Suppose another editor inappropriately (abusively) removes the site (it happens, as you know, although it is not so common as abusive webmasters think), would that editor be able to restrain the abuser? And how could he know ahead of time what sites would be abusively removed?
No, that was an inappropriate question, and it demanded a frank representation of my answer #1 (which is what you got -- perhaps a bit more tact wouldn't have hurt, although I'm probably not the person to say that). If you had asked, "what should I do if this happens again?", you should have received a representation of my issue #2.
Hi,
I agree with hutcheson, that no site is guaranteed listing; and with brmehlman, that if this was an accurate representation of what the editor wrote you, filing an abuse report is warranted. Even if the editor has otherwise made the right decision, using this condescending language isn't appropriate whether it's directed toward a submitter or a fellow editor. You'll find that we have a system of checks and balances. Our metas and staff are all humans - they do it better (well, except for Robozilla, but he does a fine job, too
).
I agree with hutcheson, that no site is guaranteed listing; and with brmehlman, that if this was an accurate representation of what the editor wrote you, filing an abuse report is warranted. Even if the editor has otherwise made the right decision, using this condescending language isn't appropriate whether it's directed toward a submitter or a fellow editor. You'll find that we have a system of checks and balances. Our metas and staff are all humans - they do it better (well, except for Robozilla, but he does a fine job, too
).Humans do it better when they use machines intelligently, and don't rely on them totally.
Reviewing sites is still done better by humans.
Robozilla is better at finding sites that have moved or expired.
But it's true sometimes humans lose their tempers, get mixed up, or have impure motives. That's why the community has a system of checks and balances - and lots of communication.
Reviewing sites is still done better by humans.
Robozilla is better at finding sites that have moved or expired.
But it's true sometimes humans lose their tempers, get mixed up, or have impure motives. That's why the community has a system of checks and balances - and lots of communication.
Aside from the lack of tact, the only thing I have a problem with in the response is the statement "They could make a rule against webmasters named [My Name], and use that against you if they wanted."
If the metas and staff started doing things like that, I would leave, and I don't think I'd be the only one. (Not that they would.) The directory runs on a set of public guidelines that are available for everyone to see; item three of the social contract says that we keep our official guidelines public. That's the way it should be.
There is no star chamber, there is no cartel, there is no super-secret rule book. There is only a large group of interested people working together to build the largest human-edited catalog of web content on the planet.
If the metas and staff started doing things like that, I would leave, and I don't think I'd be the only one. (Not that they would.) The directory runs on a set of public guidelines that are available for everyone to see; item three of the social contract says that we keep our official guidelines public. That's the way it should be.
There is no star chamber, there is no cartel, there is no super-secret rule book. There is only a large group of interested people working together to build the largest human-edited catalog of web content on the planet.
dpacoordinator
Banned
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 32
Wow
Was shocked to read that letter. Great to see the editors openly talking about it!
Was shocked to read that letter. Great to see the editors openly talking about it!
What wrong with having a rule against a particular submitter? If they have submitted a bunch of spam sites I would certainly want a rule to ignore them. Not that this guy has, I am just saying such a policy certainly makes sense.
What I thought was bad about it was the personal tone. It didn't sound like the submitter did anything wrong it just sounded like the editor was angry and wanted to take out his frustrations on the submitter.
What I thought was bad about it was the personal tone. It didn't sound like the submitter did anything wrong it just sounded like the editor was angry and wanted to take out his frustrations on the submitter.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
oldsocks --
One of the things that is generally invisible to the public is the process by which editors receive editing permission for additional categories.
Even though I have more than 10,000 recorded edits, if I want permission to edit in a new category, I have to go through the same application process, with the same 3 new URL requirement that a person requesting their first category has to go through. Plus, when an existing editor applies, they do so with the knowledge that the meta editors will almost always take a long hard work at their "body of work" checking to see that the editing that they are currently doing meets ODP standards.
It is an excellent quality control mechanism.
One of the things that is generally invisible to the public is the process by which editors receive editing permission for additional categories.
Even though I have more than 10,000 recorded edits, if I want permission to edit in a new category, I have to go through the same application process, with the same 3 new URL requirement that a person requesting their first category has to go through. Plus, when an existing editor applies, they do so with the knowledge that the meta editors will almost always take a long hard work at their "body of work" checking to see that the editing that they are currently doing meets ODP standards.
It is an excellent quality control mechanism.
Please see http://dmoz.org/guidelines/spamming.html
Although not explicitely mentioned I would consider 'shooting an editor for not listing a site' as a sufficient reason to request banning a submitter. But that's just my opinion...