Making myself more interesting

Hey guys, I was just curious what sort of balance is maintained between the unbiased aspect and interest aspect of volunteer editing. What I'm trying to get at is, does it help to try to attract the attention of the applicable category editor via email (not spam, never spam, I'm not suggesting spam, bad spam is bad), or is it considered bad form on your part to leaf through the queue? It's sort of a moot point in my case, as the editor's email is "bad", and when I looked at the higher category editors, one of them suggested poking around here before I fired off my email of much brown-nosing

I'm not expecting an instant listing, nor am I feeling particularly impatient, I just wish to make sure I'm not missing any opportunities.

Regards,
Foy
<url self-removed before posting>

Basically, sending self-promotional e-mail to any editor is going to be spam, because there's only one editor who will end up reviewing the site (out of the hundreds or thousands of possible editors) -- and there's very little chance you can figure out who that would be.

The "site suggestion" system will get your site to one of the most interested editors, at the moment when they're most interested in reviewing it. You can't beat that for efficiency or effectiveness.

phoi said:

Hey guys, I was just curious what sort of balance is maintained between the unbiased aspect and interest aspect of volunteer editing.

Click to expand...

There is no balance.
Editors only do the "work" they are interested in.
And when they do that "work" they do it completely unbiased.

What I'm trying to get at is, does it help to try to attract the attention of the applicable category editor via email (not spam, never spam, I'm not suggesting spam, bad spam is bad), or is it considered bad form on your part to leaf through the queue?

Click to expand...

Ofcourse such email is always spam.
There are even editors who react negatively to such emails. They first look at all other suggested websites. Their interest in looking at your website has become very low. Do you want to take this risk?

*WARNING* huge block 'o text!

Really, any self-promoting message is spam? When I think spam, my initial response is distaste for a pre-packaged message for an audience it may, or may not have relevance for. Saying that, however, if I put myself in the shoes of a category editor of a category as much… fun… as any one of the shopping categories (that poor word is really getting a work out), I could see such messages, no matter how well-intentioned, becoming a burden to the reader after a time.
Here's the most interesting argument I have for trying such a ploy: if they DO read it, it means they're interested. If they're interested, does it really hurt to tell them why you'd like to be listed, and what aspects of your site set it apart from others in the same category, after a little research? I mean, there are a few situations when, at first blush, your website may look good, you may have some very nice content, but, within the category that applies, another website has similar content. Not the same, but similar. If I were an editor, I would be inclined to decline the new website, in favor of the older, more established, and perhaps more authoritative site. If, however, the submitter provided a message which let me know exactly what made their site different from all the sites currently listed, it would give me a reason to go deeper than the first layer. Now, I'm not saying it would change my mind, but I would certainly give it a little more thought, if the message was well-written, acknowledged and conformed to the submission rules, and had an obvious element of personality.

But if I wasn't interested, or the message seemed pre-packaged, I would just mark it as spam. I would, perhaps, hold a small grudge against the submitter if I thought it was spam AND I saw the URL right in the subject line, but other than that, I wouldn't care, or just wouldn't know whose it was.

To me, considering the considerable workload faced by editors, and ever-more-subtle differences between sites, I would consider the risk worth it. Hey, even if they put it last, as long as it's a well made site, we're looking at months to years waiting anyways, and most webmasters will have plenty to do in the mean time.

On the other hand, this forum isn't hugely advertised, and it seems to get way more than it's fair share of abuse. Personal emails at anything close to the quality and frequency of the majority of posts here would drive me nuts, no matter how nice some of them were

Thanks guys.

Yes, basically, self-promotion _is_ abuse. There is no form of abusive activity that can't be traced back to self-promotion in violation of some policy, and there's hardly even any instances of abuse that don't result from self-promotion.

The only acceptable venue for self-promotion at the ODP is the editor's profile.

duuude. heavy.

Unfortunately, that's perfectly logical, and I can totally appreciate it Here's hoping my site just totally knocks the socks off the editor!

phoi said:

does it really hurt to tell them why you'd like to be listed,

Click to expand...

Sorry, but we do not care why someone wants their site listed. DMOZ does not provide a listing service. The only thing we care for is "would our users benefit if a site is listed"

and what aspects of your site set it apart from others in the same category,

Click to expand...

Only the website itself can tell us what sets it apart from other sites.

I mean, there are a few situations when, at first blush, your website may look good, you may have some very nice content, but, within the category that applies, another website has similar content. Not the same, but similar. If I were an editor, I would be inclined to decline the new website, in favor of the older, more established, and perhaps more authoritative site.

Click to expand...

But this is not how DMOZ editors review a site. Your inclination is totaly wrong.

If, however, the submitter provided a message which let me know exactly what made their site different from all the sites currently listed, it would give me a reason to go deeper than the first layer.

Click to expand...

If the submitter needs to tell me where to find the usefull content he should change his website. If an editor can not find the content other visitors will also not be able to find the content. For me this is a bad website which does not warrant a listing.

pvgool said:

Sorry, but we do not care why someone wants their site listed. DMOZ does not provide a listing service. The only thing we care for is "would our users benefit if a site is listed"
Only the website itself can tell us what sets it apart from other sites.
But this is not how DMOZ editors review a site. Your inclination is totaly wrong.
If the submitter needs to tell me where to find the usefull content he should change his website. If an editor can not find the content other visitors will also not be able to find the content. For me this is a bad website which does not warrant a listing.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you deal with a lot of nasty people who don't start making a website with the intention of benefiting their users, but that's not the case with me. Therefore, "why I would like the site listed" would be a description of "how it would benefit my (and your) users", and I really hope I'm not the only one with that particular philosophy.

Of course I do not know exactly how you evaluate websites (and I'm afraid I have a little too much on my plate at the moment to learn), and I probably made an ass of myself in assuming that you probably just follow a general set of guidelines to process them as quickly as possible. My apologies, sir.

That should also explain (I hope) my inclination, which I now see would indeed be wrong.

I didn't mean "directions to where the useful information was", but rather "what sets my site apart". I feel that all the content on my site is useful, and that it will be compared to other useful sites. I would consider it an insult to your organization to submit a poorly made site and expect your editors to dig around for God-only-knows what, and I try not to be that immature

Thanks for the break down, it always helps to have things explained, and I'm glad you took the time!

Therefore, "why I would like the site listed" would be a description of "how it would benefit my (and your) users", and I really hope I'm not the only one with that particular philosophy.

Click to expand...

Most people can distinguish quite readily between "what I want" and "how this benefits someone else", even if some people (as you say) don't care at all about the second.

That's why it's important to say what you really mean at first, instead of something else that is not ever logically related at all, and often isn't connected at all.

But once the confusion is cleared up, here's the important thing. Your SITE has a chance to show how it benefits users, and it's only fair to let the site speak for itself. If it NEEDS a cheerleader, it ought to lose already!

But the Open Directory doesn't list sites because they claim to "benefit users". It lists sites that contain unique content. If a site doesn't have unique content, then either (1) the other sites with that same content can perfectly well provide the benefit instead, or (2) the site is not a site that volunteers can review, because it does something other than present content. Either way, the Open Directory doesn't list that site.

So, when your site speaks for itself, make sure it tells people what they can find within itself, and nowhere else on the web.

"Not poorly made" is nice, but in the end it doesn't matter. I've listed (and cooled) extremely ugly, badly-scaling sites--because the webmaster had a passion for the subject, and had collected an impressive variety of relevant material, most of it not available anywhere else online.

And "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. I've never built a bat house in my life, but I happily listed websites containing nothing but bat house plans. My attitude is, if the information is there, and enough people can find it, someone will find a use for it.

Unique content. What does this site have that no other site has, or can have?

It's perfectly logically connected, most people just aren't logical when it comes to getting what they want. I'll be happy to clarify it further, however: whether you have selfish reasons, or wholly charitable ones for pursuing success (what I want), you cannot be truly successful without providing some benefit to someone else, usually many someone elses. There's plenty of clichés to back that up, if you cannot draw from a related personal experience. That's the way it has been in my mind since I moved past the bashing my friends to get their toys stage of my life (getting bashed back was no fun, I was a little guy).

I would have just stuck with "often isn't connected at all" which is the sad truth, and exactly why I attempted to clarify my statement in a response (apparently rather poorly).

As to the rest, you are by far more learned in the subject than me, and other than completely non-offensively calling me a moron (something I will cherish always), I think you're responses have been most enlightening, and honestly encouraging. I don't really have time to cheerleader my website (except for right here: ) because it's too damn good to need a cheerleader, and the only reason I would is if it got stuck in some bureaucratic grind house from hell, and you've shown that I clearly have nothing to worry about there.

Actually, I am mad at you about something. For some reason, I constantly feel the need to use parenthesis in my posts here, and since that annoys me, I blame you. Logic is way too depressing there.