My ODP listing disappeared....

your shocked reading your own post? :s

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what one just read, and I had just read the entire thread.

What shocks me is the attitude, and I don't even specifically mean this thread. So often in here if someone doesn't get an answer they like there are all kinds of accusations and often angry comments. If anyone is here regularily I think they'd agree that I'm not rude, or a smart alec. I go the extra mile to help out if I can, and I try to be kind as I'm doing it. Apparently there is something shocking about me saying I made an editorial decision and that if someone reviews my decision and disagrees they will change it. If they agree they won't. Maybe one person sees a site with 50% products that are "coming soon" or have 50% products that are unavailable and feels that doesn't meet the requirement of being content rich. Maybe someone does. Not everyone has to agree with any decision on here. If someone feels there is abuse, they should file a report. This line is in the guidelines:

Remember, no site is guaranteed a listing in the Open Directory, and we depend on editors to use their own discretion. In short, we ask that editors maintain editorial integrity, keep the ODP's broader goals and mission in mind, and always employ good common sense.

Individual people make individual decions. The purpose of the ODP and why I participate is offering quality sites for the end user. I feel bad for the submittors who become angry and upset because their site hasn't been listed or because it's taken longer than they feel it should take to be listed, but sometimes I personally feel frustrated by that anger. Submissions are suggestions, listings if given are free. There are plenty of avenues for paid promotion out there. It's unfortunate that sometimes individuals get upset to the point they travel around in various threads leaving negative comments.

I worked at Sears and Roebuck in college, and used to get yelled at on a regular basis and I worked in the catalog department. For instance, this woman had ordered a tickle me elmo doll or something right before Christmas and it came back as being on backorder when she went to pick up her order. It was suddenly my fault that her child was going to be disappointed on Christmas morning. It wasn't her fault for ordering it a month and a half before Christmas when it was the hottest item going. It wasn't the Kansas City Sear's fault for saying they could fill the order and then not sending it to my state. It was my fault personally. Nothing I said could convince this lady otherwise. As a parent now, I can understand why she would be upset and I can even understand to some degree why she couldn't objectively see that I personally was not to blame. She was upset because she didn't like the end result and was disapointed. I understand that. Vision gets cloudy sometimes, and I imagine both sides often have trouble seeing the position of the other. Sometimes appoaching things with anger can make it even harder to get to the bottom of an issue though.

Like I said in my previous post, not everyone is going to agree. Life is just that way. ODP is not some kind of dictatorship though and I think it's unfair to say that it is. There is a system of checks and balances and I--just like everyone else--needs to make good judgements and behave responsibly. It was the right thing to file that report if there are concerns. Someone will objectively address that abuse report and decide how to proceed.

Is there a facility for someone to just query an editorial decision to remove a site? If the only way is to report "abuse" this seems confrontational and difficult for both the reporter and the editor who made the decision.

Personally I like the site involved, the sold items were an interesting gallery and there were other reference sections and galleries that might be hard to find elsewhere - but then I haven't looked at all the other sites in the category.

But it is a shame that such hard words have been used by the OP, maybe I would feel the same in that position, I hope not.

>Is there a facility for someone to just query an editorial decision to remove a site?

There are two options, one of which you've basically done. Resubmit, and ask about the status of the resubmittal. Chances are 99% that SOME editall will double-check every time someone asks that. (Obviously that happened in this case, and you know of at least one meta that did.)

The other way is to report abuse.

>If the only way is to report "abuse" this seems confrontational and difficult for both the reporter and the editor who made the decision.

This is true. This is basically a confrontational situation, and no slight of hand can remove the underlying reality.

But an abuse investigation doesn't go to the editor. It goes to meta-editors. Someone who wasn't involved in the original case will investigate. The editor won't need to be contacted -- the question won't be about the corrupt-or-not state of the editor's mind (which is where submitters always go), but about the correctness of the editor's judgment. If the right thing was done (and that is the judgment in the majority of cases), then the editor doesn't need to be contacted at all. If it was a plausible mistake, then it can just be corrected -- we all make them, and as a group we all clean up after each other's mistakes.

If there is a pattern of self-serving errors in judgment (which is sometimes the case), then the editor can be contacted. But here the SUBMITTER isn't involved -- it doesn't matter HOW the facts came to light: all that matters is the facts. And editors don't have to justify anything to anyone with a vested interest in the site -- just to the community leaders, who won't have any such interest.

This is about as non-confrontational as you can get -- certainly far more so than any kind of direct contact, such as e-mail or a forum. And whether contacting editors or submitters, meta-editors will be taking the approach of "how do we get the best directory, based on the goals incorporated in the directory guidelines?" -- not "do we need this site?" but "how do we decide whether we need sites like this?"

Now, the conclusion for a majority (not an overwhelming majority) of abuse reports is not to the abuse-reporter's satisfaction. But that's no different than for submittals -- the majority of which do not result in listings. The underlying fact is: many submitters have different goals than the ODP: that's fine, we don't ask them to change their goals, and we won't consider changing ours.

There are, by the way, different kinds of responses. One is "yes, we should list that site." Another is "no, we wouldn't list any sites from that person, even for a million dollars." But you didn't get that response. What you got was "the site doesn't have enough unique content right now."

That leaves several options. (1) expand the business, and add more content, then resubmit; (2) focus on shopping-specific directories (such as e-bay, Froogle, abebooks, etc.) that can aggregate a few items from each of thousands of sources to provide comprehensive searchable catalogs. In this case it doesn't matter how few items you have for sale -- all interested shoppers at the portal will know what you have.

The second option emphasizes an important point about the ODP: it can't do everything! A friend of mine has a legitimate site -- that is, it makes a unique commercial offering completely unrelated in every way to anything else he could ever put on any website. But I can't see how that site can be listed in the ODP! That is because of a limitation of the ODP, not in the website itself. And that isn't the only such limitation. There are many things the ODP cannot do, and that's inevitable -- NO site can adequately represent the internet. (Another example: I buy books on the net, but I never use the ODP or Google to search -- although ODP lists bookstores and Google is systematically spammed by affiliate book advertisers. Abebooks provides a searchable catalog representing thousands of bookstores, and that's the best way to find the majority of titles available on the net.)

So the ODP focuses on what it can do well. And your site really reflects a part of the spectrum which the ODP has deliberately filtered out, in order to get a better picture of something else. This can't be taken as a criticism of either your site or the ODP -- both have their place.

Thanks for answering my questions Hutcheson.

It is just that the word abuse has such emotive connotations, although trying to think of a better word or phrase escapes me.

One small point - your reply seemed to be directed at me as being the site owner, which is not the case.

Following two many threads at once...yes, I was describing the glasshound site.

We've discussed other words for "abuse reports." In some ways something like "quality feedback" would be better, but some people might not realize that included "editorial abuse."

ukros said:

One small point - your reply seemed to be directed at me as being the site owner, which is not the case.

Click to expand...

No, it was directed at the audience - and to any site owners who find themselves in similar predicaments.

hutcheson said:

In some ways something like "quality feedback" would be better, but some people might not realize that included "editorial abuse."

Click to expand...

Follow the example of the washing machine manufacturers and just use an icon.

this message is for Kokopeli....

I decided to play ODP editor and randomly reviewed a few sites in the same category that I was delisted from:

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Antiques_and_Collectibles/China,_Porcelain,_and_Glass/

Low and behold! I found alll kinds of sites with 2 or 3 pages that look like they're never updated...talk about content poor...

How can you or any other ODP editor justify ("justify" is the wrong word to use since ODP editors don't have to justify their decisions unless they're called to the carpet) the existence of these sites in the directory on one hand and then on the other hand remove my site??..sounds like blind justice to me...

My point?? If you're going to stand behind the ODP guidelines then follow them for ALL sites.

Blair

Blair

This is now turning into an argument about an editorial decision which is strongly discouraged.

You've been given a lot of information as to the background here, and advice as well, and if I was you I'd feel satisfied.

Disatisfied submitters will always find cases such as the ones you point out. One will find categories that aren't in tip-top condition if one looks hard enough. Point these out in the right place and it'll be appreciated.

Please reread the earlier posts. Making accusations doesn't help your cause though we try to understand that it is frustrating for a webmaster to have a site delisted and not be able to find out why. There are good reasons for that policy, though being on the outside looking in it may not be apparent.

Look at it this way, if your site is delisted, there is a reason. It is sometimes a very simple reason but being angry blows everything out of proportion and never helps.

Unique content.
Quality and/or quantity of unique content is king anywhere on the net for any directory and search engine.

I give up....there's no point arguing a point when the whole system is broke...

Maybe it's time to fix it..I think delisting a site should involve more than one editor..it should involve at least three and a voting system. Empowering one individual to make these decisions is a recipe for long winded arguments like this one...

just my two cents....

Blair

As for "voting", our approach is to trust the editors, and upon review, the editors' consensus is that the trust was not misplaced. But -- you do realize that the change system you propose would certainly not have effected the outcome you desire, nor even affected the outcome you deplore?

In fact, just in this forum there were ample votes for removing the main site under discussion, but so far, inadequate votes for removing the other sites you mentioned.

As for editors "doing random reviews of listed sites," it is actually acceptable and even mildly encouraged activity. We call it "quality checks." Since websites do change, this is an important aspect of maintaining a directory. Perhaps (as you noted) more activity of this sort should be done. Most visitors here would like us to concentrate our activity elsewhere. Right now an editor is trying to rally other editors for a giant onslaught on the Shopping unreviewed pool. But in the end each editor sets priorities for his own work, and ... that is not something we COULD give up, even if we wanted to, without destroying the community.

You'd have to build a distinct community based on your own vision of process, which you are free to do. This community was attracted by the concept in place.

So far I haven't mentionned any other sites that I reviewed in the same category...these are sites with two or three pages with little content...these sites still exist but mine doesn't..would you care to explain why? what's the logic if any behind this? would you like me to list the sites? it would be my pleasure...

Blair

I'm going to do it anyways...I "reviewed" the first 15 web sites in my "former" category:

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Antiques_and_Collectibles/China,_Porcelain,_and_Glass/

and here's what I found...

Alphamail - site does not exist anymore

Antiques on Main - comprised of 2 web pages with nothing for sale

Artsourceasia.com - Sells dinosaur eggs and fossils..what's a site like this doing in a Pottery & Glass category?

These were just 3 site out of the first 15 I looked at...how many more are there in the category?? According to ODP "guidelines" they have no purpose being there, yet they still exist!

so much for guidelines eh? so much for the review process eh?

might as well throw out the guidelines because it seems no one following them...

Blair

Thank you, Blair! We are very grateful when we get problems such as non-working and misplaced sites pointed out to us. In fact there is a thread in the Abuse Report forum dedicated to that. Even with our automatic link-checking software and the occasional re-review of sites, it is impossible to keep an eye on every site (or even every category) to make sure it's always up to date. The heads-up is sincerely appreciated.

Maybe I should become an ODP editor?

Blair

this message is for Kokopeli....

Click to expand...

No, I didn't pull up every site in a one mile radius. I got your IM and I'm not going to get into a private discussion about your site compared to other sites. Maybe there are others that should be re-evaluated. I'm not going to specifically speak about any specific site because I think everything has been explained here. Every now and then someone will get angry because their affiliate site won't be listed and they use another affiliate site that slipped throught the cracks as a reason why theirs should be listed instead of saying maybe this other site slipped through. It's all about perception and what one feels should be done is often tainted by their perception of the situation based on their personal situation.

It is completely possible that someone will re-review any rejected site and and disagree. Not every one person is going to make the same decision. In this situation I said it was me because I'm not ashamed and I don't feel I did anything wrong. Nor will I continue on editing based on the fact that anytime I say someone's site shouldn't be listed that someone somewhere will probably be angry whether that anger is valid or not. That was my point. The vast majority of the time when an editor regards a site someone somewhere out there is going to disagree with the decision and scream foul. Other than accepting every single site suggestion submitted there isn't a way to avoid it. People are upset about how long it takes for a site to be reviewed, others want a system where people vote which would result in less far less time for editing. Not everyone is going to be happy, it just isn't possible. As long as that is the case (and I don't see how that can be avoided), threads like this are going to keep popping up.

Now, it's Thanksgiving day, and I'm going to go get ready to eat some turkey, stuffing and homemade cheescake with my husband and children. Unfortunately I don't think that anything I can say here (or anyone else from the ODP) is going to make a difference unless I say what that person wants to hear.

[edited to add] The five messages above this one were not here when I began writing this message, I was apparently a wee bit slow while getting kids dressed[/added]

Here's some more sites for you ODP Editors to review in the

http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Antiques_and_Collectibles/China,_Porcelain,_and_Glass/ category.

Capt'n Clint's Place - just a bunch of links and nothing for sale

Finely Found - one web page and nothing for sale

Good Buy Girls - sells shelving and display cases.

Just Dux It - site does not exist anymore

Karsay Houses - one web page and nothing for sale

Mary Wise & Grosvenor Antiques - site does not exist anymore

Private Stock Antiques - web site comprised of one AOL web page

Ron's Old Glass - comprised of five web pages with hardly anything for sale. no content.

Somervale Antiques - site does not exist anymore

I also noticed that most of the web sites listed just redirect to stores on Rubylane.com and Tias.com....these sites offer no "content" whatsoever...

anyways...I'm finished my rant...my site is gone while many mediocre sites continue to be listed... that's life... C'est la vie!

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!

Blair

#33 dealt with by another editor, thanks. The changes may not be visible yet on the public side.

#37 dealt with, thanks.

Capt'n Clint's Place has text as well as links, but does not sell anything, as you say, and so has been moved out of Shopping.
Mary Wise & Grosvenor Antiques is working fine for me.
Private Stock seems to meet the criteria for listing.
Ron's Old Glass seems to meet the criteria for listing.

Otherwise found as described.

Thank You Jean for reviewing these sites...

While your at it can you "review" one more site? http://www.glasshound.com

This site was delisted and meets the criteria as much as "Private Stock" and
"Ron's Old Glass" which you deemed as appropriate for the category...

thx..

Blair

I am not an expert in Shopping and therefore have not removed listings which are live and selling. The Shopping experts may review them with more stringent criteria in mind. Some are no doubt reading this thread.

I certainly wouldn't overrule experts in Shopping.

I'm simply removing dead links and suchlike, which are no use to anyone. Thanks again for pointing them out.