Need assistance from META or EDITALL

I contacted the editor assigned to my site several weeks ago using the form provided by dmoz (CC to dmoz staff). He replied on February 21, 2003 and asked me for more details about the inquiry. The description of my site had changed recently and I am not satisfied with it. Basically, it isn't very descriptive of the sites contents. These key words are missing from the description "searchable, business, news". The site has been reviewed by several nonprofit directories. I actually included the description of a directory in the UK with my first letter. I felt that it was much more descriptive of the contents of the site. I basically would like to see a similar description if possible. The editor asked me for the URL of the directory. I sent him the URL of the site as he instructed. I still haven't heard anything from the editor. It is also noteworthy to mention that his site is also listed on the same page as mine and he has adopted his domain name for his profile (http://dmoz.org/Regional/Middle_East/Iran/Guides_and_Directories/). Is it possible that a meta or editall editor assist me in this inquiry?

We don't do keywords, sorry. Perhaps you may like to read our guidelines on descriptions at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html ?

totalxsive:

I think that you're missing the point here. The editor has not responded to my inquiry in a timely manner (February 21, 2003). Here is what he wrote

I really appreciate your helpful views about Dmoz.
If you think I can improve any of description in Iranian Directory category, please do not hasitate and send me a name of the link and the discription that you
think it's more sesible and I would review and
change it."


This is from dmoz rules "If a site has been accepted for inclusion in the directory but you are dissatisfied with how the site is described or titled, you may go to the category where it is listed, and fill out the "update URL" form."

I am not satisfied with the site description. I doesn't mention the major contents of the sites (News section, business resources and the fact that it's a searchable directory.)

The scope of the site has changed since it was reviewed. I am entitled to a review according to dmoz rules.

Well, I have waited for 2 weeks and got no response.

Editors do not have to reply to any submittor e-mails if they don't want to. As volunteers they are under no obligations to do anything that is not in the guidelines, and the guidelines do not require them to reply to submittor feedback. It's up to them so there is nothing for a meta to do in this case.

We can look into your site and tell you if the description is correct though. What is the URL?

Let me guess. You're talking about Pars Times, right? Personally, its description doesn't look so bad to me (perhaps not exactly the way I'd word it but it does describe the site). I'd probably be unlikely to entertain your request for a description update myself but then we haven't yet seen what you'd like the description to be.

It is also noteworthy to mention that his site is also listed on the same page as mine and he has adopted his domain name for his profile.

Click to expand...

That would only be noteworthy if he were abusing his position but his site actually has less of a description than yours.

enarra:

I would rather ask for an update of url:

http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/update.cgi?where=Regional/Middle_East/Iran/Guides_and_Directories

It does give one an option: Suggest a new description when the scope of the site has changed.

I think my rights are protected better by formally requesting a change for the description of the site.


Earlier I had read about this issue on this page: http://dmoz.org/add.html

Updating Your Site
If a site has been accepted for inclusion in the directory but you are dissatisfied with how the site is described or titled, you may go to the category where it is listed, and fill out the "update URL" form. If you are dissatisfied with the category in which your site is listed, you may send an e-mail to an editor for the category explaining your disagreement. Be polite and civil -- threatening or abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
If (but only if) you are dissatisfied with the editor's response, you may then use the “Feedback” link at the top of the page to “appeal” the editor's decision. Be specific concerning your disagreement (including why you believe the editor's response is inadequate). Comments made through the feedback link are reviewed by the ODP staff, who will make the final decision. Please do NOT send correspondence to Netscape, as that will only slow down and complicate the process. We take all feedback seriously and give it our thoughtful consideration. But please remember that we must exercise our discretion and make numerous judgment calls as to how to make the ODP as useful as possible -- no matter what decision we make, we may not always satisfy everyone.

I was under the impression that one must first contact the editor. If he/she disagrees with the decision one has the right to appeal. Now, I see that one can also use the url update form.

The founders of open directory have put in place a set of rules in order to make sure that our rights are protected.

[edited: this doesn't respond to the last three posts. I hate removing posts, so I'm not going to edit it. But I'll respond again to the direction the topic is turning.]


no, qh7, YOU are missing the point.

You are not entitled to an editor response.
You are not entitled to site review within two weeks.
And .. you are not entitled to your choice of descriptions.

You are entitled to a site review (that's the ODP social contract.) And you are, as you noted, allowed to submit a "change of description request."

And ... um, that's it. Oh, not quite. Some of the editors thought we could offer a bit more, hence these forums. HERE (well, actually over in our "Submittal Status" forum) you can ask about your submittal (whether for review or for update) if you haven't seen any evidence of it after a month (not two weeks -- dunno where you got that figure, but it is fantastically unrealistic.)

You aren't entitled to an answer, but IIRC, so far everyone who has asked has gotten one within 48 hours. Quite often you can even get additional insight as to how to get unique features of your site included in the description.

You don't need a meta or editall for that either, but some of the metas moderate this forum, and at least one meta will certainly read (and act if necessary for the sake of the ODP.)

Check out the other forum. Read the rules, wait another two weeks if necessary; then give all the information (site, suggested description, category). You'll find out what the status is.

If the current listing makes the ODP look bad, or occasionally, if it's just a no-brainer editorial decision, editors will just accept or reject on the spot. But it is very important for everyone to understand that THAT is not only not an ENTITLEMENT, it is not NORMAL or even COMMON practice.

OK, several issues here:

1) Part of the procedure as set up ensures that your submittal can't be blocked by an abusive editor (hence staff claims the right to make a final decision.) In practice, that right is seldom exercised; the meta-editors deal with most editor abuse. (So it's reasonable to ask for a meta to review a case, if you think abuse is involved.)

2) But in this case, there really isn't a hint of abuse -- simply that an editor put in fewer words than you would have (or that an editor in another directory would have.) So all that really doesn't apply.

Most of the editors, and especially of those active here, are interested in making a more valuable and usable directory. If you can show how adding particular words to your listing makes it easy for users to find your unique content quickly, quite often they'll add them. But if the words are already in the site's title or the category name, or they would generally characterize most of the sites in the category, then they WON'T add them. (Note, by the way, this means that the same site may have very different descriptions evne in two different ODP categories!)

So check the words from that standpoint -- do they really correspond to an otherwise unsuspected feature of this site, and do they really provide useful information to a directory surfer?

Most of the time when people do this carefully for their own site, they'll find that most of the words they wanted WEREN'T applicable, but there were several important words they HADN'T asked for that SHOULD have been added.

>This is from dmoz rules "If a site has been accepted for inclusion in the directory but you are dissatisfied with how the site is described or titled, you may go to the category where it is listed, and fill out the "update URL" form."

You may do this, but that doesn't mean that the editor has change things the way you want them. So long as your description is reasonably accurate (as opposed to saying you sell blue widgets when you really only sell red doodads), this is acceptable according to our guidelines. Certainly the editors isn't required to stuff your description with keywords. In fact, the guidelines here favor the reverse.

To echo rfgdxm <You may do this, but that doesn't mean that the editor has change things the way you want them.>

Editors rarely, in fact, use the description submitted. In addition, the submitted description rarely meets guidelines. I believe we do take into account what the submittor would like included, and take from that what (after reviewing the site) is appropriate. If you feel you have a better description for your site, by all means submit it--but leave key wording out of it.

One additional comment here. I think you are worrying *way* to much about this description. The way people use a directory is that they seek out the category which has what they want. They then choose from the list of sites one they think is best. If it were my site, what I'd hope for is a description which was more inclined to make the site seem interesting to the directory user. Remember, the ODP *isn't* a search engine. Stuffing keywords works for search engines because they are just bots that work that way. From a marketing perspective that is designed to appeal to a human being, keyword stuffing likely is less effective than natural language.

I think the point was closed in:

http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=submissions&Number=17822&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1