news letter/ can it be true ?

pvgool said:

As this sector is known to ODP editors as one of the biggest spam magnets I doubt your pears will agree.

Click to expand...

My "pears" are for eating, i don't want their opinion this time round

Seriously though, it is a spammy area for sure, but those who treat it properly *would* agree and thats the basis for making it a good policy. Whether the "association" i refer to would want that responsibility is another matter, but i know them well enough to suggest that under the right conditions they would probably go for it.

Don't forget though that it wouldn't have to be the *only* way into ODP. Maybe a "fast-track" way. For example Billy Nomates could still submit his site to the ODP in the normal way and take his chances. Or he could go thru the "association" whos submissions would be better valued by the ODP editor (assuming indeed that he/she is a seperate entity). That keeps it open and fair and potentially means a site is going through a pre-check by people who know 100% what to look for, and are unlikely to have a hidden agenda when considering sites. A good safety net I'd say.

spectregunner said:

Yet: we have had so much abuse from within the RE industry that we have had to establish very rigid rules on how we list RE sites, and the abuse continues.

Click to expand...

You've made explicit a point that I assumed. Pessimistically, I have no real hope that the suggestion will have any real effect.

But, as far as I know, no industry's professional bodies have as yet even addressed this issue. So if Simmo! can get something going, it'd be a new initiative that may have benefits for everyone.

The initiative has to come from the industry. The ODP has done everything it can to withstand the abuse, so the next step needs to come from elsewhere.

I'd love to think that a regulatory body would consider withdrawing licenses on the basis of evidence requested from the ODP. But maybe I'm a dreamer.

But then maybe Simmo! will prove us all wrong.

Sunanda said:

I'd love to think that a regulatory body would consider withdrawing licenses on the basis of evidence requested from the ODP. But maybe I'm a dreamer.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would be a realistic expectation in itself, at least until a scheme was well established enough to warrant respect across the communities (should that ever occur!), but to ensure that submissions reaching the ODP were of proven quality in the first place would be quite reasonable to foresee - in some areas at least.

I'd be more than happy to talk about it within my industry sector forums where i'm quite active, but it would also need to take input and acceptance from within the ODP ultimately. If ODP felt it worth pursuing, i'd be happy to investigate.

hutcheson said:

Jim, I assumed he was quoting me. So you told him much the same thing, huh?

Click to expand...

Pretty well.

Or he could go thru the "association" whos submissions would be better valued by the ODP editor

Click to expand...

Many sites are submitted by web designers and SEO firms for their clients. In many parts of the directory, especially Regional which gets all the real estate, it tends (not always) to be local web designers/SEO firms to the submitter. Editors get to know their "regulars", those who submit lots of sites for their clients in categories they most edit in. Those regulars are quickly identified by editors as either ethical and who follow guidelines, or spam-meisters. An editor will naturally gravitate towards reviewing submissions from ethical guideline-following submitters and away from those with a 95% chance of being spam. So if submissions are channelled through an association then that association will quickly pick up a reputation one way or another and be treated accordingly. No formal or even informal ties are needed - simply do it. Billy Nomates with his independent submission will get treated according to his individual ability to follow guidelines too - no penalties for being independent.

What won't happen is submissions from associations being given some form of preferential treatment by editors - no-one including all the DMOZ "management" can direct any editor's priorities.

Regardless of industry it is in submitters' interests to make sure they follow guidelines to the letter. If an industry feels they can aide their members by assisting in submissions then go for it. Editors will soon see the difference if the association gets it right. But all you have to do is personally or via an agent submit according to guidelines, it is that simple.

Amokent - as one not afraid of the Report Abuse button I have a reasonable understanding of what constitutes abuse but have only limited information to work on, though that is still 100 times more than what a non-editor has to work on. Metas in turn have 100 times more information than me, and far more experience of investigations too. When I report abuse I am reporting a suspicion only - sometimes those are right, sometimes they are wrong, sometimes it is abuse requiring removal, sometimes requiring education (poor editing). I've looked at what you sent me as evidence and nothing whatsoever triggered alarm bells that would have me reporting any suspicions of malpractice at all. Not even close.

Add together all my own edits, 20,000 + in the stats plus maybe 30,000 odd in de-spamming removals which are logged somewhere but don't get added to the stats. 50,000 or there abouts. If I make a mistake 1 in 500 decisions then that is 100 mistakes attributable to me in the Directory (or not in the Directory depending on the decision). Collect those 100 together and report them as 100 examples of oneeye incompetence or corruption, it will look impressive. Add in the sites I've listed that have since been hijacked or otherwise rendered unlistable but remain listed. Maybe another 50 or so. Etc. I must be guilty of corruption - 150 examples as to why. But it is actually just a consequence of a human edited product and why metas don't make snap decisions or take my own suspicions as absolute proof of abuse. Thankfully. Trust the metas - it is inconceivable that they would collude to sweep anyone's abuse under the table, anyone's, as all editalls and above can testify.