Novice mistake

6 or 8 months ago I began a small business.I am strickly a novice when it comes to search engines and the like.I thought I followed what I understood to be dmoz guidelines about submissions.I contacted the editor of the category but was told I was a spammer.I tried to explain to this person that it was just a lack of knowledge on my part and I couldn't afford to pay a pro to do this submission.I had absolutely no intent to violate any rules.I can't get the editor to even acknowledge my emails.I don't know what else I can do to correct this misunderstanding. The url's are www.AutoLoans.us and www.CarLoans.us the category is Shopping > Vehicles > Autos > Loans . I am just a small business person trying to get established.Has no one ever made an honest error? Please give me some insight.

>> understood to be dmoz guidelines about submissions <<

You mean the guidelines which are displayed when you try and add a link and it states:

Do not submit mirror sites. Mirror sites are sites that contain identical content, but have altogether different URLs.

Identify the single best category for your site.

Click to expand...

http://www.autoloans.us/ shows 44 submissions, http://www.carloans.us/ shows shows 6, http://www.dealerlink.us/ and had 2 rejections: total of 51 submissions in a few months. I've also found http://www.auto-loan-direct.com/ which is quite similar to your site.

>> no one ever made an honest error? <<

I know there is a saying "once is an accident, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action" - we are a little bit more forgiving than that, but 51 submissions for the same site is regarded as spamming.

>> I couldn't afford to pay a pro to do this submission <<

I would guess that a very small percentage of the sites submitted to the ODP have been made by people that have been paid to do so: after all, we don't charge a submission fee PLUS the instructions for submitting your site are clear, concise and easy to understand (and we even have the submission guidelines in French, German and many other languages).

Thank you for your response. As I stated,it was done with no intent to violate policy.I misunderstood and thought I could submit to as many categories as I wanted.I am very sorry and certainly understand the rules clearly now. Is there an appeal that I can make for stupidity? At that point I didn't even know what a mirror site was.I was just told, you have to get your site into dmoz.The referenced site www.auto-loan-direct.com is in no way related to mine.Please tell me what I can do and it will be done.Thank you for your consideration.Could you please tell me why www.DealerLink.us was rejected?

Could you please tell me why www.DealerLink.us was rejected?

Click to expand...

My guess (and guess is all I can do since I can't access Dmoz right now) would be that it's because it's just a lead generating site. The same could be said for the other two (autoloans.us and carloans.us).

Your quick response is greatly appreciated.As a novice you get frustrated some times not knowing where to go for answers.This is a great place for novices to learn.
If you will look into the services offered by www.DealerLink.us you will see that we provide specialized training for the finance depts as well as direct mail and sales events targeted at the auto dealer. With respect to CarLoans.us and AutoLoans.us, I now know that I should have submitted only 1 of them.There are multiple sites already in the dmoz that perform the exact same services as we do.I won't post the names but would gladly provide them. Is there an appeal process for ignorance and stupidity?As a small business person it is crucial to have at least 1 site in the dmoz.Is there any reason why I could not submit a completely different site? Again, we novices appreciate the direction that you offer.

The "mistake" sounds like you ignored all of the documentation presented every time you submit a site.

That last site you mention seems to be unfinished. We certainly don't list unfinished sites.

I have experience with this area as well. Since I also represent sites that should be listed in this category.
To respond to the claim that sites are being excluded because they are lead generations sites, that is obviously not true, and points to the main problem with the DMOZ as it is now.
From the DMOZ listing for that cat.
AfterBk.com - a lead generation site
AmeriCredit.com - a lead generation site
Auto Loan Online - lead generation, solicites dealers in DMOZ description line
Auto Net Financial - lead generation site
Bar None - Has it's own lenders. Lead generation for dealers
Credit Corp Usa - Lead generation.
1-800 Drive Today - Lead generation site. With countless mirrors
GetACar - redirects to another site, then is lead generation. Main text on page solicites dealers for leads
NoHassle.com - lead generation site
San Diego Car Sales - Lead generation site
U Drive Home - lead generation site
Ugly Duckling - redirect to another site, owned by large dealer group
UWorkUDrive - lead generation site.

So....
Of the 13 sites listed. 12 are purely lead generation sites. Please check them all. Click the links that say "dealers", or "dealer services"... ALL of them are lead generation sites. I have called all of them, since they, like natim, are my competition.

Now the standards for being included in this cat have changed many time since last month, and I know I have been the cause of some of this change. But the fact remains that the entire cat is populated with sites that we are being told should not be listed. This is not fair, and really brings down the entire concept of the DMOZ.
The editor of this section is not open for questions, and nothing has changed.
What should a person do when his competitors are allowed to be included but he is not? This is too vital to let go.

Thank you for your candid reply.I was trying to be diplomatic about it.I also have given these same names to Motsa, who I am sure will investigate.I don't want those people removed; I just want a fair shot myself. You are right on target about those named sites.I am looking forward to what Motsa has to say when she has a chance to review those other sites. Thanks for the honesty.

The explicit rule about lead generation sites is fairly new, but experienced editors will have seen many of the problems caused by massive abuse, both by submitters and ditors. When we considered what criteria might distinguish between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" lead generation sites, we basically realized that no such distinction could possibly be made. We review sites by the information they give ... but all information sucking sites are alike: all equally unreviewable, and therefore equally unlistable.

That, and the aforementioned abuse, is why you see some of those sites currently in the directory. Thanks for bringing these to our attention: obviously we need another round of cleanup.

Hutcheson,
You will pardon my surprise. But have you looked at the sites in question? Have you looked at the category in question? It doesn't appear that any thought has gone into what sites are listed. There are link farms on that list. There are sites that are clearly mirrors of other sites on that list. There are sites that redirect to other domains on that list. Where does that show any thought about what makes an "appropriate" lead generation site. I mean one of the sites listed above, CreditCorpUSA.com is so clearly a lead generation site, it solicits dealers on the home page. What was it about the site that caused it to be included? Because it allows people to sell their car for free? There are 4 cars listed. This is a joke. Editors must explain why they included sites, and why they excluded sites. The time of these people acting in basic anonymity must end.
The editor of the this category has not done his job. The sites are listed in direct conflict with what you are posting here, and in the site category specs. He has changed the category specs more than once in the last two months, but has not removed all of the "inappropriate" listings.

Things should be fair for all parties. If some lead generation sites are going to be allowed in the DMOZ, then clearly explain why they are being listed.

Yes, I can see how a change in the guidelines would be surprising to those who hadn't been subjected to the abuse. I suppose I can't blame you. For a long time, some of us had dealt with particular spammers in various particular topics without noticing the overall pattern either. (And, of course, many editors aren't yet aware of the new ruling. That's the nature of part-time volunteer communities.)

No, this particular category was not the one that raised the issue. But this may help clear up some of the confusion:

"The explicit rule about lead generation sites is fairly new... That, and ... abuse, is why you see some of those sites currently in the directory."

The nature of guideline-refining is that it happens in three steps: 1) crud slips into the pool. 2) crud builds up. 3) engineers start noticing the accumulation on the input pipe, and installing filters on all the pipes. Less new crud gets in, and what gets through is delayed by the filters. 4) big, obvious clumps get cleaned up. 5) as people get used to swimming in a crud-free pool, they get more sensitive to smaller clumps, which are cleaned up as they are noticed.

It is evident that there are still some big nasty bits.

So what is going to be done about it is the next logical question?
Are we as site developers and business owners going to be given a very clear definition about which sites are appropriate? Or is that still going to be left up to the editor in charge of that category? And by clear I mean just that. Very specific guidelines that can be checked by anyone. At one point the editor in question had placed a stipulation that I as a site owner/developer must prove that I have a unique network of clients for my leads. That should obviously be considered absurd, and that stipulation has since been removed. But the category guidelines must clearly reflect the expected content of the site, or they are useless.
Are the sites that are obviously inappropriate going to be removed? Is the editor that allowed these sites to be included going to be removed?
Since lead generation sites are a major industry on the internet, is there going to be a category established for lead generation sites? I would hope that this is the case. A lead generation category would solve all of these problems, and would be a more responsible way in dealing with the issue, since keeping these sites out of the DMOZ is something that appears to be beyond the scope of few hard working editors that are available.

Now I am sure that last point will bring condemnation from many. But the DMOZ has a category for information for rcreation drug use. To make a judgement call that lead generation sites are to not be included, but to include sites that offer information about taking drugs is a strange stance to take.

>> Are we as site developers and business owners going to be given a very clear definition about which sites are appropriate? Or is that still going to be left up to the editor in charge of that category? And by clear I mean just that. Very specific guidelines that can be checked by anyone. <<

I may be sticking my head out by saying this, but there are currently discussions going on at some of the highest levels within the ODP editor community about revisions to the Editor Guidelines ( http://dmoz.org/guidelines/ ) which will stipulate exactly what 'lead generator' sites are and the fact that they shouldn't be included. Whilst it is currently known to the editor community that this sort of site shouldn't be listed, this thread has alerted the senior editors to the fact that perhaps it needs to be put down in "black and white". However, changes to the editor guidelines are not made on an "ad hoc" basis - so it may be some time before the formal document is changed (IIRC most of the guidelines have been 'constructed' by the 'common usage' method: if editors have all agreeded to work in way X, then when the guidelines are revised put that information in there for 'new' editors).

Oh - and the editor guidelines are targetted at editors: not the general public. Yep, they are publically accessible, and, yep, we do quote them on here: but this is to help show people what editors can and cannot do and to help prove we do not have much to hide.

>> Since lead generation sites are a major industry on the internet, is there going to be a category established for lead generation sites? <<

Personally, I doubt it. You could say "Multi-Level Marketing" is a major industry on the internet (several resellers selling the same items) and, yes, we did have a specific category for those. But it was decided a few months ago that that sort of site did not add any worthwhile content to the ODP and therefore wasn't really worth listing: the category was then disbanded (IIRC actually by ODP staff editors). Why list 100 sites offering the same information?

>> the DMOZ has a category for information for rcreation drug use. To make a judgement call that lead generation sites are to not be included, but to include sites that offer information about taking drugs is a strange stance to take. <<

Not necessarily. We also have categories that cover race supremacy, suicide, pornography etc etc. Our "Site Selection Criteria" and "Site Specific Guidelines" help document which sites to include and exclude: but when reading those remember that they are now around 6 months out of date and the ODP and the Internet has moved on - whilst there have been 'new guidelines' addressed in the internal editor forums, these have not yet made it to the 'main guidelines'.

>So what is going to be done about it?

Well, we're working on steps 3 and 4.

>Are we as site developers and business owners going to be given a very clear definition about which sites are appropriate?

Yes. It's called "unique content". The editors' guidelines are public: the next revision will probably specifically mention "lead generators" as a counterexample.

>Or is that still going to be left up to the editor in charge of that category?
To some extent, yes. "Editor discretion" is already specifically mentioned in the submitters' guidelines.

>And by clear I mean just that. Very specific guidelines that can be checked by anyone. At one point the editor in question had placed a stipulation that I as a site owner/developer must prove that I have a unique network of clients for my leads. That should obviously be considered absurd, and that stipulation has since been removed.

Actually, that is about the best attempt that could be made to delineate what "unique content" would mean for lead generators. But I agree, even that is ultimately futile, because it is (as you say) uncheckable (by the site visitor, including the editors).

>Are the sites that are obviously inappropriate going to be removed?
With the usual stipulation that it must be obvious to the responsible editor, yes.

>Is the editor that allowed these sites to be included going to be removed?

We don't discuss editor abuse investigations, or the actions taken as a result. But, as a general observation: these sites might well have been added under the old guidelines, and/or in ignorance of the new ones.

>Since lead generation sites are a major industry on the internet, is there going to be a category established for lead generation sites?

Absolutely and certainly not. MLM's are a major industry on the net. Affiliate hotel reservation sites are a major industry. Nigerian money-laundering scams are a major industry. vstores, SMC, the list is endless. The ODP doesn't list major industries, it lists sites with information.

We've tried the "quarantined category" approach with MLMs. The objective fact was, it took editor effort, didn't help our users, and didn't significantly slow the rate of inappropriate submittals. They're gone now, not a single user complained, and we just treat the sites as collaborative spam -- which is really what they always were. We like the new way better.

>...since keeping these sites out of the DMOZ is something that appears to be beyond the scope of few hard working editors that are available.

And why don't we just fire all the police, since they preventing crime seems to be beyond their ability? Why don't we shut down the hospitals till people stop dying there? Why don't we all quit our day jobs to read e-mail spam, since there seems to be no way to stop it?

I think some things are worth doing, even if they can't be done perfectly.

>But the DMOZ has a category for information for rcreation drug use. To make a judgement call that lead generation sites are to not be included, but to include sites that offer information about taking drugs is a strange stance to take.

The ODP includes sites with information about most of the evils in the world, real or imagined. That information may be used for good or ill, by police or organized crime lords. The only limitation along these lines is that "editors should not includes SITES that are ILLEGAL" -- note that a site may be immoral without being illegal, and may be ABOUT illegality without being illegal. Information about drug use is not ILLEGAL (in the U.S.)

So Microsoft sites are listed in spite of fraud, restraint of trade, breach of contract, theft of patent and copyrights, perjury, labor code violations, or any of the other activities that keep the world's largest legal firm gainfully employed. And we wouldn't reject affiliate sites because of ethical objections to their business model, or MLM sites because of their essentially fraudulent implicit promises of fortune and happiness.

The ODP includes sites with content, in the form of unique relevant information. MLM, affiliate links, doorways, and lead generators aren't unique information.

Could you please give us an update on the review process of the aforemention sites that are very similar to ours. We are anxious to see if they are going to be taken out or ours put in the same category.
Thanks for everyones help.

I believe you may regard it as settled that your site will not be put in that or any other category. It has no content that can be reviewed, and that's that.

The other sites will be reviewed, and I do not want to prejudice that review or any actions taken as a result: but remember that ODP editors will not feel obligated to respond to a complaint that (AFTER investigation) seems to have been made in bad faith.

[Please read the Forum Guidelines. Thanks - apeuro]

natim, hutcheson wasn't addressing his remarks to you personally but rather in general.

Between Beebware's and hutcheson's remarks of the 27th. And the obviously deleted response of natim, I could fill this board with comments.
I obviously feel that something should be done about this problem, but I do realize that I may be coming off as acting in bad faith. I do not seek the removal of the other lead generation sites from tha category in spite, but in the sense of fairness.
This has illustrated just one of the many problems that appears to exist in the DMOZ today. Changes are slow to happen, the public is given an out-dated framework of rules to work with, the back log of work is huge. And then people start taking things personally.
it should be also obvious that the underlining rule of "common usage" is not one that is working in at least this case, and one would assume others. While I fear adding to the already bloated bureaucracy that appears to exist surrouding the DMOZ something must be done. What that something is, well it might be left to someone smarter than me. But I would imagine that some formal guidelines must be introduced.
Additionally someone commented above that sites may have been added either before or in ignorace of the rules. This is something that should not be tolerated. Why update the rules if you aren't going to make them retroactive? And when has ignorance of the law ever been a valid excuse?

I know it seems like I only have bad things to say, but again. This is too important to not get a solid answer.

We're looking at 3+ million sites which _might_ be affected by changing guidelines. It's not certain that anything needs removing until a re-review occurs, and this takes both time and manpower. Do you feel like contributing a list of sites which really should be re-reviewed? This would speed things up.