Positive Suggestions for Improving Site Submission Communication

Scope: This thread is strictly limited to thoughtful, positive ideas, about improving communication between editors and submitters.

Context: These are suggestions or recommendations to the editors, buy a single submitter, after making almost every conceivable mistake in the submission process, despite the fact that I read almost every rule in the site submission documents. In retribution for my personal blunders, I thought I should do my homework and try to make a valid contribution to dmoz.org which could possibly improve communication and reduce the misunderstandings. You can read my Personal Experience and Errors in a separate post after this thread, although it is not really important in the big picture.

Positive Suggestions:

1. Submission Form.
a. Add a comment field.
(This is the only legitimate way to communicate an honest set of circumstances to the editor reviewing the site. Without it, people will naturally try to communicate special circumstances, honest desires, or additional comments, by email or the update listing form. The update listing form is not available until after a site is already listed. That leaves email as the only alternative. A comment field can also provide a better understanding about the legitimacy, honesty, and integrity of a submission.)
b. Add a note right below the "Your Email Address Field.": "Your email is used to validate your site submission. Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates."
(This field is the reason people believe they will receive an email about site status, updates, listing, or a reason for not listing, which they would want an opportunity to correct. The standard and understandable practice of not responding to emails is only clear in the forums, and continues to create volumes of misunderstandings and miscommunication. Sadly, many editors have the warning that they do not respond to emails on their posts in the forums. The submitter doesn't read the forums, they read the guidelines, and maybe only the the submission form.)

2. Category Editor Email.

[(The note currently reads: Do NOT use this form to send URL suggestions or updates to editors. Use the Add URL or Update URL links from the category page instead. Thank you.)

The Dilemma:

The Suggest URL does not provide a comment field to communicate anything to the editor, and using that form after a single submission violates the only submit once guideline. URL suggestions or updates beyond a single submission are quickly construed as spam, when it is really a misunderstanding in how to communicate.

The Update Listing form is only available after you have a site listed. To honestly follow the rules, the submitter will naturally go to the only other way to communicate . . . the category editor email. Finally, in frustration, they will try something and just hope they are doing the right thing. The editors live in frustration that the submitter can't read and understand the apparently clear note.]

Suggestions:

a. Change the note to read what the email can and should be used for. I have finally discovered that this email is really intended for editors to contact other editors, or general feedback which will generally not receive any response back, except maybe editor to editor.
b. Add a note: Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates.

An Alternative Suggestion for the Note:

Note: This email is typically used by editors to communicate with other editors. General feedback is appreciated, but will not receive a return email. Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates. Use the Suggest URL comments (doesn't exist currently) for your single submission, or the Update Listing form if you are already listed.

(Bear in mind that this still leaves an original submitter no way to legitimately communicate with dmoz.org. If that is the practice and the policy, why not state it clearly in the guidelines? "Please do not try to communicate with editors while your site submission is being reviewed. No email will be provided to indicate the listing is approved or denied.")

3. Update Listing Form.

This form worked great as long as you are already listed.

a. Add a note: All updates are received and reviewed, please respect the editors time and try to limit your update submission to a single time. Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates. No email will be provided to indicate the listing is approved or denied.

4. Volunteer to edit this category.
(This creates a misunderstanding that leads the submitter to believe that the submission will never be seen, and then eventually a second submission to a different category, or even a third.)

a. Consider expanding the notice to read, "Volunteer to edit this category. All submissions are received and reviewed even without a category editor listed." (This is only clear in the forum.)

5. Submitting a Site guidelines.

a. Categories which state, "Volunteer to edit this category" does not mean that your submission will never be seen. All submissions are received and reviewed even without a category editor listed. An editor higher up the hierarchy will be involved in the review.
b. Add a note: All updates are received and reviewed, please respect the editors time and try to limit your update submission to a single time. Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates. No email will be provided to indicate the listing is approved or denied.

6. Editing style guidelines. There is a huge conflict in the guidelines for titles and descriptions, and the conformance to those guidelines, in the actual listings within some categories. Any submitter will review other sites listed in their category and try to conform to the limit of what has already been allowed in the category. The confusion results in submissions which conform to the category, but not the guidelines. A clarification could reduce the burden of re-editing on the editors, and the frustrations of submitters who have had their carefully planned titles and descriptions changed. Sites listed properly in other categories, within the guidelines, are also adversely affected by the conflict.

a. Titles. Can the guidelines be written to state no keywords allowed in a title, one keyword allowed in a title, or whatever the guideline really should be? (The guidelines suggest that you should not include superfluous keywords in the title. Within some categories, one or more keywords are used in the titles. This provides a huge boost in rankings for that keyword in the search engines for those sites. Unfortunately, it also creates a huge bias or favoritism to a particular site, unless all site submissions are also allowed to conform to the same style for the category.)

b. Descriptions. Can the guidelines be rewritten to state that one, two, three or four keywords in the description is considered excessive. What exactly is considered excessive and unnecessary? The guidelines already suggest not to repeat keywords in the title or descriptions, although some category listings have examples of extreme violations to the guidelines.

7. Some navigational difficulites.
The entire dmoz site is extremely well organized. I found some personal difficulties in knowing whether or not I had really reviewed all of the relevant guidelines for my particular submission senario. I hope these thoughts are welcome.

a. About Dmoz. Consider changing the About link to read Dmoz Guidelines. This change encourages you to read the guidelines right at the top level page. Most submitters will naturally go directly to Suggest URL, without reading the other guidelines.
b. General FAQ. Consider placing a link to the general faq in the links in the upper left hand corner, in addition to being embedded into the text at the end of the page. You have to read the whole page, check every link embedded in the text of the page, to be sure you are following all of the guidelines.
c. Consider a link to the unofficial forum on the About Dmoz (Guidelines) page. After days of searching I have finally discovered an indirect link to the unofficial ODP Public Forum. After discovering the forum, I was horrified, shocked, enlightened, disillusioned, and saddened by the frustrations in communication. The critical miscommunication concerns could be extracted from the forum and identified in the guidelines, forms, or category pages. Submitters probably won't read the forums, they read the guidelines, or simply Suggest URL.

Corinda's Personal Experience and Errors (not important to the big picture)

My Personal Experience and Errors in updating my listing:

(Note: This experience does not include names, references, specifics, or details in conformance with the guidelines of the forum.)

I had the difficult task of removing my original url, changing to a new url, and updating my title and description to coexist with other friends, peers, and competitors already listed in a slightly different category in dmoz.org. In that process, the category editor was very responsive, and helped to successfully change from my old url to my new url. I used the update listing form to communicate my desires for title and description which would be similar in style and content of other sites listed in the slightly different category. I also used the update listing form to get the description to read exactly the way I wanted it within my understanding of the rules and guidelines. Despite the fact that I now know that is really not appropriate, the editor was extremely responsive and finally listed me exactly as I requested. I probably communicated about 5 or 6 times in that process (oops!).

Unfortunately, I was asking for a title which included the critical keyword which is appropriate in the other category, but violates the stated rules of the category I was already prominently listed in. I could not list myself in the more appropriate category because I was already listed in my current category. So I relaxed my desire for the keyword in the title, and was listed in harmony with the other listings in my current category. The editor was once again, extremely responsive, and I believed the site submission was complete. I may have communicated another 3 times during the final process (oops!), and never understood why no one ever wrote back (oops!).

A few days later, the editor actually listed my site with the keyword in the title, despite the fact that no other listings in the category were allowed the benefit of a keyword in their titles. Although I would benefit greatly from this new listing, it appeared to me like my new listing, with a keyword in the title, had preferential treatment and should really be moved to the other category where one or more keywords are actually allowed in the titles.

Access to update listings form was not working (which I now believe was the editor's choice to understandably block anymore communication), so I went to category editors email (oops!), and wrote a long email (oops!), asking to change my listing back to coexist with other listings in the category (oops!), or move my url to the more appropriate category where a keyword is allowed in the site title (oops!). Although that communication was actually in the interest of coexisting without preferential treatment in my current category, I believe now that I communicated too much (oops!). It certainly appeared that I didn't know what I wanted (oops!).

My site disappeared from the previously enjoyed category (oops!).

Was it deleted, or moved to the more appropriate category? The update listing form was now not available, the site submission form was taboo, so I moved to the editors email (oops!) to try and find out how to correct the misunderstanding (oops!). I repeatedly (oops!) asked for an email (oops!) to correct my blunder of errors, despite the fact that I was actually trying to coexist without preferential treatment in any category. No response. Understandable after reading on this forum, but not understandable from anything I'd read in the guidelines.

So I submitted my site to what appears to be a more appropriate category (oops!) but possibly too high up the category hierarchy (oops!), although other sites are listed there. No site listing occurs, and no communication is received. Understandable after reading the forums, but not from reading any of the guidelines or submission forms.

Finally, I submitted to the most appropriate category (oops!), which was not possible previously, when I was already listed in another category. Unfortunately, the category clearly states that no editor exists. So, I move to my previous category editors email (oops!) and try to communicate to no response (oops!). I now know that no editor does not mean your site will not be listed, but that appears to mean your site submission may not be seen by anyone.

There are more difficulties, unique to my legitimate attempt to only list a single url in dmoz.org, but I believe I have reflected my disastrous interaction in trying to achieve a corrected listing.

If you had only attempted to list in dmoz.org one other time in your life, what would you have done?

RE: 1a -- For the most part, there should be no need to include comments with a suggestion. A site should be able to stand on its own, without the submitter having to "communicate special circumstances, honest desires, or additional comments".

RE: 1b -- Saying "Editors do not respond to emails about submissions, site status, or updates" would be inaccurate since editors are free to respons to emails if they choose to. Most choose not to but that doesn't mean they can't.

RE: 2a -- "Do NOT use this form to send URL suggestions or updates to editors. " is very clear on what you should not use the form for.

RE: 2b -- see my comment re: 1b above.

RE: 3 -- Why would someone need to update a suggestion that hasn't been listed?

RE: 4a -- IMO that's much too wordy for the space provided.

RE: 6a -- Keywords are not forbidden in titles if they are legimately a part of the company or site name as determined by the reviewing editor(s).

RE: 6b -- Submitted descriptions are rarely used unedited. Editors don't consider keyword choices but instead write descriptions according to the guidelines so worrying about how many keywords you can write in the description for your site is a waste of your time. What's suitable in a description can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

RE: 7a -- From an ODP POV, "guidelines" refers to the information that guide editors (i.e. the Editing Guidelines). The about dmoz link leads to the main page of the section that gives general information about the ODP, as it should. The submittal information is linked to at the top of the actual submittal page -- if people actually read the form, they should be seeing (and clicking on) it. If they're not actually paying attention, then a link change somewhere else isn't going to fix it.

RE: 7b -- I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "General FAQ".

RE: 7c -- This forum is strictly unofficial. Nothing that is written here can or should be construed as official ODP guidelines unless the words are copied verbatim from the official documentation or are written by ODP Staff members. Everything else is personal interpretation or opinion, with varying degrees of closeness to the Truth.

Thanks for your response.

I was hoping my experience as an infrequent submitter might help to generate new ideas to ease the email misunderstandings and repeated communication which appears to happen in the submission process.

I spent 24 hours editing and re-editing my thread, several days researching the guidelines and forums in hopes of creating something constructive or useful to help the submission process to be more clear and void of misunderstandings.

You all have contributed thousands of hours and may not appreciate my attempt to suggest some ideas. I can also appreciate that. Unfortunately, it is the only thing I could think of to try to be a part of the dmoz family.

I think at this point, if everything is really not valid or of any benefit to the system, it should be deleted. My hope of a positive contribution appears to be inappropriate.

I wish you all the very best in your mission.

If I didn't appreciate your attempt, I wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Did you not want responses to your suggestions?

corinda, you and the ODP editor you contacted were both very lucky: the editor, in finding a correspondent who wasn't a violent psychopath, and you, in finding an editor who was willing to run the risk of contact, and hadn't yet run into a VP.

I can see you've put a lot of thought into the process, but it's based on your good fortune which (as I and other editors can attest) is unfortunately not the general experience.

As has been mentioned, contact isn't encouraged. In fact, the overwhelming majority of all sites are added with no contact at all, and probably about half of them added without even a site suggestion. That's the norm. That's what all the guidelines talk about; that's what all the processes are designed to facilitate. That's obviously much faster and more efficient; it is usually (although not always) more accurate.

There is an attitudinal flaw in your proposals, that is found (usually in a fatal form) in many such proposals. All of them assume that editing time is worth nothing, that there are too many editors not being able to find anything to do on their own -- that, in short, the problem is in fact WITH the ODP.

Try thinking about the problem THIS way. Assume ODP editor time is critical -- the editor is not getting paid and must not be paid, so there had BETTER be something valuable TO THE EDITOR in any new proposed action -- or it won't happen. (So, what's for the editor, except risk of meeting an angry VP, in communication?) No, the editor is a volunteer, interested in accomplishing something. So (unlike a mercenary soldier or lawyer or bricklayer who gets paid the hourly rate regardless of how effective he is), an editor has a strong incentive to be efficient. And failure to recognize this will doom any proposal to failure no matter how peremptorily and authoritatively it is presented.

And the same thing applies to site suggestions. In suggesting a good site, you are performing a volunteer act. That act must be as simple, as painless, as efficient as possible. (Then for those suggesting spam, the weeding must also be as efficient as possible.

So, the burden must fall on the webmaster. No, not the burden to communicate with an editor -- webmasters insisting on that will trigger alarms all across the web.

No, the webmaster should be focussed on communicating with SURFERS. And if THAT is done effectively -- why, ODP editors are only surfers!

And the website developer is obviously the one who benefits most from effective communication. Clearly then, the website developer, and nobody else, must be responsible for communication.

And the communication must be with every visitor, not "targetted" at ODP editors. It is not fair to call ourselves doing a "site review" if our action is based on something not from the site itself, and not even publicly available.

So, the real question which needs an answer, and which I commend to your thoughtful attention, is this:

"What can a website developer do to communicate with surfers more effectively?" What, if accomplished, removes completely the NEED for special high-risk, low-credibility private communications with volunteers who may value (and may NEED) their privacy?

Or, to put it in very specific terms, what did you do wrong on your site, which misled the original reviewer? What could you have done--SHOULD you have done, which would have made the site's real category and purpose immediately clear to any visitor?

Thanks for your valuable insights.

Motsa and Hutcheson, thanks for both or your really detailed responses.

I really appreciate your time and seeing all of the editors you kind of get to know a little as you dig deep into the forums.

It never really occurred to me that email risks were a constant concern during the update listing process. After all, you have my website, name, email, phone numbers, and even access to a personal photograph, on the website I was trying to update if you want it. The guidelines are also crystal clear that only civil communication is allowed. I now understand that may not be representative of the real situation. It didn't make sense before, because it appears that everyone uses a web name and an email address that could be changed easily. It is clear now, that many editors would have to change their emails frequently.

I really enjoyed seeing both of your thoughts and would like to gain some insight from all of them. I will read them over again several more times.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of slight misunderstandings which simply were not the case in my experience. I never received or exchanged emails with my editor. I used the update listing form and saw changes occur to list my description the way I wanted it to read and simply wrote additional update listing to present the reasons why I felt they were valid within the guidelines. I felt awful that my very responsive editor, was reading and responding to emails that were only blindly being submitted. If I could just communicate both way, we could find a balance between what we both wanted to achieve. I realize now that all of it was completely inappropriate.

I should have just updated once and gone away, according to your goals and objectives. Unfortunately, I was trying to equally list in a similar fashion to friends, peers, and competitors already listed in another category. I understand now that those desires and objectives are of no interest to Dmoz editors and their mission.

I really appreciate, respect, admire, and have tried to imagine the editors point of view. That is why I inappropriately searched for a way to better communicate. My editor should be given the gold medal of honor for trying to honor my requests.

Finally, I have heard and am listening to the idea that a site should be designed for all surfers. I have now read it many times in the forums and believe the editors goals and mission is stated very clearly in the forums. I don't believe they are stated in the guidelines, and maybe they really shouldn't be.

Although I understand your thoughts, in all fairness though, I also honestly believe that my site was finally abandoned for the real fact that I really did attempt to communicate too much. At some point, regardless of my good will intentions, my very responsive editor finally felt they just couldn't spend anymore time. At a similar point, from an editor's perspective, I know I would have felt the same way. That was all my fault.

I would be shocked to find that the content of my site was the real reason for abandoning the listing, although I also acknowledge all sites could be greatly improved. The listing was changed, the description was changed to exactly what I had requested, and then before I could thank him for helping to list within my understanding of the guidelines, my critical keyword was added to my title. If I didn't try to communicate again, that is the way it was listed and I assume would remain listed, at least for a while.

Unfortunately, my site now stood out from every single listing in the category with my requested keyword in the title, which was exactly what I had requested since the beginning. However, I do believe in equality and fairness, and felt that I had to communicate to reverse what was clearly a very great effort on my editors behalf, but appeared to be preferential treatment on my behalf. I made some mistakes in that communication. Too long, possibly interpreted as ungrateful for all the work already done, and really beyond the scope of allowable communication anyway. I think it is a fair and reasonable assessment.

I also thought it must have been an uncomfortable decision for the editor that had gone so far out of their way. We both lost something at the conclusion. The editor gave me a really extensive amount of time, just in reading the emails (url updates), in the same manner you have shared your time here. It is all so understandable.

My personal experience, errors, and mistakes in the process doesn't really matter anymore. I feel awful that I unintentionally exploited a great editors valuable time, and wish I could have achieved both goals in a swift and simple matter (although I know I'm not supposed to consider mine).

What does matter is that no one else accidentally or unintentionally should repeat a similar experience. By sharing mine, I really only wanted to see if it could help to make a difference. For you, that would mean working on making a great web site. I work on my web site all of the time within my abilities. I wanted to do something more and different here. I will continue to work on my web site with your thoughtful ideas in mind.

Unfortunately, I feel like I'm once again generating a departure from the mission of surfing great web sites, receiving far too much editors time, as valuable as it to me personally, and unable to offer anything of any further value to help reduce the hours of miscommunication and misunderstandings I experienced and felt could be improved for future url submissions. With a better understanding of your system now, I realize it all is really running exactly the way it should or is desired to be working.

The purpose of this post was to hopefully spark some thought or new idea that hasn't been already tried before, which could possibly lead to a better way to communicate in the submission process, reduce the emails and time spent on effectively being listed, and to reduce the volumes of site status update requests, frustrations, and misunderstandings, that continue to arrive in this forum. I know that is not my job, I simply thought an infrequent submitter's perspective might spark an idea for a solution which would naturally be altered to place your point of view in mind.

My ideas for thoughtful changes, were not ever meant to be the way it would or even should be, they were meant to spark some creative thought within the people, like yourselves, that will really make it the way it will be. I guess, it is already the way it should be. I personally had a really tough experience. So did one of your great editors. Maybe it was all because I was outside of the scope of what you are allowed to communicate. If that is the case, then this discussion has no benefit to the big picture and should simply be deleted.

I really appreciate your time in responding, your thoughtful guidance to me personally, and look forward to visiting these forums in the future to see how and what you all are doing, as long as I am welcome.

I hope that my attempt at a contribution, as misguided as it was, will be viewed as an attempt to right a hurtful serious of several mistakes I personally made in the process.

I also honestly believe that my site was finally abandoned for the real fact that I really did attempt to communicate too much.

Click to expand...

Your site wouldn't have been removed from the category just because you sent too many feedback messages. Judging by what you've said here, the most likely situation is that someone with limited privileges moved your site from the previous category into unreviewed in your desired category where it now awaits someone with the appopriate privileges to rereview it.

Motsa,

Thanks for your thoughts and guidance. I don't think that is really the case, although you could be right.

The editor that helped me so much has contributed volumes to dmoz.org and without stating their specific powers, and after reading the permission-based powers, they certainly have the ability to list almost anything in any category. I just looked it all up and discovered that is the case.

I have already inappropriately submitted three times to upper, original, and the most appropriate category. With those violations in proper submission, after my multiple attempts to email the editor, I may be on the 1, 2, 8 year or forever track.

I've kind of settled on that possibility because, quite frankly, in Jim Noble's great posts, there is really nothing I can do about it.

I also applied to be a category editor for the small category I have spent most of my professional life working in. In the true spirit of this post, I now believe that I would inevitably have to decline. If you could delete that submission it will save another editor wasting time reviewing another of my submissions that will ultimately be rejected or declined.

All the best to you and the other editors, thanks for the cat icon, my house has fourteen.

Corinda - People often assume that the editor listed for the category is the one who has made a particular change in that category. But that might not be the case. Some senior editors (editall+) are particularly keen on dealing with update requests and wander around the directory doing that all over the place. One of them might move a listing direct to another category. But in some cases they may leave it in unreviewed in the new category, for example if that category has a very active editor, or the site needs specialist review.

Then again some editors at the top level of a particular tree or part of a tree like to deal with update requests within it. But they may not have access to other trees. So if they move a listing over, it will wait in unreviewed in the new category.

JeanManco,

Thanks for taking all this time. I feel aweful that I now have Matso, Hutcheson, JeanManco, and who knows how many other huge editors concerned about the details of one site, one listing, and volumes of writings that I think could have been resolved in a couple of emails with a single editor, or a single phone call. I really just needed to change my url and list my site in a different category.

You may be right that another editall came along and removed my listing that stood out like a sore thumb in the category it was originally listed in. That was one of many concerns I also reflected in my long winded email to my editor to change it back or move me to another category. However, my category editor is an "E". So, I believe they could have done that themselves. After it happened I wrote begging for an email, so my editor either knows about what happened or just could not do anything more about it. But return emails are really not encouraged, and past experience probably made him reluctant to say anything at all. Sadly, there are a lot of normal people in the world.

In all fairness to all of you concerned about it, I did not write my post to have anyone concerned about my attempt to change my url. There is nothing that can be done now to correct that situation.

I had a difficult situation I didn't understand, and like Hutcheson has said, I could and SHOULD have done something different to eliminate any need to communicate anything. I work for myself, do everything myself, learn everything myself. I submitted my update listing with comments about my particular situation and hoped the Dmoz editor would guide me through the maze of right and wrong. The editors are experts on the rules. I was trying to maximize the ranking of my site, but also live within the rules. They did help me, and I took way too much of the editors time trying to accomplish my task. I wished there could have been a better way.

Here is a brief generic synopsis of what happened. I purchased a new url for my critical keyword. Now, I had two sites, the original url and the critical keyword url. The original url was listed in Dmoz. In reading on Dmoz, I discovered you can't submit mirror sites, you can only list one. So I had to change my listing from my old url to my new url and update the title and description to compete equally with friends, peers, and competitors already listed with the keyword in their titles in another category. I didn't want to do anything wrong, so I explained it all in the update listing form, although it took me a while to figure out what I really needed to do to live within the rules. In the end, I stood out in a category that only has names in the titles, with my listing the only one in the whole category with a keyword in the title. It matched the style in the other category, but was just inappropriate in my current category. The update listing form was now unavailable, so I went to the editor's email and wrote a request to drop the keyword from my title or that I should really be moved to the other more appropriate category. It was a long winded email. A day or so later, my listing disappeared. I used the editor email to beg for an email to explain what was happening.

After all of that, it is now impossible for me to ever use the submit form to resubmit my critical keyword url or my original url for that matter. I have already used that form for one level up from the category, and the more appropriate category I should have tried to be moved into, after my listing disappeared.

I think anymore discussion about it, as helpful as it is to me, is of no benefit to the readers of this forum. It is a single event, about a single site listing, and a sad experience. If it were ever discussed, it should be directly with the people involved, and unhampered by the need to avoid all of the specific details. Hutcheson's post, your post, Motsa's post, and all of my reading in the forums and the guidelines have already pointed me to know what I could and should have done differently. It is not reversible now. Submit once, go away, and don't try and communicate with editors.

Despite your concerns, I believe my original url and new url will never again appear in Dmoz. That is a really tough experience I have already come to terms with, I am one of of the more well-known people in my particular field. I thought I could give something back to prevent it from ever happening again.