questions for the editors

greenmonkey · Apr 1, 2004

I never got nasty, ever, until you mocked me.

I never used the word pig.

I am not greedy.

You have no credibility in my eyes. I know that that means nothing to you.

I only tried to offer some provocative, out of the box analysis on the problems between submitters and editors.

You sir are the one being defensive and making things up. I never did. THe evidence is in the thread.

spectregunner · Apr 1, 2004

I find your query nearly impossible to respond to.

If, in fact (not in the submitter's opinion) teh site is the best that there is for a given category, and in fact (not in the submitter's opinion) it has been submitted to the correct category, and the site complies with the ODP guidelines in every other way, then ther is no logical reason that the site would not be listed.

Note the caveats.

What usually happens is that the submitter thinks that the site is god's gift to the www, when in fact the so-called unique content is copies from someplace else, it is full of affiliate links, it is a redirect, it is a fraternal mirror and it was submitted to the wrong cat.

And when we politely state that the site is not listable, we get accused of being stupid, of being corrupt and how unfair it is that we are rejecting a perfectly good site because we obviously work for their competitor.

What would YOU have us do?

What would you have us do?

greenmonkey · Apr 1, 2004

Well I have a surprise for you.

What I say is true. And there is no reason to use "the God's Gift..." phrase. Again, this is the attitude many complian about. I offered up a fair question.

This situation does exist and not just with me, but others. I and others have "evidence." I don't want to be accused of spamming so I have not listed any specifics, but this situation does exist. It is not impossible to answer this.

This is where the frustration comes from.

avengers63 · Apr 1, 2004

hutcheson said:
It is really only a small percentage of submitters that gives the whole roomful such a foul odor.

We know that. And we will do our best not to allow their blatant greed, hypocracy, and arrogance to color our dealings with the thousands of helpful or at least harmless submitters.

But that's exactly what you have done. Many of you have commented that you are hesitant to try and dole through the submissions (salesmen) because of the supposedly (and I use the term accurately as I have no direct knowledge) high volume of mirrors, redirectors, and link sites. The rest of us are punished because of the poor actions others. I understand that it might be a bit more difficult to find the needle in teh haystack, but that isn't the needle's fault. By lack of looking for the needle based on it's location, you punish it for something it has no control of.

greenmonkey · Apr 1, 2004

spectregunner What would YOU have us do? What would you have us do?[/QUOTE said:
I understand your plight. But what I suggested does happen. There needs to be some way to appeal decisions. Or atleast be told of why you are being denied aside from the ubiquitous (affiliate site, lacks unique content). Trust me decisons are made that make no sense.

foetusized · Apr 1, 2004

greenmonkey said:
Say there is a site that exceeds every other site in a category in content, design, usability, uniqueness, relevance etc. And that in this category are Page Not Founds, sites that don't belong by a stretch in that category, sites that don't offer things for sale (if it was a shopping category), sites with little of no unique content, and a collection of sites that sold barely related crap. Let us say there is not one site that exceeds the initial site (that would like to get listed).

Now this one site does not get listed. Then on top of this the site owner is belittled and held in contempt for the audacity of wanting to suggest a site to this category - an action that would be mutually beneficial in a relationship that is admittedly at odds.

What would you like someone to do after this?

The unlisted site aside, what I would like someone to do when they encounter a category that is in such bad shape, is point it out to us. We have an area here in this forum where we give folks the directions on how to tell us about categories or listings that have problems. Such a category is not serving our customers (neither web searchers nor RDF users) so we would want to fix it.

That's what I, personally, would like someone to do. I cannot take care of messes that no one tells me about (reminds me of a potty training accident that my daughter failed to tell my wife and I about, but I digress); I care about the quality of the directory and do my best to fix such problems, either personally, or by finding others with the time and expertise to deal with it -- Foe

hutcheson · Apr 1, 2004

greenmonkey said:
There needs to be some way to appeal decisions. Or atleast be told of why you are being denied aside from the ubiquitous (affiliate site, lacks unique content). Decisons are made that make no sense.

These forums are provided for that. When an editall responds that a site was rejected "for the usual reason") (which is, as you say, all doorway marketing or affiliate links without unique content), generally we check to see if that decision made sense TO US. If it didn't, questions will be raised in the editors' forums. And you'll see responses like, "please resubmit" or "the site was accidentally rejected and has been re-added to the queue" or "we'll review this further." That's the appeal process at work.

Now, you don't see those responses very often -- about 1-2% of the time. That corresponds to my experience: I've reviewed tens of thousands of previously rejected submittals, and my best estimate is that about 1-2% of them had been accidentally or inappropriately deleted.

You can also write directly to staff @ dmoz.org, but that is about a one in a million chance (one in a hundred thousand at most.) The editalls are chosen for their good judgment and clear grasp of the ODP vision, and they are usually right.

There is, unfortunately, a very good reason why we don't tell the exact reasons, and this is the one place where we HAVE to treat all affiliate spammers as malicious submitters. The simple fact is, most spammers know they are spammers. They know they don't offer any unique good or service. All they don't know is HOW WE FIGURED OUT they were spammers. And the only reason they would ask, is to figure out how they can do a better job of disguising their spam next time. We can't afford to give spammers that kind of information. And we can't afford to give people that look like spammers that kind of information.

About 1-2% of the time, the APPARENT affiliate spammers I review have hidden themselves so well that I can't really tell whether they are spammers or not. All I can tell them is, "I need more information." If they can give me the right information, and I can check it, then we can proceed. But I can't tell them what they need to invent so as to fool me better, because of the other 98-99% of cases, where the appearance corresponds to reality. But the rest of the time, if a spammer asks for a reason, we can be almost certain he means us malicious harm.

hutcheson · Apr 1, 2004

You don't have to take our word on this. Judge for yourself. These forums are public. Pick ten, or a hundred threads, where the answer was "rejected, see guidelines", followed by the "why won't anyone tell me why?"

Then go look at the site. See if YOU can find any unique good, service, or information offered on the site. If it offers goods, see if we already listed the real supplier of those goods. If it offers services, see if they actually provide those services, or if we list the real server. If it offers information, see if you can find that information on a site already listed. And ... see if the sites that ask for a reason aren't almost universally the most blatant plagiarized doorway pages you can find on the net. Or ... find one that isn't, and prove us wrong.

The forums are public.

thehelper · Apr 1, 2004

If I was category editor I would list it. If it was in a category I did not edit or had no interest in I would not be in that category so I would not know about it. If someone emailed me about it and it was in a category I had no interest in I would probably delete the email. It is all about editor interest. If your site is about Brazillian Monkeys, I don't care how good it is, I have no interest in Brazillian Monkeys and I aint going there.

Now if your site was about a new Atari Jaguar Game - I bet I would have listed it before you submitted it.

greenmonkey · Apr 1, 2004

Where?

Where do I report a category is disarray.

I'll do it right now.

thanks.

senox · Apr 1, 2004

There needs to be some way to appeal decisions.

If we were overstaffed and underworked then this might be possible. But the ODP-reality is different. We try our best to give each site a fair review. And we surely make mistakes, given the amount of sites we look at. This is regrettable for the honest webmaster who is frustrated (I can understand that), but also for the ODP because a site that might have been useful to our users has not been added.

But we have to be realistic. We can't optimize the review process for every single site by setting up a time-consuming court-like appeal procedure in case something went wrong while optimizing the directory as a whole at the same time. This forum is one possibility to appeal or at least to make a point, or to make us aware of things that are not OK, and if an editall+ notices that an obvious mistake has been made or that something has to be done then (s)he will try to do something. This has happened more than once. But there's no point discussing an obviously non-listable site, from our point of view the time is better used for other things.

Our priority is to optimize the directory as a whole with a given amount of resources, and that means that sometimes something can go wrong in the details. You don't like it, we don't like it, it's perceived as unfair, yet it's the way things are. We would change it if we could, but we have to set priorities.

The rest of us are punished because of the poor actions others.

You know, it's by far more pleasant and satisfying to add a site to the directory than to reject a site. The latter action means you've wasted your time to produce no valuable output, while the first action means you did something useful (at least you feel like you did something useful). The poor actions of others punish us as much as you, but we both have to live with it. One of the reasons why we choose to be restrictive when providing information is that we don't want to make it easier for the 'others' to abuse. Not satisfying in single cases for the honest webmaster, but overall we think it's the best thing to do.

It's not really different from everyday life. If everyone was honest and fair, we wouldn't need police, lawyers, courts, and prisons. We all have to pay because of a few 'others'. And unfortunately we have to live with it.

foetusized · Apr 1, 2004

Greenmonkey, sorry, I've got to run so I don't have the exact URL, but look in the Report Abuse topic on this message board -- Foe

SeoBook · Apr 1, 2004

I would say there are some bad deals with some editors, but the body as a whole has a good message. I actually posted a problem I saw just yesterday on my blog (I think it was yesterday) and today that problem is already gone...

As a person who sees many sites, I generally see that many of the sites which have problems getting listings have errors which prevent them from getting listed just about anywhere. My sites, for example, have many spelling errors, which have hurt me in the eyes of some. If you look close enough I will probably make one in this post.

I am on no pillar. I am not an editor. None of my home pages are in DMOZ.

Any time someone gives you a link they are rewarding you for your efforts. Sometimes the best way to become successful on the web is to stop thinking about the sale and think one level up. If you give people a reason to link to you then eventually some people will.

DMOZ is not about listing every one page sales letter. It is about listing information resources. If people can learn from your site then generally a DMOZ editor will want to list it.

Are there errors with the system - yup. Generally though the web works best when you think of how to make your site better than anything else, vice thinking of how you got the raw deal.

I knew nothing about internet marketing, marketing, or the internet about a year ago. I have already been quoted by Internet News, and mentioned in a few SEO news sources. Good information wants to spread and naturally does.

If SearchEngineWatch was submitted to DMOZ today do you think the editors would ignore it forever or just delete it? I don't. If you make your site the SearchEngineWatch of your category you will probably get listed.

Most people do not want to put that sort of effort in though...

greenmonkey · Apr 1, 2004

hutcheson said:
You don't have to take our word on this. Judge for yourself. These forums are public. Pick ten, or a hundred threads, where the answer was "rejected, see guidelines", followed by the "why won't anyone tell me why?"

Then go look at the site. See if YOU can find any unique good, service, or information offered on the site. If it offers goods, see if we already listed the real supplier of those goods. If it offers services, see if they actually provide those services, or if we list the real server. If it offers information, see if you can find that information on a site already listed. And ... see if the sites that ask for a reason aren't almost universally the most blatant plagiarized doorway pages you can find on the net. Or ... find one that isn't, and prove us wrong.

The forums are public.

Euro Jersey Imports - http://www.eurojerseyimports.com Exceeds ever site in this category in design, content, uniqueness, every possible positive attribute.

-Unique in every way. No other store in the UNIVERSE does what I do - one-stop shop for International basketball jerseys, Olympic basketball jerseys and club basketball jersey, Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia which I also sell), Argentina, France, KK Partizan etc. I am also working in content like foreign scores and updates on future NBA players like Milos Vujanic and Nenad Krstic.

-Relevant. In 2003 the most talked about story in basketball this side of Lebron James was the influx of international players into the league. Currently 70 foreign-born players are in the league including stars like Peja Stojakovic, Dirk Nowitzki and Manu Ginobili. In 2002 Yugoslavia defeated the US (actually they defeated Argentina, US came in sixth shaking up USA Basketball). In the 2004 Olympics many folks are looking forward to Argentina and Serbia & Montenegro possibly upsetting the US in Athen, Greece

-Visonary. The popularity of throwback jerseys continues to increase. The next logical step national and club team jerseys of foreign born NBA stars and as well as players overseas who will be joining NBA teams in the years to come. Scouts now spend more time evaluating International talent than college talent. People want unique jerseys that is what started throw backs and HS jerseys.

The Category:http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Sports/Basketball/Apparel/
contains 1 site that sells NBA jerseys (albeit not seemlessly).
1 Christian-based Promotional Business labeled as a NCAA Final Four Site
3 Broken Links
No less than 5 sites that sold only T-Shirts with monikers related to basketball
No Less than 4 Companies that sell Uniforms to schools and clubs
1 site run by a 9 year who sells something, I guess.

Someone was able to turn my store away under some grounds (actually I was called an affiliate although I possessed not a single outbound link (no frames either if someone wants to nit pick) but not add the NBA Store, WNBA Store, any store that sold college jerseys, or Throwbacks (perhaps the manufacturer like Mitchell & Ness) or old high school jerseys. No site that sells something that people wants in fact.

Now my site is professionally designed and marketed by me, all product is sourced by me, everything is done by me save for a few friends who help translate for me.

I can take it. Tell me why this site is refused entry. Let the public vote. There is no reason, under any guideline that Euro Jersey Imports [http://www.eurjerseyimports.com] is nothing but a great and valuable addition to your esteemed site. That this site was turned away (as an affiliate no less ) is a mistake and not one sane person could say so otherwise.

thehelper · Apr 1, 2004

Did you read the whole thread there? I told him that it was being looked into. It is being looked into. It appears that a newbie editor thought a yahoo store was an affiliate. We are not perfect but when a case arises that a mistake might have been made, it gets looked into. See my next post on the next page.

thehelper · Apr 1, 2004

That is you. Why didn't you PM me? I told you I was looking into it. I did look into it - it appears that was a mistake for the reason I said above. I got busy and totally forgot about it. If you would have PM'd me it would have reminded me. Sorry about that. PM me with the category you submitted to and I will make sure it gets added back to unreviewed.

thehelper · Apr 1, 2004

See http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=74834#post74834

I could have sworn I chimed in on the above thread to say I was looking into the situation. I look back at it and it appears that I have no comments in that thread at all. Anyways, sorry about that. I did not realize it was going to spark all of this. I have to put this to - My Bad. Sorry.

lissa · Apr 1, 2004

Sorry to have to leave the discussion - I actually needed to work this afternoon.

greenmonkey said:
I would like to ask a question of the editors and to receive an honest answer. I would love to have the answer come from Lissa as I find her responses excellent.

You have all made your points, some very, very good ones. I still think you have done little to dismiss the feeling that you don't take a "tone" when dealings with us pions but, what can you do.

Thank you for the compliment.

I just wanted to note that while many readers of this forum may not appreciate the "tone" of some of the other editors, I hear us all saying the same thing in different ways. I know the other editors are not trying to talk down to anyone and are trying to communicate in a straightforward manner. Now, in the case of Hutcheson I'm sure many readers would argue that he is the least straightforward of all, but many editors would say he is the only one who truly "tells it like it is". If you "get" Hutcheson, you "get" the ODP.

greenmonkey said:
Say there is a site that exceeds every other site in a category in content, design, usability, uniqueness, relevance etc. And that in this category are Page Not Founds, sites that don't belong by a stretch in that category, sites that don't offer things for sale (if it was a shopping category), sites with little of no unique content, and a collection of sites that sold barely related crap. Let us say there is not one site that exceeds the initial site (that would like to get listed).

Now this one site does not get listed. Then on top of this the site owner is belittled and held in contempt for the audacity of wanting to suggest a site to this category - an action that would be mutually beneficial in a relationship that is admittedly at odds.

What would you like someone to do after this?

Foe already answered this, but I'll answer too.

If you find any problems with existing listings we are always glad to fix them. They can be reported in the stickied thread in the Abuse Reporting forum. I've suggested in a few threads that a non-editor programmer could develop a tool to facilitate external reviews of categories, but so far no one has taken up that suggestion

, so the abuse forum is it.

As far as the site that didn't get listed goes, this forum is a place to inquire about status and request reconsideration. In your particular case, it appears that thehelper solved the problem. Mistakes do occur occasionally, and we like to fix them.

That's a good lead in to a side question: If there is so much aggravation occurring on this forum, why do we bother with it?

Here's a few:
- If we find that a mistake has been made it gives us the opportunity to improve training - either of an individual or the community via a newletter article.
- Examining sites that submitters ask about is good training. Although usually only one or two editors answer any particular request, most are looked at by a bunch of editors, who follow along and see if they agree with the decision to list or not list. If someone doesn't understand, we might discuss it internally.
- Looking at status requests gives editalls and metas an overview of different parts of the directory and their state. This allows better support internally when someone is working in these areas.
- Sometimes there are technical difficulties either on the ODP side of things or the user side of things. Communication here helps resolve those problems.

Just some thoughts that will hopefully get us away from the kitchen analogy.

avengers63 · Apr 2, 2004

I think we got a bit side-tracked here.

This thread started, and went over 4 pages, on trying to open teh lines of communication between users & editors.

How in the world did it degenerate into multiple pages about a single site being overlooked?

And what's wrong with my kitchen/restraunt analogy? I think it can work pretty well!

greenmonkey · Apr 2, 2004

thehelper said:
See http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=74834#post74834

I could have sworn I chimed in on the above thread to say I was looking into the situation. I look back at it and it appears that I have no comments in that thread at all. Anyways, sorry about that. I did not realize it was going to spark all of this. I have to put this to - My Bad. Sorry.

Thank you. My jumping into this thread was not based on hoping to get a direct result. I love debate and argument. In fact the more I posted the surer I felt that I would harm myself but damn the torpedos.

It became personal after a some late posts and it was not my intention.

In fact an earlier post lead me to contemplate becoming an editor (which I am). TheHelper I know I have the other thread where you said you would look into my situation but I thought it would be spammy if I posted there right away. I was going to wait another week. I can get up in discussions. Thank you again, though.

I found this discussion fun and insightful and I hope that I did not offend anyone.

Lissa, thank you for responding.

I'll hope for the best.

questions for the editors

greenmonkey

Member

spectregunner

Member

greenmonkey

Member

avengers63

Member

greenmonkey

Member

foetusized

Member

hutcheson

hutcheson

thehelper

Member

greenmonkey

Member

senox

Member

foetusized

Member

SeoBook

Member

greenmonkey

Member

thehelper

Member

thehelper

Member

thehelper

Member

lissa

Member

avengers63

Member

greenmonkey

Member