reasons for not listing

How about setting up a feature for editors that allows them access to a drop down menu of sorts that allows them to give a reason for not listing for sites that are close, but cant be listed for some simple reason. If DMOZ is here to make the web a nicer place for us all, why not give editors the choice send a tiny bit of feedback. I am sure editors would only use something like this 1% of the time with spam and all, but how nice would it be for webmasters that have a nice site and couldnt get in for something silly. It might even cut down on repeat submissions and people coming in here to complain. Sites that are awful or spammy would simply be deleted with no response.

Good idea or bad? Need help designing a system like this?

Although not implemented in an automatic fashion, editors are free to provide this kind of feedback if they want to. However, I think it's fair to say that the situation of 'almost but not quite' happens extremely rarely. On those occaisions I usually do get in touch with the webmaster to explain the issues, and I know some other editors who do the same. In over 10,000 edits, this has happened maybe a dozen times...

I'm afraid that not having an automated system isn't seen as a major problem amongst editors, and since no editors have started work on such a tool, this would suggest that they feel that the potential benefits woudn't justify the development time.

Actually, just of the top of my head, there are two major problems with what you're suggesting: (1) the issues with sites are unlikely to be easily classifyable into a small number of options, and (2) how do we find automatically out the email address of the site owner from the public suggestion and URL (hint: not all sites are suggested by the owner, and not all sites being reviewed by editors were suggested by the public at all).

If you really want to help the project, I'd suggest becoming an editor, and then you'll get a chance to see what the real problems are...

> but cant be listed for some simple reason
There is only one simple reason why a site will not be listed: lack of unique content. The best person to know this reason is the websiteowner himself.

> I am sure editors would only use something like this 1% of the time with spam and all,
In the over 16.000 sites I have listed I only found around 5 sites that were worth contacting the onwer to correct some mistakes. In all cases I contacted the siteowner, although I always pretend to be a normal visitor and never tell I'm a DMOZ editor.

> but how nice would it be for webmasters that have a nice site and couldnt get in for something silly.
Sites are never rejected for silly reasons.

> It might even cut down on repeat submissions and people coming in here to complain.
Reading the guidlines by people who suggest sites would also solve this problem.

chaos127

I hear ya. Without knowing what its like to be an editor I guess I just take shots in the dark about this stuff.

I would think the drop down menu I envision would also have an option to put the url into a 6-12 month blacklist as well, to stop multiple submissions. Then you have a cool tool to help people and one to stop the madness

I have tried to become an editor. No luck. I have tried multiple cats on multiple occasions.


pvgool

> but cant be listed for some simple reason
"There is only one simple reason why a site will not be listed: lack of unique content. The best person to know this reason is the websiteowner himself."

then you say

"In the over 16.000 sites I have listed I only found around 5 sites that were worth contacting the onwer to correct some mistakes. In all cases I contacted the siteowner, although I always pretend to be a normal visitor and never tell I'm a DMOZ editor."

Confusing


> but how nice would it be for webmasters that have a nice site and couldnt get in for something silly.
"Sites are never rejected for silly reasons."

Then why did you...

"found around 5 sites that were worth contacting the onwer to correct some mistakes"


> It might even cut down on repeat submissions and people coming in here to complain.
"Reading the guidlines by people who suggest sites would also solve this problem. "

Just like people are human, so are the editors. People make mistakes.

chaz7979 said:

> but cant be listed for some simple reason
"There is only one simple reason why a site will not be listed: lack of unique content. The best person to know this reason is the websiteowner himself."

then you say

"In the over 16.000 sites I have listed I only found around 5 sites that were worth contacting the onwer to correct some mistakes. In all cases I contacted the siteowner, although I always pretend to be a normal visitor and never tell I'm a DMOZ editor."

Confusing

Click to expand...

Not for me.
Those few sites were good candidates for a listing but in one of the cases I remember the site didn't have information about where the store was located. How can an editor list a site within Regional when he can't see in which city the company is located? How can a potential customer visit the store if they don't know where it is located? So I wrote to them as a customer and I got a reply about how embareassed they were to forget this important information and how happy they were I asked.
There site was improved and I could list a good site. Ofcourse I also could have deleted them for not providing the info I needed. But wouldn´t that have been stupid.

chaz7979 said:

> It might even cut down on repeat submissions and people coming in here to complain.
"Reading the guidlines by people who suggest sites would also solve this problem. "

Just like people are human, so are the editors. People make mistakes.

Click to expand...

Making mistakes is not a problem. But many sites that are being rejected have nothing to do with mistakes.

Remember, if you have plenty of work to do already, you'll prioritize your work. If it's a system you're automating, you'll ask, "what really needs to be done here" as well as "how often will this really need to be done?" As all software development managers (or project managers of any kind) must know, without answers to those questions, your project won't end up usable or worthwhile.

Editors have asked the question you ask, many times. And experienced editors have even asked the important follow-up questions many times.

Since experience has so firmly established that we have the right answers to the follow-up questions, the only possible correct answer to your question follows inexorably.

OK so its not needed because you wont use it that much. Lets say for example you use it 1 per 1000k submissions and you multiply that by a few thousand editors, it seems like it would be worth it. That is just me. I could code something that could do this in maybe 2 hours tops.

If that isnt a good idea, wouldnt the drop down menu or radio button to blacklist spammy submissions be worth it? If the bulk of your submissions are spam, wouldnt blocking future submissions help out? You wouldnt even have to show the submitters. It could silently turn a bad submission into a trash pile.

None of this sounds good to anyone? I will go put on my thinking cap and come up with something better....some day.

One out of 1000K times, we can give personal attention to, no problem.

And, as you say, 900K out of 1000K submittals, we don't want to talk to the submitters about what happens to them.

Right.

Which is why I suggested adding another item or radio button to the list of things you can do with a submission. But you didnt address that. If the key is that you dont want 90% of people to know, why not just silently block them for X amount of days. My poin twas to stop spam and multiple submissions without them ever knowing what you are doing. Sure would cut down on an ever increasing workload.

...>we don't want to talk to the submitters about what happens to them.

>Which is why I suggested adding another item or radio button to the list of things you can do with a submission. But you didnt address that.

Perhaps I should have spelled out the ramifications in more detail. We don't talk in public about what happens to spammy submittals.

If you like, imagine dank dungeons, primitive dental implements, tax audits, and Elvis lookalike contests.

They wouldnt be notified. They would simply have their site blacklisted for x amount of days. They would never know it. But you would, because you wouldnt see the same url added 100 times.

If you are saying you already do something like this, and thats why you didnt address what I said. My fault.

If you think its a good idea and dont want to talk about it. Again My fault.

Very likely, it's either one of the things that we do, or it's one of the things we'd like spammers worrying about us doing, (instead of thinking about getting past what we really do.)

I will say this: any automatic procedure, once publicly described, is absolutely trivial to get around. And any manual procedure is fallible but adaptable. Google goes for the obscure automatic procedure; Dmoz goes for the manual approach.

But it is 100% manual. What I am suggesting is not automated at all. Also, if an editor decided to MANUALLY block a site, there would be no way around it. If you tell a database or a flat text file to not allow a url, then it simply will not. No way around that. Except maybe buy new urls and submit them, but that would still end up with the same result.

I think I have done abad job explaining a good idea. No one seems to get it.

It is manual
It is to help editors
There would be no way around it
Bad submitters will never know a thing

Win
Win
Win
Win

Thats a quadruple win.

You've made your suggestion. You've given your analysis of it. That is absolutely as far as the discussion CAN go here.