Responding to Submitters

brmehlman said:

...nothing you wrote gains any credibility from being written in all caps, nor do multiple exclamation points following a sentence add anything to its meaning.

Click to expand...

But his comments did in fact validate why I was under the apparent miasapprehension that you have to get through the ODP to get into Google. In fact, the only reason I ended up visiting this resource-zone website was in an attempt to figure out how and why Google had no direct submission process. Yes, now I "get" that they do, but I did not see that on Google's search engine results pages, which is where it made sense (to me) to look.
The extreme huffiness of the volunteer idealists here is inappropriate considering that Google directs applicants straight to the ODP, giving the impression that specific timely results can be expected and even demanded. Yes, you have FAQs, and various messages saying the directory inclusion may take an indefinite period of time (if ever), but the impression has still been left that there is an agency which one is applying to in a business context.
If the idea of a business-modality standard for application is so laughable, then the ODP seriously needs to reconsider allowing Google to link to the ODP for site submissions. Either that, or all applicants should receive an automated email which spells it out in terse text: "Your application to the ODP has been received. This application does not guarantee you ANYTHING. It is not, and should not be considered, an application to any search engine. All you have done is applied to have a team of volunteer librarians attempt to categorize your site. Business owners should not expect that applying to the ODP will provide ANY results whatsoever."
And if you think this should all be obvious already, then why are you inundated with demands?

And furthermore,
as a business owner with certain standards, there are products I won't carry. It is my responsibility to let both vendors and customers know at the outset what they will and won't be able to get from my business. It would be folly to turn on a customer who wants Coca-Cola and sneer at them "Of course we don't carry Coke. That's not the purpose of this store!" It is the responsibility of the ODP to disabuse all applicants of the notion that their application will result in a listing. Again, you may think you already communicate this, but the barrage of complainants would indicate otherwise.

If the idea of a business-modality standard for application is so laughable, then the ODP seriously needs to reconsider allowing Google to link to the ODP for site submissions.

Click to expand...

Actually, we don't allow them to link to us, we require that they do. It's a requirement for using our data, for anyone.

Either that, or all applicants should receive an automated email which spells it out in terse text: "Your application to the ODP has been received. This application does not guarantee you ANYTHING. It is not, and should not be considered, an application to any search engine. All you have done is applied to have a team of volunteer librarians attempt to categorize your site. Business owners should not expect that applying to the ODP will provide ANY results whatsoever."

Click to expand...

How about something along the lines of...

-----------------------------------------

In exchange for ODP's consideration of the site I am submitting, I agree

• To be bound by the ODP's Terms of Use .
• To waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of this or any other site in the ODP Directory or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP Directory; and
• To grant Netscape Communications Corporation a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, publish, copy, edit, modify, or create derivative works from my submission.

I also acknowledge that Netscape and the ODP have unfettered editorial discretion to determine the structure and content of the
directory and that, because a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time, I may not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. (i.e. "submission" means the title and descriptive information you supply for your site, not the actual website or its contents).

I knew I'd seen that somewhere before.

Heiduska, as for not knowing about Google submit, I really do not know how people miss it. I checked it out at google.com before I posted that. Right on the front page there's a link "about Google." There is nothing else on that page that suggests anything about webmasters or submitting, but surely "how to submit to Google" falls under that? And when you click on "About Google", you'll see a section labelled "For Site Owners" and a link labelled "submitting your site."

Check it out.

Most SERP perps claim -- and perhaps I was remiss in believing them, but there have been some statements from Google that seemed to corroberate it -- that few Google users actually use the directory. If this is true, the page you found would have been very out of the way. On the other hand, a solid 10% or so of our visitors supply a Google link rather than an ODP link. Perhaps any readers who DID supply a Google link their first time would describe how that came about? It might give a clue as to the nature of the confusion.

As for the ODP responsible for nonsensical rumors: as you observe, many editors are ready to vigorously refute such rumors wherever they occur, no matter how many times it takes. Do we whack them down every time they pop up in public? Maybe not, but we come very close! This some of us see as a public service: if people do not understand what the ODP is, they are bound not to appreciate it. If they understand what it is, and that's not what they want, maybe they'll, um, stop throwing brickbats at Taco Bell and mosey down the road to McDonald's for their Coke fix.

But, honestly, when people can't tell the difference between a search engine and a directory, there's not much teaching ABOUT either search engines or directories that can happen: just as people who flunk arithmetic don't do well in algebra -- and it's not the fault of the Algebra teacher!

Deja vu

Heiduska said:

The only way to correct the problem you describe is to create a business-modality version of the ODP. This business version would have paid editors; it would charge a small fixed fee for all applications whether or not accepted; it would have bylaws prohibiting the acceptance of external financial influence; it would have a peer-review board to develop and maintain standards worldwide; and the paid editing staff would reasonably be expected to inform applicants of their status. Perhaps the volunteer ODP, as currently run, could be officially maintained as the source for developing standards.

I'm actually quite interested in discussing this as a viable option, if any admins, investment angels, or other powers that be are interested in emailing me.

Click to expand...

It's called Yahoo!

ishtar said:

How about something along the lines of...

-----------------------------------------

In exchange for ODP's consideration of the site I am submitting, I agree

• To be bound by the ODP's Terms of Use .
• To waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of this or any other site in the ODP Directory or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP Directory; and
• To grant Netscape Communications Corporation a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, publish, copy, edit, modify, or create derivative works from my submission.

I also acknowledge that Netscape and the ODP have unfettered editorial discretion to determine the structure and content of the
directory and that, because a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time, I may not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. (i.e. "submission" means the title and descriptive information you supply for your site, not the actual website or its contents).

Click to expand...

The nature of communication is that nothing happens if the person on the receiving end doesn't understand or hear the person on the speaking end. The text you quote above may address the technical issues, but it does not make its point as clearly as the "terse version" I suggested.
And again, every one of you who has responded, you are all completely avoiding the fact that thousands of applicants don't get it, which results in the deluge of demands that you keep complaining about. Clearly all of your FAQs and legalese footnotes have not succeeded. Maybe I'm at the shallow end of the intellect pool for my misunderstanding about Google's reliance on the ODP, but apparently so are a huge percentage of your applicants. Are you going to continue to sneer and huff and call them stupid, while beating your brow and asking "why must we put up with all of these unreasonable people?"
The initial post I responded to was a plea for help from an ODP editor. I thought I was providing a constructive solution, and all I have gotten is abuse in return. It looks like, as the "rathernotsay" poster was trying to point out, patronizing verbal abuse is the reigning culture here.

Heiduska, there may be something in your proposed verbiage. Check IT out on, say, a few dozen random complainers in the various forums. Polish it to clear up the confusion it causes. See how it wears with use.

Some people that do that end up convincing themselves to be editors, and end up doing a good job. Some don't. But any help passing the word to the world will be appreciated.

I think when you actually try this, you'll be shocked at the obtuseness and anger that you face. Some of the anger is unquestionably the "shoot the messenger" reaction, and that's undoubtedly inevitable. Mostly, in my experience, if followed up, the obtuseness either converts to "shoot the messenger" anger or very occasionally "aha, I get it."

And editors have a hard time properly estimating the internet ignorance that even some webmasters have. One editor told someone in the forums that "search doesn't work" and got a rancorous lecture on "the evils of throwing complex technical terms at poor stupid lil ole me." Finding the right level is difficult.

But try it out. Bump this thread after a few months of experimenting. (We'll probably notice you in the trenches even before then.) Sometimes if multiple people answer at multiple levels, one of them gets through.

And sometimes they just start shooting at all the messengers. So wear your asbestos long johns, and expect to hear all manner of false evil spoken against you. But if it works, we will think it was worth it.

The Internet is a melting pot of unsubstantiated information! What I find interesting is that webmaster don't believe the facts about the ODP when it is coming out of the horse's mouth.

I agree that mostly people simply do not read the guidelines and I think they attributed more power than is realistic to the editors of the ODP. As an editor I just feel overwhelmed by the submissions and the sheer weight of the responsibility.

bobrat said:

E.g. how many people actually read the Rules for this forum before posting a status request?

How many read the FAQ, before asking a question that is answered in the FAQ?

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. More specific to this thread, almost no one reads the guidelines for submission. I didn't. {ok I confess}. It wasn't until after my second submittal that I actually read the guidelines. Once I did, I immediately began to understand and respect what the Project is all about.

My big suggestion, do what Zeal is doing. People must pass a quiz before they can submit. Zeal requires a 90% correct score, which would probably be too stringent here. But correctly answering 7 out of 10 fairly easy questions (that are really nothing more than DMOZ FAQs) would force people into at least a basic understanding.

Once someone passes the quiz, place a cookie that expires in 30 days. If they don't submit within that time, they have to take the quiz again.

As a submitter, it would be a fair deal to me. In exchange for understanding ODP, I get the chance to have my site reviewed and perhaps listed for free. It's a high value proposition for me.

I like that idea - having questions like:

How often should I resubmit my site?

A. Once a month
B. Never
C. If I don't see it listed in a month.
D. Every 15 minutes

[Ok D. is sarcasm, since I just deleted a site that was submitted twice in 15 minutes.

How many categories should I submit to?

If the categroy has no named editor?

A. Submit to another category that has an editor
B. Ignore it.
C. Submit to the first category at a higher level that has an editor.
D. Don't bother submitting, the site will never be reviewed.

What is the appropriate amount to pay an editor to get my site listed sooner?
A. Whatever you feel like
B. Between $25 and $200
C. Never ever think about doing this.
D. Only pay if you get a good description and it raises your PR.

DMOZ/ODP sucks and has no relevance anymore
A. Yes, I agree and will not submit my site.
B. Yes, but all I care about Google, what's the next question.
C. No, I disagree, I only want to get my site listed there for the good of humanity.

Choose one of the following
A. ODP is owned by Google
B. Google is owned by ODP
C. Google is one of many users of ODP data.
D. ODP and Google are the same thing

To clarify, I really do think it would be a good idea to have some kind of front end question and answer to qualify to make a site suggestion, I'm sure it would weed out a lot of the wasted time submissions. As to the technical problems, I can't comment.

Maybe it would help with this - since the start of July when reviewing sites

130 DELETED as being duplicate submissions, under construction or already listed.

150 MOVED to another category, mostly because the site was not in English.

10 Updates to descriptions refused, since the description totally violated the guidelines, or URL changes refused since the old URL still worked

Note: some of the content of this message based on an earlier posting by Heiduska​

loncall911 wrote:
People must pass a quiz before they can submit.

Click to expand...

It is unfortunate that this suggestion was met with (mainly) sarcastic replies. Why not take it seriously?

As a matter of making things clear, as well as being a little more upfront and honest about the process, I’d suggest adding the following to the current URL suggestion form.

Prior to suggesting a URL, please read the following:

The Open Directory Project is a Web directory, not a search engine or website listing service. It is managed by volunteer editors, and there is not, nor will there ever be, a cost to submit a site to the directory, and/or to use the directory's data.

The editors' tasks include searching for sites to add to the directory, reviewing and revising currently included sites and, while not a priority, reviewing user-suggested URLs for inclusion.

There are currently over 300,000 suggested URLs awaiting review. The URLs are reviewed in no particular order, and may be reviewed by any number of editors regardless of whether or not the category you are submitting to has a named editor. Depending on numerous factors, it may be a matter of minutes, days, weeks, months or even years before your suggestion is reviewed.

In fact, there is no guarantee that your suggested URL will be reviewed at all. Your submission is not, and should not be considered, an application to any search engine. All you are doing is suggesting a website to a team of volunteer librarians.

You will receive no feedback regarding the rejection or inclusion of your suggested URL.

Business owners should not expect that submitting a URL to the ODP will provide ANY results whatsoever.

You must correctly answer the following questions before submitting this form:

Q. How many suggested URLs are waiting to be reviewed?
A. 500 B. 5000 C. over 300,000 D. millions

Q. The ODP guarantees a review of my submission within 48 hours.
A. True B. False

Q. Only the listed editor in this category will be allowed to review my submission.
A. True B. False

Q. The ODP editors are paid, full-time employees.
A. True B. False

Q. The ODP is best described as a:
A. search engine B. Web directory C. website listing service

Q. The cost to be included in the ODP is:
A. free B. $50 C. $250 annually​

It would be a simple matter to come up with a list of questions similar to these, of which four or five would be randomly displayed (along with randomizing the order of their answers). All of the information needed to answer correctly would be contained in the above paragraphs, so the user would need only to actually read them.

I can not imagine any person who legitimately wants to suggest a URL having a problem with this.

I expect that it would, however, reduce the ranting of people who just don’t get it; inhibit automated submissions; and reduce the workload (and aggravation) of the ODP editors.

Prior to suggesting a URL, please read the following:

The Open Directory Project is a Web directory, not a search engine or website listing service. It is managed by volunteer editors, and there is not, nor will there ever be, a cost to submit a site to the directory, and/or to use the directory's data.

The editors' tasks include searching for sites to add to the directory, reviewing and revising currently included sites and, while not a priority, reviewing user-suggested URLs for inclusion.

There are currently over 300,000 suggested URLs awaiting review. The URLs are reviewed in no particular order, and may be reviewed by any number of editors regardless of whether or not the category you are submitting to has a named editor. Depending on numerous factors, it may be a matter of minutes, days, weeks, months or even years before your suggestion is reviewed.

In fact, there is no guarantee that your suggested URL will be reviewed at all. Your submission is not, and should not be considered, an application to any search engine. All you are doing is suggesting a website to a team of volunteer librarians.

You will receive no feedback regarding the rejection or inclusion of your suggested URL.

Business owners should not expect that submitting a URL to the ODP will provide ANY results whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I like the concept of the above, but really struggle with the idea of a quiz. No where in the social contract does it say anything about only considering suggestions from those smart enough to pass a quiz. We consider web sites based on the content of the site, not on smarts or test-taking ability of the submitters, and it is my personal opinion, that putting in any kind of pre-submission test or quiz contravenes the spirit of the social contract.

Who is going to translate that into the several dozens of languages the ODP supports?

The idea of requiring submitters to pass a quiz in order to suggest a site strikes me as being preposterous in the extreme.

wrathchild:

It seems out of line with the rest of the ODP policies to think that a suggested URL would be added to the directory without review.

So, one must assume that, in order for a site to be listed in one of the "several dozens of languages the ODP supports," there must be an editor capable of understanding that language.

Shouldn't he/she also be capable of handling the translation?

From the top of the Suggest URL form:
1. Please take a moment to review some of our submission policies and instructions. It is important that you understand these policies. Failure to understand and follow these policies generally will result in the rejection of a submission.

Click to expand...

From the Open Directory Project Terms of Use:
To use the ODP, you must be legally competent to enter a binding agreement.

Click to expand...

From spectregunner
We consider web sites based on the content of the site, not on smarts or test-taking ability of the submitters,

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should re-read the ODP submission policies and guidelines, spectregunner. Apparently someone at the ODP feels the submitter should have enough "smarts" to read, understand and follow instructions, in order for his/her site to be considered for inclusion.