You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Interesting how you try and swamp one contributor with submissions from an over bearing number of editors, the lonely contributer feels quite overwhelmed.
It seems to me they would look at a few of the links and use those as a general indicator of the general link quality. Affiliate sites link to each other all the time, though, and not always with affiliate tags, so link popularity could be faked nicely. I think the system of just looking at the site is the most effective. Why do you ask, though?
<added> What do you mean, swamping? No one's dumping anything on anyone else here-- we're all just contributing, right? You can't blame us for wanting to be extra helpful on such a popular issue <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> </added>
<added> What do you mean, swamping? No one's dumping anything on anyone else here-- we're all just contributing, right? You can't blame us for wanting to be extra helpful on such a popular issue <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> </added>
I'm sorry since I seemed to have got you all in a tiz over an objective and interesting debate, but I have to ask, where do I find the members forum where this thread has been moved to?
I can see the point if a site had a large number of affiliate links that outweighed the other listings.
It is impossible for an ODP editor to check every single page of every single site - therefore most of the time, we take a random sample. We pick two or three sections of a site and see the content. If those randomly chosen sections are 'under construction' or just filled with affiliate links, then we would take that as a good cross-section of the site. Ok, a site may have only 3 out of 10 categories dedicated to being just affiliate content, but without spending hours upon hours on each site (and letting the already quite large backlog of unreviewed sites grow even larger) it is not possible for an editor to do that. If a section is marked 'Under construction' or 'The following pages are provided by sponsers/affiliates' then we _may_ avoid those sections (dependent on the editor).
If a DMOZ editor had any doubts in that regard would they check to see how many sites linked to the site in question
Each site is judged on it's own merits. Just because 1,000 other sites (which could just be by the same webmaster or by getting their 'button' on the bottom of each page by some sort of link-agreement) link to one site, doesn't mean that the content is good.
totally independant sites
You'll be surprised at the number of times we (the hard-working volunteer editors of ODP) hear this phrase and then, when we look into the sites 'in-depth', we find out that they aren't quite as 'totally independent' as first appears. Take, what seems to be this thread's 'token example' - a shopping directory. You may say a web design orientated company that specialises in GIF images and Adult websites is a 'totally independent site' which links to the shopping directory - but editors have, due to experience, know where to look for 'links' like this.
Affilates link to each other ROFL!!! It's not so in this case! Do you think that major international stores have an agreement to link to a small (to them directory!!!!?) no, never! If you are going to make a statement please don't make it in utter ignorance.
I wasn't aware that anyone was in 'a tiz' ... but I've been wrong about these things before. *shrug* ;-)
<added> In this case? What case? </added>
<added> In this case? What case? </added>
Look, if editors take it upon themselves to decide the fate of a site then surely they know how to check the number of links to a site. It takes nano seconds, it's not going to take up their precious time, it's invaluable information. You cannot simply make a rapid, gut feeling about a site. I understand you have to have simple to understand criteria but your guidelines dictate that you must ignore affiliate advertising, turn a blind eye to it doesn't it say? You need to judge a site on how useful it is. My starting thread "Search Engines" was to try and point out a simple fact. (I'm sorry I'm ranting it's important) directories are no different to search Engines, they do not pretend to be Portals where you might find added on information, some try and fall between the two but take a really careful look and you will see that most shopping directories all use the same affiliate schemes and they all blatently push them, they all have the same banners from the same companies, some of different sizes. My beef is that my site is no different, in fact it has far more independand sites listed than any other, if you can give me an example of a site which has more I'll eat my hat!
glynis, you are making light weight comments, please stay out of this unless you can make a solid point
Do you think that major international stores have an agreement to link to a small (to them directory!!!!?) no, never!
Actually, quite a few have similar agreements to this. Those ODP editors that have been on the internet for many many years are aware of all sorts of agreements like this - from the LinkShare one-way agreements (small directories linking to large sites by the way of affiliate tags) to specific 'partner sites' pages. I admit, not all 'major international stores' do this, but it is not unknown for it to happen.
And, I'll have to back up fellow editor glynis and ask >> It's not so in this case! <<. What case? Is there a specific site you are on about (if so, why not disclose the URL unless you've got something to hide).
If you are going to make a statement please don't make it in utter ignorance.
Sometimes ODP editors know a lot more about certain industry sectors than we let people believe. We've got editors who have dedicated their whole lifes to specific industries (from bricks-and-mortar stores, to education to 'Adult-orientated' areas) and therefore know how certain 'segments' of people 'work'. Information is exchanged on internal forums and other methods of communication and, therefore, editors are aware of many many 'tricks of the trade' that are employed by unscrupulous webmasters who just want to get their site listed under any circumstances (some even resort to threats of legal action, which is quite funny as it is made clear at the ODP that no site is guaranteed a listing: it's a standing joke amongst editors that we haven't yet heard of a successful court case against Google or Yahoo for not listing a content-less spam-filled affiliate site).
I've got nothing to hide, I have given the sites URL but the thread was deleted on the submissions forum. Ask apeuro all about it. I have the feeling I have hit a raw nerve, at least apeuro has had the guts to let the debate continue.
Is anyone here capable of answering a point with a straight answer or do you all slip and slide, make another point, move on, add confusion, fuzzy minded, complicate things. are you all academics? Anyone run their own business?
Capability is no more the issue than knowledge, of which I'll assure you we all have more than it aids your case for us to have. Your question's been answered quite sufficiently, I'd argue.
Look, if editors take it upon themselves to decide the fate of a site then surely they know how to check the number of links to a site
Why should it matter though? Is it important how many sites like to a site? Does it increase the 'quality' of a site? If I wanted to, I could stick up an advertisement on LinkExchange/Bcentral and have over 10,000 sites linking to mine (I do have the credits on LE/BC to do that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ), but it wouldn't make my site any 'better'.
It takes nano seconds, it's not going to take up their precious time
Erm, no - it actually takes quite some time to do. I think you are under the impression that the ODP is some sort of conveyor-belt where editors just go 'yes - let it in', 'no -dump it' in under a minute per site. Wrong. We look at a site and then we spend time (which we are volunteering remember) to give the site a good review. Sometimes this can take an hour (it has happened where I've spent 3 hours reviewing a single site as I could tell it had content that was worthwhile listing and therefore I spent the time reviewing it). If, however, we do come across a site which seems to offer 'nothing unique worth listing', then we aren't going to spend 3 hours hunting down for a single page of the site worth listing - we'll decline it a listing and move onto sites that _are_ worth lisitng.
You need to judge a site on how useful it is
And we do. All the time we think for the 'view point' from a searcher - Joe Public. We think - "if a searcher came across this site - would it be worth spending the time on this site.
I understand you have to have simple to understand criteria but your guidelines dictate that you must ignore affiliate advertising, turn a blind eye to it doesn't it say?
Erm - have a look at our editor guidelines if you want. We have nothing to hid. You may, however, be interested in the following paragrah entitled 'Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links' where it states : >> Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory <<
My beef is that my site is no different, in fact it has far more independand sites listed than any other, if you can give me an example of a site which has more I'll eat my hat!
Oooh, I like a challenge <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> . http://www.hometown.co.uk/ seems to have quite a large number (and a quick view of the site failed to show any 'affiliate tagged' sites in the directory results. http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/ also has a large number of independent sites listed. If you give us an exact number of the number of indepedent ones you have on your site (i.e. that you _don't_ get paid money for), then I'm sure we can find many many sites which will enable you to have a nice hat-meal.
*sigh* I wish you'd wait for me to finish composing my reply before you post again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Give us a straight question and we'll give you a straight answer. Give us a roundabout-style loaded question and you'll get nice fuzzy answers back.
Well, I did attend college a few years ago, but at the moment, I'm running my own small business (which I've been doing on a part-time basis for many years now, and while I haven't yet made the 'big-bucks' I do make more than enough to cover my costs).
Do you mean the No Submit Button, Editors E-mail link not working thread? If you _were_ webmaster45, then, yep, we are more than aware of your URL - and you were told that your site was rejected for listing for being, what appeared to (now several editors) to be mainly affiliate links. If you weren't webmaster45, then my apologies. It's just that webmaster45, when told their site wasn't appropriate for listing, tried to deceive the editors by stating things like '99.9% not affiliate links' and when an editor showed them that it was not the case, went quite off the deep-end of things.
People are more than welcome to have civil conversations about just about any aspect of the ODP here, but once it starts going into mud-flinging style fits where accusations are flying about - then a stop must be put to the conversation. I, personally, think (and hope) we are all mature adults here - but sometimes people do lie and attempt to deceive even when evidence is presented in front of them and when they can't "get their own way".
Is anyone here capable of answering a point with a straight answer
Give us a straight question and we'll give you a straight answer. Give us a roundabout-style loaded question and you'll get nice fuzzy answers back.
are you all academics? Anyone run their own business?
Well, I did attend college a few years ago, but at the moment, I'm running my own small business (which I've been doing on a part-time basis for many years now, and while I haven't yet made the 'big-bucks' I do make more than enough to cover my costs).
I've got nothing to hide, I have given the sites URL but the thread was deleted on the submissions forum
Do you mean the No Submit Button, Editors E-mail link not working thread? If you _were_ webmaster45, then, yep, we are more than aware of your URL - and you were told that your site was rejected for listing for being, what appeared to (now several editors) to be mainly affiliate links. If you weren't webmaster45, then my apologies. It's just that webmaster45, when told their site wasn't appropriate for listing, tried to deceive the editors by stating things like '99.9% not affiliate links' and when an editor showed them that it was not the case, went quite off the deep-end of things.
People are more than welcome to have civil conversations about just about any aspect of the ODP here, but once it starts going into mud-flinging style fits where accusations are flying about - then a stop must be put to the conversation. I, personally, think (and hope) we are all mature adults here - but sometimes people do lie and attempt to deceive even when evidence is presented in front of them and when they can't "get their own way".
beebware, fair enough to make detailed points in reply, you won't mind if I do the same.
In Reply To :-
Why should it matter though? Is it important how many sites like to a site? Does it increase the 'quality' of a site? If I wanted to, I could stick up an advertisement on LinkExchange/Bcentral and have over 10,000 sites linking to mine (I do have the credits on LE/BC to do that ), but it wouldn't make my site any 'better'.
---------------------------------------------------------
The sites that link to my site are independant businesses. It doesn't compare in any way to LE/BC. a stupid comparison if I may say so.
In Reply to :-
It takes nano seconds, it's not going to take up their precious time
Erm, no - it actually takes quite some time to do. I think you are under the impression that the ODP is some sort of conveyor-belt where editors just go 'yes - let it in', 'no -dump it' in under a minute per site. Wrong. We look at a site and then we spend time (which we are volunteering remember) to give the site a good review. Sometimes this can take an hour (it has happened where I've spent 3 hours reviewing a single site as I could tell it had content that was worthwhile listing and therefore I spent the time reviewing it). If, however, we do come across a site which seems to offer 'nothing unique worth listing', then we aren't going to spend 3 hours hunting down for a single page of the site worth listing - we'll decline it a listing and move onto sites that _are_ worth lisitng.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You have entered into a rant, I'm not under the impression that you all don't work ever so hard for no money, you do it for ego or self fulfilment or some other high aim. I was merely saying that it takes nano seconds to check how many sites link to a site, depending on the site this should be taken into accoount, surely. Are you arguing that when you look at a site for hours, if it has no links it is as important as a site that has thousands? Come on, pull the other one!
In reply To :-
You need to judge a site on how useful it is
And we do. All the time we think for the 'view point' from a searcher - Joe Public. We think - "if a searcher came across this site - would it be worth spending the time on this site.
---------------------------------------------------------
And a site that has millions of uniques a year is not in your view considered useful to a surfer? Why do you think it gets so many hits year in year out?
In Reply to :-
I understand you have to have simple to understand criteria but your guidelines dictate that you must ignore affiliate advertising, turn a blind eye to it doesn't it say?
Erm - have a look at our editor guidelines if you want. We have nothing to hid. You may, however, be interested in the following paragrah entitled 'Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links' where it states : >> Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory <<
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taken from DMOZ guidelines :-
General rule of thumb: Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP.
My site is unique, it contains links to hundreds of sites that other sites do not link. We link all shopping sites not just shopping sites with secure servers, this makes us unique and thus we get submissions from businesses who wouldn't be listed elsewhere.
In Reply To :-
My beef is that my site is no different, in fact it has far more independand sites listed than any other, if you can give me an example of a site which has more I'll eat my hat!
Oooh, I like a challenge . http://www.hometown.co.uk/ seems to have quite a large number (and a quick view of the site failed to show any 'affiliate tagged' sites in the directory results. http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/ also has a large number of independent sites listed. If you give us an exact number of the number of indepedent ones you have on your site (i.e. that you _don't_ get paid money for), then I'm sure we can find many many sites which will enable you to have a nice hat-meal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now you are simply being flippant!
In Reply To :-
Why should it matter though? Is it important how many sites like to a site? Does it increase the 'quality' of a site? If I wanted to, I could stick up an advertisement on LinkExchange/Bcentral and have over 10,000 sites linking to mine (I do have the credits on LE/BC to do that ), but it wouldn't make my site any 'better'.
---------------------------------------------------------
The sites that link to my site are independant businesses. It doesn't compare in any way to LE/BC. a stupid comparison if I may say so.
In Reply to :-
It takes nano seconds, it's not going to take up their precious time
Erm, no - it actually takes quite some time to do. I think you are under the impression that the ODP is some sort of conveyor-belt where editors just go 'yes - let it in', 'no -dump it' in under a minute per site. Wrong. We look at a site and then we spend time (which we are volunteering remember) to give the site a good review. Sometimes this can take an hour (it has happened where I've spent 3 hours reviewing a single site as I could tell it had content that was worthwhile listing and therefore I spent the time reviewing it). If, however, we do come across a site which seems to offer 'nothing unique worth listing', then we aren't going to spend 3 hours hunting down for a single page of the site worth listing - we'll decline it a listing and move onto sites that _are_ worth lisitng.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You have entered into a rant, I'm not under the impression that you all don't work ever so hard for no money, you do it for ego or self fulfilment or some other high aim. I was merely saying that it takes nano seconds to check how many sites link to a site, depending on the site this should be taken into accoount, surely. Are you arguing that when you look at a site for hours, if it has no links it is as important as a site that has thousands? Come on, pull the other one!
In reply To :-
You need to judge a site on how useful it is
And we do. All the time we think for the 'view point' from a searcher - Joe Public. We think - "if a searcher came across this site - would it be worth spending the time on this site.
---------------------------------------------------------
And a site that has millions of uniques a year is not in your view considered useful to a surfer? Why do you think it gets so many hits year in year out?
In Reply to :-
I understand you have to have simple to understand criteria but your guidelines dictate that you must ignore affiliate advertising, turn a blind eye to it doesn't it say?
Erm - have a look at our editor guidelines if you want. We have nothing to hid. You may, however, be interested in the following paragrah entitled 'Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links' where it states : >> Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory <<
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taken from DMOZ guidelines :-
General rule of thumb: Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP.
My site is unique, it contains links to hundreds of sites that other sites do not link. We link all shopping sites not just shopping sites with secure servers, this makes us unique and thus we get submissions from businesses who wouldn't be listed elsewhere.
In Reply To :-
My beef is that my site is no different, in fact it has far more independand sites listed than any other, if you can give me an example of a site which has more I'll eat my hat!
Oooh, I like a challenge . http://www.hometown.co.uk/ seems to have quite a large number (and a quick view of the site failed to show any 'affiliate tagged' sites in the directory results. http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/ also has a large number of independent sites listed. If you give us an exact number of the number of indepedent ones you have on your site (i.e. that you _don't_ get paid money for), then I'm sure we can find many many sites which will enable you to have a nice hat-meal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now you are simply being flippant!
Ok, >> Is it important how many sites like to a site? <<. The point I was trying to make is that - "No, it isn't important". I just used the 'I can make 10,000 of sites link to mine' as an example of that.
>> I'm not under the impression that you all don't work ever so hard for no money, you do it for ego or self fulfilment or some other high aim <<
Well, you'll actually be surprised. Why do people work in Charity shops and the like? (I've actually spent 3 years working for charitable organisations btw). No 'ego or self-fulfilment' there. Why do people spend time helping others? Just because they like to be helpful. The ODP's aim is to be the largest and most useful web directory in the world - an aim it has already achieved in my eyes - but editors are so committed to the whole project that we want our "baby" to be even better than it already is.
>> I was merely saying that ..how many sites link to a site.. should be taken into accoount, surely. <<
Nope. Or, if it _should_ be taken into account then the editors were never informed of this fact. We abide by the editor guidelines which have been developed over the years by editors and ODP staff alike and "outline the principles and standards governing the ODP's editorial content and community activity".
>> And a site that has millions of uniques a year is not in your view considered useful to a surfer <<
We do not have access to most sites visitor logs (we don't even have access to those of the ODP). Why? Well, it's not important. We have listed many many sites when they only had a few visitors a month and now they have millions. For example, http://www.google.com/ has been listed since the start of 1999 and it's only really been in the last year or two that Google has increased in popularity. We do not discriminate between 'large multinational businesses' and 'Fred Bloggs' style sites as the 'business model' does not matter to us: only content filled, worth-while listing sites do.
>> Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. <<
This is what I, and other editors, have done with your site. I did it and the content was greatly reduced. For a good random example, I got the front page of your site and then spun by mouse wheel three times. It ended up at the 'Fitness' section so in I went. I then edited the page to remove affiliate links. I ended up with _32_ unique links and _33_ affiliate links. That's more than 50% - and doesn't include things like Amazon links etc etc (or stuff that's automagically blocked by my firewall).
And contining on the same portion of the guideline >> If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, <<
This is the section your site falls down on. What original, valuable and informational content does remain on your site? No reviews of the sites in question - no ratings system - nadda. _That's_ the reason your site was denied a listing: lack of original content.
>> We link all shopping sites not just shopping sites with secure servers, this makes us unique <<
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. Quite a number of sites on that list have secure and non-secure listings (not that I would personally trust a non-secure site to do any sort of shopping from but...)
Oh, your site does say >> Best Shopping Site : QQQQ is ranked the most popular UK Shopping Directory << but I've managed to easily find another site that says >> Welcome to UKXXXXX, the most comprehensive, popular and easy to use shopping directory in the UK <<<. Two sites being the "most popular"? Oh, and a nice Google search for most popular shopping directory helps reveal that most of your 'inbound indepedent links' are actually from what we refer to as 'FFA' pages (Free For All) - where Fred Bloggs can just add their site to a long list of other sites on the page without much human intervention.
>> Now you are simply being flippant! <<
You started it! <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> As other editors tell you, I'm the sort of person that loves a challenge like you offered, so I took a bite at it - now are you brave enough to take a bite of your own hat or didn't you think somebody would be brave enough to "call your bluff"? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
>> I'm not under the impression that you all don't work ever so hard for no money, you do it for ego or self fulfilment or some other high aim <<
Well, you'll actually be surprised. Why do people work in Charity shops and the like? (I've actually spent 3 years working for charitable organisations btw). No 'ego or self-fulfilment' there. Why do people spend time helping others? Just because they like to be helpful. The ODP's aim is to be the largest and most useful web directory in the world - an aim it has already achieved in my eyes - but editors are so committed to the whole project that we want our "baby" to be even better than it already is.
>> I was merely saying that ..how many sites link to a site.. should be taken into accoount, surely. <<
Nope. Or, if it _should_ be taken into account then the editors were never informed of this fact. We abide by the editor guidelines which have been developed over the years by editors and ODP staff alike and "outline the principles and standards governing the ODP's editorial content and community activity".
>> And a site that has millions of uniques a year is not in your view considered useful to a surfer <<
We do not have access to most sites visitor logs (we don't even have access to those of the ODP). Why? Well, it's not important. We have listed many many sites when they only had a few visitors a month and now they have millions. For example, http://www.google.com/ has been listed since the start of 1999 and it's only really been in the last year or two that Google has increased in popularity. We do not discriminate between 'large multinational businesses' and 'Fred Bloggs' style sites as the 'business model' does not matter to us: only content filled, worth-while listing sites do.
>> Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. <<
This is what I, and other editors, have done with your site. I did it and the content was greatly reduced. For a good random example, I got the front page of your site and then spun by mouse wheel three times. It ended up at the 'Fitness' section so in I went. I then edited the page to remove affiliate links. I ended up with _32_ unique links and _33_ affiliate links. That's more than 50% - and doesn't include things like Amazon links etc etc (or stuff that's automagically blocked by my firewall).
And contining on the same portion of the guideline >> If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, <<
This is the section your site falls down on. What original, valuable and informational content does remain on your site? No reviews of the sites in question - no ratings system - nadda. _That's_ the reason your site was denied a listing: lack of original content.
>> We link all shopping sites not just shopping sites with secure servers, this makes us unique <<
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. Quite a number of sites on that list have secure and non-secure listings (not that I would personally trust a non-secure site to do any sort of shopping from but...)
Oh, your site does say >> Best Shopping Site : QQQQ is ranked the most popular UK Shopping Directory << but I've managed to easily find another site that says >> Welcome to UKXXXXX, the most comprehensive, popular and easy to use shopping directory in the UK <<<. Two sites being the "most popular"? Oh, and a nice Google search for most popular shopping directory helps reveal that most of your 'inbound indepedent links' are actually from what we refer to as 'FFA' pages (Free For All) - where Fred Bloggs can just add their site to a long list of other sites on the page without much human intervention.
>> Now you are simply being flippant! <<
You started it! <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> As other editors tell you, I'm the sort of person that loves a challenge like you offered, so I took a bite at it - now are you brave enough to take a bite of your own hat or didn't you think somebody would be brave enough to "call your bluff"? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Okay, let me first of all answer your well made points
>> Well, you'll actually be surprised. Why do people work in Charity shops and the like? (I've actually spent 3 years working for charitable organisations btw). No 'ego or self-fulfilment' there. Why do people spend time helping others? Just because they like to be helpful. The ODP's aim is to be the largest and most useful web directory in the world - an aim it has already achieved in my eyes - but editors are so committed to the whole project that we want our "baby" to be even better than it already is.
Helping in Charity Shops is laudable. Since you raise this I'll explain why I developed my site. My wife is a diabetic with renal failure. She is in Peritoneal Dialysis, I am as you say in America her care giver. I need to be able to work from home to help with her care. I developed a web site for the renal unit for free, this is partly supported by my other site :-
Renal Patients Site
I can see your wish to make the open directory a better and better site but it's often hard to find what you are searching for.
I can see where you are coming from with your remaining points however I do wish to try and explain how I see things from a different perspective.
To my mind it doesn't matter if a site has 100% affliate links as long as it provides a useful function. Many people find it much quicker and easier to use a directory rather than a search engine. As a reviewer said of my site "it's so easy to use, with just need two clicks you are shopping!". So it provides a very useful function for the surfer. It doesn't need to have reviews and added content, to me they are spurious and simply do not add value to the way the site has been constructed. If people prefer to use sites with additional content then they will, but a good few seem to prefer using mine. They can't make the choice now through the open directory, it has been denied to them.
To my mind there's nothing wrong with hidden affiliate links. They don't have a bearing on how the site is used, they are not intrusive. It makes no difference to the surfer. It does make a difference to the companies who partly rely on them to send them traffic. These companies employ people, they no doubt employ your friends, relations and open directory colleages. Sites such as mine are very important in this way. A true calculation of the proportion of independants to affiates on my site is that affiliates amount to about 5% of the listings. 95% are small independant businesses who need the traffic, some rely on it entirely. There's nothing wrong with ordering from a site that doesn't have a secure server, you just pick up the phone in the old fashioned way. Small businesses have to be able to start out and be supported.
Well, that's how I view things, it's different to how you views things but that's what makes the world go round. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Now I have to concentrate on my business. Take care. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
>> Well, you'll actually be surprised. Why do people work in Charity shops and the like? (I've actually spent 3 years working for charitable organisations btw). No 'ego or self-fulfilment' there. Why do people spend time helping others? Just because they like to be helpful. The ODP's aim is to be the largest and most useful web directory in the world - an aim it has already achieved in my eyes - but editors are so committed to the whole project that we want our "baby" to be even better than it already is.
Helping in Charity Shops is laudable. Since you raise this I'll explain why I developed my site. My wife is a diabetic with renal failure. She is in Peritoneal Dialysis, I am as you say in America her care giver. I need to be able to work from home to help with her care. I developed a web site for the renal unit for free, this is partly supported by my other site :-
Renal Patients Site
I can see your wish to make the open directory a better and better site but it's often hard to find what you are searching for.
I can see where you are coming from with your remaining points however I do wish to try and explain how I see things from a different perspective.
To my mind it doesn't matter if a site has 100% affliate links as long as it provides a useful function. Many people find it much quicker and easier to use a directory rather than a search engine. As a reviewer said of my site "it's so easy to use, with just need two clicks you are shopping!". So it provides a very useful function for the surfer. It doesn't need to have reviews and added content, to me they are spurious and simply do not add value to the way the site has been constructed. If people prefer to use sites with additional content then they will, but a good few seem to prefer using mine. They can't make the choice now through the open directory, it has been denied to them.
To my mind there's nothing wrong with hidden affiliate links. They don't have a bearing on how the site is used, they are not intrusive. It makes no difference to the surfer. It does make a difference to the companies who partly rely on them to send them traffic. These companies employ people, they no doubt employ your friends, relations and open directory colleages. Sites such as mine are very important in this way. A true calculation of the proportion of independants to affiates on my site is that affiliates amount to about 5% of the listings. 95% are small independant businesses who need the traffic, some rely on it entirely. There's nothing wrong with ordering from a site that doesn't have a secure server, you just pick up the phone in the old fashioned way. Small businesses have to be able to start out and be supported.
Well, that's how I view things, it's different to how you views things but that's what makes the world go round. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Now I have to concentrate on my business. Take care. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
I am as you say in America her care giver.
I don't know about this because I'm UK based myself <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> And, shall we just say that if you don't want an argument about very very close relative(s) with long-term terminal medical conditions - then you've picked the wrong person... Especially since some of conditions are herditary... (in others words - let's avoid this topic as it'll just end up in a mud-flinging style fight which won't really aid anything to, what seems to be, a currently civil conversation and discussion: agreed?)
To my mind it doesn't matter if a site has 100% affliate links as long as it provides a useful function
Unfortently, it does matter to the ODP as we are not allowed to list sites like this according to the guidelines set up senior editors and staff members. We have had webmasters in the past say 'well, can't you just make an exception for me?', but failure to comply with the editoral guidelines is reason for removal from the ODP: and for those of us who have developed an addiction to ODP - that's a very very scary thought, therefore we follow the ODP guidelines as 'lore'.
They can't make the choice now through the open directory, it has been denied to them.
We are not denying them a choice - only if (for example) ODP was set as their homepage and they could _only_ visit sites listed in ODP would we be denying them a choice (and probably those smaller businesses are already listed on ODP anyway so surfers would still get the choice of those sites).
I know what you are probably trying to say, but I'll give you the 'flip side' to your argument. Small webmaster XYZ with an Adult orientated site comes to you to get their site listed on your shopping directory - would you accept their site for listing? If you don't, you'll be denying your visitors the choice to visit that website... (and, yes, I am aware you do do some work within the Adult industry).
Oh, you may find the"Add a site" page of interest: especially concerning the sentence "We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted" and the section entitled 'Editorial Discretion'.
To my mind there's nothing wrong with hidden affiliate links
Alas, to ODP editors, there is plenty wrong with hidden affiliate links - see above.
Many people find it much quicker and easier to use a directory rather than a search engine.
Yep, and ODP does just happen to be the largest web directory (with over 3.8million sites listed and reviewed by humans), so I think you're preaching to the converted here (and quite an apt phrase for 4pm on a Sunday <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )
As a reviewer said of my site "it's so easy to use, with just need two clicks you are shopping!".
Actually, I can't see any reviews like this on your site. I can find a few from webmasters, but none from actual shoppers... Have you considered adding a page of quotes from 'happy shoppers' at all? Oh, you might want to have a word with Debenhams as I went to their site via yours and even though they have you 5star graphic ("This 5 Star Site graphic simply indicates shops that have a reciprical link with QQQQ") but they do not link back to your site and to me reciprocal links mean a 'you link to me and I'll link to you' sort of thing. Just thought I'd inform you of Debenhams not quite playing fair to you <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
does make a difference to the companies who partly rely on them to send them traffic.
Hmm, so MegaCorp should be happy that they are having to pay 5% or so commission to a webmaster then? Yes, it can work - but if I were MegaCorp, I'd much prefer the money I would pay to affiliates to stay in my back-pocket as profit and for webmasters to link to the MegaCorp website 'out of the kindness of their heart' sort of thing and not for financial gain.
95% are small independant businesses
Hmm, does the following quote sound familiar: >> I strongly maintain that 99.9% of the links on QQQQQ are independant sites << ? (devils advocate mode cancel) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Plus have a look a bit higher up this thread where I took a category of yours at random.
Anyway, good luck with your site and I'm sorry that we are are not able to list your site at the present time for reasons that I hope have become clear. If, however, you really want to get your site listed, then please feel free to have a good look and read at the ODP editor guidelines so that you are aware what we are and aren't looking for in a site.
This thread has long devolved from the Forum Guidelines.
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.