The current process is based on non-communication, because communication is just flat too risky. You never know when some insistent spammer will show up on your doorstep, or call you at work, or electronically stalk you (just to pick some real-live examples.)
Volunteers just shouldn't have to deal with that. And THAT IS an ethical issue. We signed on to build a directory, not to play russian roulette via e-mail. And ... that communication, risky as it is, DOESN'T HELP US BUILD THE DIRECTORY.
>I believe that in that sort of situation where both sites are suitable the site owner should have some say in which site should be listed.
The site owner has absolute control. Always. There's no need for him to communicate with us through e-mail. All he has to do is indicate, ON THE WEBSITES, which site is the "main site." We're easy; we just list websites based on the content on the website. If "mydoorway.com" clearly is labelled "service provided by mycompany.com", and mycompany.com links to mydoorway.com, then ... that's an end of discussion. The website owner has told everyone which site is the main site, and we absolutely honor that.
The situation that usually arises is more deceptive: "mycompany1.com" and "mycompany2.com", both offering services of the same person, or both supposedly providing income to the same person. But they don't refer to each other in any way.
Now, that person is just flat being dishonest, and there's not a reason on earth to cut him a nanometer of slack. He can count himself receiving grace far beyond his desert, if both sites aren't banned silently. Because an honest person just flat wouldn't BE in his shoes, and there's no reason to listen to his lies by e-mail, any more than there is reason to list either of his sites just because of some webmaster privilege. That's loss of trust. And he worked hard for it, he earned it.
No need to communicate with him: he wanted a reputation as the sort of person who couldn't afford to risk all his reputation in one place ... and he has it.
And people who think like this don't create
"really worthwhile" sites. They just flat. don't. EVER. do. it. It is not something that happens, and we don't need a policy or process to handle that particular nonpossibility. At best, they generate A BARELY-listable site, and if we can't figure out which one it was, then ... they didn't even generate one listable site. They can hardly get into that boat by accident. They work for it. They did it on purpose.
>he should still be made aware of it...
The submittal policy is Moses and the Prophets -- all the awareness training needed. If he won't hear M&TP, then why would he listen to me?
It's fairly simple. The best thing for everyone is to follow the submittal policies. We often cut a bit of slack because ... well, because we're about building a directory, and banning websites doesn't directly contribute to that goal. But this is the key point: people are welcome to help, but they are NOT welcome to bug the help. If people play by the rules, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, we promise it won't bug the help. If people stop trying to help and start trying to push, manipulate, pressure, irritate .... we don't OPEN channels of communication. We slam them shut. If they're not helping, then we don't need their help. And we aren't offering them help under any circumstances anyway. (Remember? Focus on customers!) And if the website is that good, we'll find it on our own eventually....or maybe we'll find something better while we're multitasking -- looking for good websites, and not communicating with pests.
Again, it comes back to attitude. We're here to help surfers: anything that helps surfers is OK. Anything else is on limited sufferance. And with that attitude, it's usually very simple to deal both with priorities and with conflicts of interest.
Webmaster/surfer conflicts of interest must be resolved in favor of the surfer. The webmaster has his own website, and he can express his interest there.
Priority issues must be resolved in "what makes the directory grow more effectively?" And we know by experience that is -- wasting less time on non-helpful submittals. If someone isn't helping, there's no need to tell them to go away on the net. You can just shun them. And they aren't a problem any more, no matter how hard they try. And THAT'S all that matters. Trying to serve the interests of pestilential communicators ... is a waste of valuable editing time. Let them serve their own interests, ELSEWHERE, out of sight and out of mind of the editors. Their website will have to speak for itself. (But that's what it always comes down to: suggestions help us find and rough-categorize sites. But at review time, all that matters is the site itself. So what does it matter if communication that doesn't matter, doesn't even happen?
. Guess what, the problem with that offender goes away.