Status for http://Swing8.com

Dear Folks,

Please let me know the status of http://Swing8.com, submitted to
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Swing/

I’ve tried to follow all the rules to submit this site correctly, and we have very unique content. If I’m doing something wrong, would you please let me know?

Sincerely,
Hal Segal

What was the date of submission? Thanks.

Djdeeds,
Thanks for your response. Here are approximate times, because I'm afraid that I did not write down the exact dates: I first started submitting this site in October to Arts>Performing Arts>Dance>Swing>Studios and Performing Groups. After over a month of no response, in November I changed and submitted to Arts>Performing Arts>Dance>Swing, which I then thought was probably a better fit. But I began to suspect that my submission was not getting through since I never received a response, so I submitted it again several times in the last 6 weeks. Boy, this is frustrating. It would be relatively easy to have the dmoz computer automaticly respond by email acknowledging receipt and giving a submission number. And a simple system that allows a submitter to put in the submission number online and get a status report would be very helpful and would avoid many duplicate submissions. It is the lack of communcation that is maddening. If there is something wrong with the submission, it would seem like common courtesy to give the reason, so a diligent submitter could try to rectify any shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Hal Segal

Our approach to the problem you perceive is to explain how people should submit, what the ODP does, and how it does it.

People who follow the submittal policies don't cause problems. People who read the public material to see how the ODP works, will realize, when they think about it, that the submittal policies really tell people how to do the best they can for their sites. And, the fact is, the most effective way to submit a site is almost NEVER dependent on submittal status!

So ... that's all that's needed. We don't need to waste editors' time communicating with spammers--we just ignore them (using social and technical methods we don't need to discuss publicly.). We don't need to hassle people about imperfect submittals -- we just fix them (based on guidelines that ARE available publicly.)

As for your submittal status check request: wait until you're sure it's been a month since your last submittal. Then bump this thread and we'll check it.

Hutcheson,
Thanks for your reply. It HAS been well over a month since my first submission. While I can appreciate that the editors don't want to be bothered by spammers, the result seems to be that diligent non-spammers who are simply trying to get their sites legitimately listed are being treated shabbily. No one likes to be ignored. The way the system is now set up, it encourages repeated submissions simply because we don't know what's going on. If my first submission was not in the best category (and Swing8.com can easily be considered a good fit in more than one), it would have been simple for the editor to simply fix it rather than ignore it. But this was not done in my case. The way the system seems to be set up, since neither of the two categories I submitted to even lists an editor, it was not even apparent that the submissions were being seen by a human being at all.

In any case, can my submission for Swing8.com now be addressed? I'm not trying to be a bother. This is a legitimate site with unique content. I think it would fit in either:
1. Arts: Performing Arts: Dance: Swing or
2. Arts: Performing Arts: Dance: Swing: Studios and Performance Groups

Thanks,
Hal Segal

The first thing to do is to try to establish your bona fides as a non-spamming, guidelines-compliant submitter.

Note carefully the difference between FIRST submittal and LAST submittal, and bump this thread accordingly.

The way the system is set up now, for anyone who bothers to learn how the system is set up, is to encourage precisely two submittals. And we gratefully accept their help.

When submitters turn to the dark side, stop thinking about helping us and start thinking about ways of manipulating us to obtain their desires ... we do not provide services. We do our best to ignore them as efficiently as possible. This means not giving them any information about how and when our (automated and manual) processes are spotting and deleting their submittals. It means doing our best to let submitters' reputations be based on their actions.

This, we think, is the best way to build a directory. If people know what we're doing, then they know how to help us ... and that's all that's needed. If people are trying to do something other than help us, we're content they be frustrated.

Hutcheson,

With all due respect, your comments seem to unfairly judge people like me who simply follow the instructions on the screen, who don't do regular submissions. It is not at all easy to understand the intracacies you describe from the materials that are presented. Where on earth does it say anything about doing precisely two submittals? That is certainly not obvious. And, as a first timer, to be deemed a spammer for submitting three or four times -- after not receiving any communications whatsoever -- is rather insulting.

I'm getting the idea that you think people like me are "problems." The bottom line is that I started this process about two months ago, and now I see that I've been unfairly classed and ignored.

Again, with all due respect, that is a very poor policy. Why not treat people with more courtesy?

You say, "If people know what we're doing, then they know how to help us ... and that's all that's needed. If people are trying to do something other than help us, we're content they be frustrated." Why would you leap to the conclusion that I'm trying to manipulate the system or not be helpful? And by what cruel logic do you think that it is acceptable business behavior to frustrate others and treat them with distain? Would it not be more effective to simply point out to people a problem and then let them attempt to take corrective action?

Finally, I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean when you say, "Note carefully the difference between FIRST submittal and LAST submittal, and bump this thread accordingly." What does bump this thread mean?

We've been going back and forth, but are you going to help me or are we just going to keep talking in circles without accomplishing anything?

Sincerely,
Hal Segal

There are two types of spammers - those that intentionally and willfully abuse the system, and those that fail to read the instructions. Since in the end, from my personal point of view as an editor, either type makes extra work for me, and slow down the edits of those sites who owners took the time to follow the instructions -- I don't distinguish between them. They are equally annoying.

Insulting?

What editors find insulting, is people submitting sites, spending a little time as possible, to write a good description, to read the instructions, to find the right category, to read the category description, and then expect an editor to spend far more time editing and reviewing that site as soon as possible.

When you submitted your site you agreed you had read the instructions ==> http://www.dmoz.org/add.htm

Those instructions include the following

Identify the single best category for your site. The Open Directory has an enormous array of subjects to choose from. You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed.

Again, multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.

If a site you submitted has not been listed after a month, you may check its status at the dmoz public forums.

So maybe that's why you don't get a lot of sympathy.

As far as first and last submission date - you can find that in this forum's guidelines - the link that says Read Before Posting http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=396

Bumping the thread - I though was a common internet expression, but maybe we should define it. It means reply to this thread, when the time is right, with a short message to cause it to get bumped to the top of the list.

In response to bobrat:

Okay, I'm getting the idea. Courtesy is out the window. Anyone with a question is considered "a problem." Even if the distinctions between categories are unclear, if you choose the wrong one in the opinion of the editor, you need to wait many more months for a reply. You'll be penalized if you ask for the status more than once. If a submitter complains about the non-responsiveness of the system, it will be defended and justified. Problems with the way the system is set up are not even acknowledged, and suggestions for improvement dismissed. Of course, judging from this merry-go-round, one should not expect an answer to the original question of the status of one's submission. And, finally, if you don't like a decision, not matter how arbitrary or unreasonable, you are out of luck.

And if I'm frustrated, well, according to bobrat, that's just fine because he thinks I'm annoying, regardless of my good intentions and the legitimacy of my submission.

Now, after I've said this, I hope the dmoz editor for http://dmoz.org/Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Swing/
will not now retaliate by further delaying the listing of Swing8.com.

Sincerely,
Hal Segal

I don't think most editors work that way. If I site is worth listing it will be listed, despite what anyone says in these forums. The only exception might be if someone indicates he is in the middle of a law suit with AOL/Time Warner regarding his site listing.

A person with a question is not a problem, but indeed a person who ignores the guidelines is a problem. I don't consider it a lack of courtesy to say that.

Since I believe you have submitted your site within the last 30 days, that is why you are not getting an answer to your question. Since this forum operates on rule that you should not ask within a month of your last submission, then complaining about that, seems somewhat specious.

If I'm wrong and you did not submit in the last 30 days, feel free to say so.

And, finally, if you don't like a decision, not matter how arbitrary or unreasonable, you are out of luck.

Click to expand...

Very true. It says that is this forum and it says it here http://www.dmoz.org/add.html

Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion. You should not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. Please understand that an editor's exercise of discretion may not always treat all submissions equally. You may not always agree with our choices, but we hope you recognize that we do our best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

Since I did not keep track of my submission dates, and since the dmoz system does not acknowledge a submission with a email that would provide this date, I guess I now have no choice but wait another few weeks before asking again. As I said before I, started this over two months ago, and submitted several times again since then, thinking that it might not have been received. And since my site is constantly being improved, there does not seem to be a way to alert the editor of this without resubmitting. Well, after all this back and forth, I've learned a lot about how jaded the editors apparently are. Despite all the talk, no one is apparently willing to help.

Merry Christmas, everyone... I guess in the grand scheme of things, I should stop fretting about a stupid website.

Sincerely,
Hal Segal

I never said you were a problem, I never said you weren't a problem. I described the two kinds of people we deal with, and how (in our experience) they may most effectively be dealt with.

I don't know you, and I don't want to judge you. It is, and always will be, your choice what kind of person you perceive yourself to be, and what kind of person you try to be. All I want to do is ensure that IF you want to be the helpful kind of person and not a problem-causer, you know how to do that.

Now you have that information.

And you also know that the submittal actions you described are, at the very worst, not a problem we can't trivially solve with the tools we have ... and possibly are such a minor problem that we would never have noticed at all. And specifically, that they haven't been so rude as to prevent your site from being reviewed on its merits.

My point is that we DON'T have any problem -- not from helpful people, not from spammers, and therefore (however you categorize yourself), most specifically NOT from you -- that would be addressed by the solution you propose. How you got from there to the conclusion that you WERE a problem, is a bit puzzling to me. I'm glad you mentioned it, though, so that I could clear it up. This (like, unfortunately, a lot of the myths about the ODP) are so incredible to an editor that we can't imagine having to debunk them. Well, live and learn.

There's a reason for our making responses as general as possible. You may be simply an ignorant submitter, but many people may read this thread, and, I hope, get useful and practical information for it.

For pure spammers, the message is: We absolutely aren't going to tell you when we're on to you, but you're wasting your time, not ours.

For polite and informed submitters, the message is: we won't discriminate against you just for that reason.

For ignorant submitters, the message is: live and learn. We're more interested in having you know how to do well, than punishing you for ignorant solecisms.

For people who are tempted to let their greed overcome common courtesy, just because this is the net and nobody knows, the message is: you might as well be polite and follow the guidelines, because rudeness doesn't impose an obligation on the editors to give you special treatment.

Hutcheson,

In the spirit of the season -- it is Christmas eve, after all -- I can certainly acknowledge and appreciate the good intentions of the apparently-overworked volunteer moderators.

But can you acknowledge that the system, the way it is set up, and the way people's submissions are not even acknowledged, is very unfriendly and exasperating for users? And can you acknowledge that to purposefully frustrate people who are legitimate submitters is a bit on the cruel side?

Why not be open to suggestions for improvement instead of repeatedly defending such an unfriendly system? What would be so hard about having the system send an acknowlegement email after receiving a submission that says, "Thank you for your submission. Please be aware that because of our backlog of submissions to review, no response should be expected for x days, and that duplicate submissions for the same website will delay the review of your initial submission."? Such an email module would be a piece of cake to program, cost almost nothing to run and maintain, and it would give the user something tangible to ease his mind during the lengthy waiting period.

Here's another relatively simple idea: Every time a duplicate submission is received for a website that has not yet been acted upon, have the system respond with the following on screen: "Thank you for your submission. Our records show that this website was already submitted for consideration on xx/xx/xxxx, and that it has not yet been acted upon. If you wish to proceed to replace the previous submission with this new one, the process will start over on today's date and the earlier submission will be disguarded. In light of this, do you want to proceed with this new submission? [YES] [NO]"

But, now that I consider it, it is not clear why a new submission should start the process over again. After all, if no action has yet been taken, why not respond in the following more-user-friendly fashion: "Thank you for your submission. Our records show that this website was already submitted for consideration on xx/xx/xxxx, and that it has not yet been acted upon. So the text of your new submission now replaces the text of the previous submission, and you still are in our queue based upon the initial submission date. Feel free to rewrite the text of your submission at any time in order to improve the chances of your website's acceptance."

Simple system changes like this would engender gratitude rather than frustration. Why not seek to make the process more friendly and helpful to submitters? And the result will be that the moderators will probably get better written proposals that require less time to review.

Sincerely,

Hal Segal

Status of http://Swing8.com

Dear Folks,

I've waited more than a month. Could someone now please let me know the status of http://Swing8.com, submitted to
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Swing/

I’ve tried to follow all the rules to submit this site correctly, and we have very unique content.

Sincerely,
Hal Segal

[r]recd[/r]

Happy new year.

Dear djdeeds,
Thanks for your reply on the forum that my submission has been received but not yet acted upon. It was first submitted in October, almost four months ago, with an updated submission over one month ago. Why is this taking so long? Could you tell me if it is being held up for some reason?
Sincerely,
Hal Segal

Four months is not a very long to wait. The only hold up is that no one has reviewed it yet. That can take some time. For additional reading, check out our FAQ page How long until my site will be reviewed?

If you don't see it listed 6 months from djdeeds' post, feel free to bump this thread and ask for a status check. Other than that all you can do, I'm afraid, is wait.