Suggestion for tracking tool.

geoffandamy said:

Ok, well I will ask one more question. This idea has gotten shouted down pretty quick. What I was actually hoping for here is to make a suggestion, give my reasons, get other peoples opinions, and then perhaps have it turn into a productive discussion where maybe one of the guys in the know offers a viable counter suggestion which can be discussed, with the end goal maybe reaching common ground that can be implemented to make the DMOZ experience a little better. I am not married to the idea of this list, I am brainstorming with the hopes that our interaction might be productive. Is that type of discussion possible here?

Click to expand...

geoffandamy, I wouldn't mind having an editor tool that allows me to automatically send e-mail once I review a site. Not quite a status review list like you're asking, but some sort of feedback tool that would make it easier for editors to send feedback to suggesters regarding a site. I don't support the kind of status list you're suggesting, though. Whether or not to send feedback e-mail wouldn't be required, but would be at the discretion of the editor. I can already send feedback regarding a site if I wanted, but a tool easily accessible from the editor's dashboard would be less time-consuming for those editors who don't mind sending feedback to suggesters. But, as has already been mentioned, it doesn't have a lot of support for a variety of reasons.

freestyle and crowbar,

thanks for the input. i can't even imagine what type of tricks get tried on you guys and in light of that i am sure it is difficult to not get jaded...

Pvgool,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. no hard feelings.

I see many mentions of the goal of DMOZ being building a directory. I think a much more powerful and accurate phrase describing the goal used in the social contract is 'giving back to the web community.' Like it or not, web users and web site owners are both members of this community, ODP wants to give back to. We are two sides of the same coin and trying to find ways to benefit one side will also in many cases benefit the other.

I appreciate the time you guys took in reading and responding to my post....I will continue to read the forum and try to make other positive contributions when I can....if, for no other reason than to compel pvgool to come up with new ways to refute them....

geoffandamy said:

Pvgool,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. no hard feelings.

Click to expand...

Geoffandamy, I am disappointed in you.
When you are asked to give arguments why your proposal would be of benefit you back off. Don't you dare to give them or can't you think of any. Just shouting about how things must be changed is easy. But only proving these changes are usefull will make us listen.

freestyler said:

I wouldn't mind having an editor tool that allows me to automatically send e-mail once I review a site.

Click to expand...

Who would this e-mail go to? I know that generally the person who suggests a web site to the directory is most likely the web site owner, but that's not always the case. If I'm just a casual passer-by who likes to suggest web sites that I've found in my travels (and this does happen), why would I care if the site gets listed or not? What would be the point in replying to these people that their suggestions were accepted or rejected. And what if the suggestions are coming from other editors who find a site that looks good, and they drop it in a category that they don't have permissions to edit in? Do we send them feedback? Why?

Personally, the only time I could ever imagine sending feedback to someone who has made a suggestion to the directory, is when I stumble across a suggestion for a site that is an amazing resource, and I just want to contact the site owners and tell them that I really love their web site. That doesn't happen very often in my experience.

Also, if you're sending feedback to spammers to tell them that their site has been rejected, they are just going to go back to the drawing board and try some new tactic to slip their site into the directory. That's just a waste of everyone's time - yours and theirs.

We didn't stop giving status checks here because we were being mean or lazy. There was a consensus that it just wasn't benefiting anyone. All we were telling people was that a) their site had been listed (and they could have seen that if they had done a search), or b) that their site was rejected, but that we really couldn't tell them why, but if they really studied our guidelines they could probably figure it out. Then we would get into arguments about it because they didn't like what they heard. Understandably so, since most of the sites that we reject are from people who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that their web site is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. They are never going to see it as anything but the be all and end all destination for all Internet users. And more power to them for their conviction, but they are never going to listen to us as they automatically see us as the enemy who is thwarting their rise to Internet dominance

Giving status checks, gives people the impression that we are a listing service, and it sets up a false sense of expectation. If people could just start to grasp the concept that we are not a listing service, then they could make their suggestions, we could thank them for their contribution, then they could move on and work on making their web site a destination to rival all others. If they could understand that editors work in areas of the directory that interest them (but which may not mess with the interests of the web site owners) because that's what we do, and that's what this project was all about then they might understand that it might take a while before someone with an interest in that area will get around to editing there, and will maybe add the suggestions (or maybe not depending on any number of factors), then we wouldn't be having this discussion about status checks over and over again.

Personally, I just can't see that there is any benefit to anyone to be telling people the status of their suggestions to the directory.

geoffandamy, your idea did NOT get shouted down quickly. Some of us had it seven years ago -- and spent five years trying to see if there was some merit in it, and if there was some variant of it that could be implemented safely. We found none.

The brainstorming is over. So is the pilot test--actually, several pilot tests. It only remains to tell people what we found out.

pvgool, i tried to come up with some reasons in post number 8. You even answered them already. I didn't get the impression you found them convincing.

I am really not here to start or participate in fights. My main point about the list was that it could potentially reduce some of the frustration for honest webmasters trying to gain an audience by submitting to DMOZ. You and several others didn't agree. Ok.

If I came across as shouting about my position, I apologize.

You mentioned something in an earlier post about putting hard work into a site to make it successful, I couldn't agree with those sentiments more. I am a hobbyist and spend 30+ hours a week, working on a website that I am well aware will never have any sort of financial viability. I do it because, for the niche I serve, I think I make a positive impact.

DMOZ listings or lack thereof have an impact on my ability to reach an audience. There are a zillion theories as to how much of an impact there is, but I think everyone can agree, it is not negligible. So when I pour my time, energy and emotion into building something I think certain people will want to read, naturally it is very frustrating to have something seemingly arbitrary limit me in earning the only reward I get from the site, namely exposure to the greatest possible audience.

The fact that a prevalent attitude I have picked up on is: "Hey that's the way it is, we ain't here to serve webmasters, so suck it up and get on with your life" makes it even more frustrating.

Neither AOL, Netscape, DMOZ, ODP nor you and the rest of the editors owe me or any of the website owners anything. You never promised us anything and you aren't accountable to us. I understand that. But all I am saying is that if we perhaps toned down the animosity and suspicion a touch (and that goes for the website owners that really get in here and bitch and moan as well) and have open discussions that lead to developments in this 'community' we all belong to, that benefit everyone, we could all go away happy (or at least less frustrated )

Was a submission tracking tool the best idea? Maybe not, but I did put it out there in good faith, not to ruffle feathers.


hutcheson,

ok. sorry. my bad.

Was a submission tracking tool the best idea? Maybe not, but I did put it out there in good faith, not to ruffle feathers.

Click to expand...

We really do appreciate that suggestions made in good faith. Don't let the responses you got make you think otherwise. The problem is that, when it comes to suggestions that have been made and discussed before, there really is little point in starting it all up again. Don't let that stop you making future suggestions--just understand that you might not get the discussion you're hoping for if it's a suggestion that's been made before.

I've made a few great suggestions as an editor, geoffandamy, that crashed and burned, , so don't feel alone. I've learned to just put the idea out there as a contribution, and let it fly on it's own wings, or not.

Thanks for the suggestion, .

donaldb,

I understand why R-Z stopped status checks. Regarding website feedback, I did intentionally say it should be up to the editor if he/she wants to send feedback regarding a website since there are many sites that shouldn't get feedback because they'll never be listed and it enables them to disguise their spam/affiliates even more in preparation for the next suggestion. But, every site isn't spam, and every category isn't a spam magnet. There are some sites that come close to being listable, but because of small reasons can't be listed, whether it's because of too many broken links/images, a design that makes the site hard to read, or a site that's not easily navigable. It should be up to the editor to decide whether or not it's worth sending feedback regarding a particular site. In fact, I've sent feedback regarding a few of those issues, so there are reasons that I, as an editor, would want to send feedback to the sites in the categories in which I have privileges. I've also sent feedback to people telling them I really like their sites, but those are sites I've found on my own.

Yes, casual web surfers might suggest their favorite site to the directory and some might not care whether or not it gets listed. But, I do know a few people who have suggested their favorite sites in which they've had no affiliation in hopes that it would get listed and did want a follow-up regarding it. But, I do believe, without any evidence, just pure speculation, that only a very small fraction of people would suggest a site that's not theirs. It should be up to the editor to decide whether sending feedback to a site is worth their time or not, and there are some good reasons for sending feedback. But, I also know the reasons of why that tool isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it would be more convenient to have.

There are some sites that come close to being listable, but because of small reasons can't be listed, whether it's because of too many broken links/images..

Click to expand...

We do require that people not suggest under construction websites. Yes, external links can break in the elapsed time between listing suggestion and review, but wouldn't you expect a sensible website owner to be doing regular broken link checks? IMHO there's no excuse for internal ones. There are plenty enough tools out there to do the job automatically after all.

..a design that makes the site hard to read..

Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a bar to a listing unless the site is downright user hostile. I've listed plenty of sites written in 8point magenta on black.

or a site that's not easily navigable

Click to expand...

Again, that shouldn't be a bar to a listing unless there's severe user hostility. I must say that a few sites using subtle mystery meat navigation (Google it) can look at first sight as though they have no significant content. An editor in a hurry could miss it - and if an editor misses it, what would a less experienced civilian surfer think?

It should be up to the editor to decide whether or not it's worth sending feedback

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but we do recommend that you don't. There have been too many cases of harassment up to and including stalking and threats of violence .

Ditto what Jim said

I just can't imagine wasting my time on a site that is not listable. And by not listable it better be a reason that is part of our Site Selection Criteria, and not just because it's got some broken links, or is somewhat hard to navigate.

Sometimes a site may have broken links, poor design, or other "quality" issues, yet presents information that is difficult or impossible to find elsewhere on the Web. Consider adding the site to the ODP. Even with some flaws, if the content is rare and unique, the site may be considered very useful.

Click to expand...

If a site meets that criteria, then I will consider listing it. I'm not going to tell the site owner that I could or couldn't list that site. I've been on the receiving end of those harrassing e-mails, and no one needs to go through that grief

There are so many other web sites out that that easily meet the ODP requirements, that I'm not going to go out of my way to tell someone that if they fix up their site in some way we'll list it. I'm just going to go out and spend my time searching for some really good sites to add.

Thanks, Jimnoble, your points are well taken.

Although, I can't say that I'm too keen on reviewing sites that have very small yellow print on a white background. Unfortunately, those sites will have to wait for someone else to review. And, don't get me wrong, I don't delete sites that are not user friendly; I leave them for others to review.

Okay, here's a question for you. If you reviewed a site for the Regional branch, but the site didn't indicate where it should be placed, what would you do? For instance, if it was a business site and it didn't have the location on it, and without the location you didn't know in which locality to send it. Would you send some kind of feedback to the site or deleted it, leave it in unreviewed, or what? I'm just more willing to go out of my way to list a good site, rather than not, and I understand that some editors aren't - not in reference to you.

OH! I'd have to be off my rocker to send someone e-mail saying I deleted their site, I'm not talking about that kind of feedback.

freestyler said:

Okay, here's a question for you. If you reviewed a site for the Regional branch, but the site didn't indicate where it should be placed, what would you do? For instance, if it was a business site and it didn't have the location on it, and without the location you didn't know in which locality to send it. Would you send some kind of feedback to the site or deleted it, leave it in unreviewed, or what? I'm just more willing to go out of my way to list a good site, rather than not, and I understand that some editors aren't - not in reference to you.

Click to expand...

I would most likely send it off to a topical category where it would fit. If a web site doesn't have a location, I'm not going to waste my time getting the owner to add the location to their site just so it can be listed in Regional. There are tons of categories in the topical branches where this site would probably fit better.

You should read up on the Regional Category Editing Guidelines. And these might be the kinds of questions that would be better suited to discussion in the internal Regional forums as many Regional categories do have their own idiosyncrasies.

I can't say that I'm too keen on reviewing sites that have very small yellow print on a white background.

Click to expand...

Use Firefox. Hit Control-plus.

Font colors are slightly more complex.

donaldb said:

Ditto what Jim said

I just can't imagine wasting my time on a site that is not listable. And by not listable it better be a reason that is part of our Site Selection Criteria, and not just because it's got some broken links, or is somewhat hard to navigate.

There are so many other web sites out that that easily meet the ODP requirements, that I'm not going to go out of my way to tell someone that if they fix up their site in some way we'll list it. I'm just going to go out and spend my time searching for some really good sites to add.

Click to expand...

Okay, just to clear up something, I would never think of asking someone to change their site design for me or a Dmoz listing, and I've never sent anyone e-mail asking that. But, too many broken links and images then I would consider sending e-mail to let them know, just in case they're unaware of it. My problem with the broken links, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that I don't know if they're broken because the site is still under construction and they're working on it, or because they've redesigned the site and are unaware of them, or what. I don't mind sending someone e-mail saying hey I really like your site, but do you realize you have all these broken links and/or images on them. It could be that the site is now abandoned. If it's something I really like, then I'm willing to go out of my way by sending mail. I understand that you're not willing to do that.

hutcheson said:

Use Firefox. Hit Control-plus.

Font colors are slightly more complex.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Hutchinson, I just tried that. Now how do I get it to change back? [added] Never mind. Figured it out.

I've recently downloaded some Firefox extension that lets me remove background colors and images from pages, I'll be utilizing that in the future.

donaldb said:

I would most likely send it off to a topical category where it would fit. If a web site doesn't have a location, I'm not going to waste my time getting the owner to add the location to their site just so it can be listed in Regional. There are tons of categories in the topical branches where this site would probably fit better.

You should read up on the Regional Category Editing Guidelines. And these might be the kinds of questions that would be better suited to discussion in the internal Regional forums as many Regional categories do have their own idiosyncrasies.

Click to expand...

I was just trying to figure out if he would be willing to send feedback or not. Thanks for the responses everyone, though, I still would find it convenient to have a feedback tool easily accessible from my dashboard in case I did want to send feedback.

If I see a good site which needs a simple fix to be listable, I will sometimes email them. But I never do it as an editor. In my early days I did it as an editor, they fixed the site and I listed it. However, the webmaster wasn't happy with my lack of keywording in the title and description, though they complied with ODP guidelines. I was harassed in email for quite a while, and I suspect that he added me to a bunch of spam lists, since my spam suddenly multiplied exponentially within a few weeks.

If you wish to contact webmasters, etc. as an ODP editor, you are certainly free to do so. But enough editors have been harassed, threatened, and even stalked via phone at work and home that it is doubtful that there will be a tool to facilitate contacting those making site suggestions as an editor.

Just to echo what others have said here. You are free to send feedback if you want but I would not send it as an ODP editor. As one of those editors who was harassed as a result of being nice, I say that from experience.

There are other ways to find a sites business location, for Regional purposes. If those don't work, which is very rare, off they go to Topical, for me also.

I don't normally contact submitters, but, if they contact me politely about something, I'll respond in kind, as a matter of courtesy and good public relations. I figure there's a link to my profile page for a reason.