The act of submitting a site needs to be validated

I am an ODP editor who is also trying to get my site accepted in the ODP (in a totally different category in which I edit).

I have asked people who visit and use my site to provide me with their feedback. I have read though several feedback emails and have found (over the past few months alone) 3 emails in which people have said that they submitted my site to the ODP. I thought they submitted the site because they liked it. However after reading the statement below, it appears they submitted the site because they didn't like and therefore don't want to see it listed in the ODP.

"Please only submit a URL to the Open Directory once. Again, multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites. Disguising your submission and submitting the same URL more than once is not permitted."

(I found the above statement under a section entitled "Procedure After Your Site is Submitted", on the page http://www.dmoz.com/add.html.)

The statement seems backwards.

How may people really read all the instructions in detail? Pretend you know little about the ODP and click on the "suggest a site" link. Most people are just going to scan over the text (and there is a lot of it) and fill out the 4 required fields on the form.

Since getting listed in the ODP increases your changes getting listed with Google (and all its downstream partners) being listed in the ODP is much more important than it once was. Just as getting listed with Google can make web site, not getting listed getting listed can eventually force a web site (i.e. a company) out of business. What if my competitors see my site, believe it has potential, and decide to submit it (a few dozen times) to the ODP.

This policy of being penalized for submitting a site too many times (or too frequently) can cause major problems and serves no real purpose. The major problems is that
-- A competing site can simply use the policy as a tool to keep a new web site from being listed.
-- Individuals who actually like the site may "accidentally" submit the site. And the more the site is liked, the less likely the site will be accepted by into the ODP.

I cannot think of any "real purpose" that the policy serves.

The submission of a site needs to be validated. A better way of handling the submission would be simply having the submitting party place a text or xml file in the websites root directory. Below are some examples of company's (committees) that asked me to do this:
-- For Alexa.com http://www.fast4cast.com/info.txt
-- For Google.com http://www.fast4cast.com/sitemap.xml
-- For Robots http://www.fast4cast.com/robots.txt

For the ODP, the submitting parting would name the file odp.txt or odp.xml and notify Open Directory Project that the file is there (via the "suggest a site" link). Here is what is would look like for the ODP
http://www.fast4cast.com/odp.txt or
http://www.fast4cast.com/odp.xml

The only information the ODP has to keep in its database (of sites waiting to be reviewed) is the date the site was submitted and the site's domain name. Since the category, title, description, email and URL information is accessible my both the ODP reviewer and the submitting party, the submitting party can now make changes to the information that they submitted without effecting their status.

Should something like this be implemented? If so, who do I notify and how?

wbenzoni said:

Should something like this be implemented?

Click to expand...

No.

I can see your point, but if you are an editor, you should know that multiple suggestions of a site normally will not lead to the site being banned or blocked, and there are many sites suggested where the webmaster has no idea what DMOZ is or why she should care.

And, as an editor, you should probably be telling yourself that this is exactly the type of discussion that belongs in the internal fora.

Correction

I started this thread by stating "I am an ODP editor who is also ..." I should have stated "I have recently applied to become an ODP editor, currently I am not an editor, also ..."

Sorry for the confusion.

I Agree

The point raised by wbenzoni is very true. Moreover even somebody submit site to a totally wrong category then it will take more time to get listed.

As we all know that due to heavy backlogs the ODP editors take considerable time in reviewing sites. Now if someone delibrately submit site to a wrong category then the editor of that category will move the site to right category, this may again take very long time as the site will be placed last in the waiting list in the newly moved category, now if the editor of the current category i.e. new category, finds sites inappropriate for that category, then once again the same vicious cycle will have to be repeated.

ODP is creditble directory , but something should be done to maintain this status. Moreover some sort of anonymus method should be developed to know the status of submission. if ODP has to re-present true web then some positive changes must be done.

mojick

Now if someone delibrately submit site to a wrong category then the editor of that category will move the site to right category, this may again take very long time as the site will be placed last in the waiting list in the newly moved category

Click to expand...

You're making the wrong assumption that all editors review suggested sites in order of when they were suggested.

As we all know that due to heavy backlogs the ODP editors take considerable time in reviewing sites.

Click to expand...

That is actually an incorrect statement/assumption.

The backlogs (as you call them) have no impact whatsoever on whether or not an editor chooses to look at site submissions/suggestions.

Submissions/suggestions are but one (very poor) source of potential listings. there is no requirement that editors review suggestions. Editors are free to completely ignore the suggestion pools - and many do exactly that, since the quality is so very, very low.

This would be a problem if the ODP was in the business of providing a service to webmasters - which it is not. the number of sites in the submission pools could double overnight, and that would not necessitate a change in our priorities. Our real customers, the surfers, don't care what source we use to identify good sites. And in a pure sense, neither do we.

I'll admit this sound harsh, but it is only harsh if one is trying to get us to do something we did not sign up to do, namely review suggestions as some sort of priority.

I edit in a number of parts of the directory, and there are some areas where the quality of suggestions are generally very high, so I give them a higher degree of attention. Other places where I edit, the suggestion pool is so polluted with spam and garbage sites that I totally ignore it. I don't even bother to try and "take out the garbage" so-to-speak. It is an individual, not institutional, decision. No one has the right to tell me where to edit and what to focus on. They can ask, but they cannot tell, because each individual editor has the ultimate power: deciding whether or not to log in.

Your idea that we must somehow provide status checks is a failed experiment. It does nothing to add to the directory, and actually takes away since it suggests that we somehow owe some form of explaination or allgeiance to the webmasters and/or spammers who fill the submission pools. Personally, I'd rather turn off the suggestion process in its entirety and make it impossible for webmasters to contact editors directly. But that is not my decision to make.

I would also tell you that, as regular as clockwork, some webmaster comes into this forum, predicts our emminant doom, and departs. The directory, in the meantime, just keeps growing, despite the best efforts of the spammers and serp perps who are furious that it is increasingly difficult to manipulate us.

But what to I know, I'm just an editor?

... people have said that they submitted my site to the ODP. I thought they submitted the site because they liked it. However after reading the statement below, it appears they submitted the site because they didn't like and therefore don't want to see it listed in the ODP.

Click to expand...

But you go on to say:

How may people really read all the instructions in detail?

Click to expand...

Rather than assuming malice in these people, I suggest that you join me in assuming they were trying to help.

Since getting listed in the ODP increases your changes getting listed with Google (and all its downstream partners) being listed in the ODP is much more important than it once was. Just as getting listed with Google can make web site, not getting listed getting listed can eventually force a web site (i.e. a company) out of business.

Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks this is true (I don't), and STILL remains ignorant of the ODP submittal policy and all the wealth of informed sources of ODP information, is too foolish to survive regardless of who tries to help them. I don't worry about those people, I worry about people who CAN be helped.

What if my competitors see my site, believe it has potential, and decide to submit it (a few dozen times) to the ODP.

Click to expand...

It happens. VERY seldom. We'll not talk about how we handle submittal abuse: izzat OK with you?

This policy of being penalized for submitting a site too many times (or too frequently) can cause major problems and serves no real purpose.... I cannot think of any "real purpose" that the policy serves.

Click to expand...

That's all right. The people who apply the policy CAN think of purposes it serves, and can apply it when it serves those purposes. If you're not one of the abusers (and nothing you've said suggests you might be!) then don't worry about it. Really.

The submission of a site needs to be validated. A better way of handling the submission would be ... Should something like this be implemented? If so, who do I notify and how?

Click to expand...

No such need exists. You are thinking that submittal is a service for webmasters, and therefore all others could be excluded. That is wrong on both counts -- 180 degrees out of phase. It was not intended as a service for webmasters. It was intended as a way for surfers to volunteer to help find good sites, without taking on the commitment and responsibility of editing. If we could figure out a way of EXCLUDING WEBMASTERS instead, we'd probably be tempted. But the reality is: we'll take help from anyone (even webmasters!), and we'll take notice of abusers (even competitors!). And that's the right way.

Just a suggestion for people who like making suggestions: (this applies specifically to both mojick's and wbenzoni's suggestions, but it's applicable much more widely than the ODP.

When dealing with systems that DO exist, don't go solving problems that DON'T exist! If you THINK a problem MIGHT exist, then sure, try to find it -- if you can show that it does exist, you'll have performed a public service. And even if your managerial, social, and/or technical acumen is, um, solid ivory from occipit to mandible, you'll have put something in public view for many minds to work on.

But if the phenomenon you postulate doesn't exist, or doesn't impact the intended operation of the system, then ... every possible solution is guaranteed to be worse than doing nothing about it.