Why can't I have feedback on my rejected site?

[jjwill]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it could be only a matter of objective vs subjective. The person suggesting a site (not submitting) to a directory(not a search ingine) is assuming a more objective process and does not understand why the site was not accepted since it looks good and may even be complete. Maybe still ignoring content and focusing on mechanics.

 

OR

I don't think the ODP has enough graphics in the guidelines to catch my attention - Just kidding.

[hutcheson]

luggagebase, do you perhaps have the terms reversed?

 

The submitter thinks that the reviewer will reject the site for SUBJECTIVE reasons (don't like the background color, navigation would make Wrong-Way Corrigan look like an expert, sloppy layout, etc.)

 

But those aren't the reasons why sites get rejected. An editor is looking for unique information. That's VERY objective, especially in Shopping and Business categories. "Unique" has a meaning -- is it anywhere else on the web? "Information" can be readily distinguished from "promotion/advertising" by almost anyone.

 

[side note: even people who are (like me) colorblind in the linguistic spectrum can tell the difference. To a marketroid, "information" is "irrelevant stuff that doesn't help persuade the person" (while to me, of course, "advertising" is what makes me physically ill when I read it.) More mainstream (balanced?) minds can nevertheless, I believe, tell the difference.]

 

It may take a little bit more knowledge or perception, but we look for editors who can tell the difference between content and verbal incontinence -- like the doofus who took 400 words of a travel guide to assure me that people in his region looked at plants and animals, or the marketroid who takes three paragraphs to enjoin me to compare prices before jumping through his affiliate links.

 

Actually, the standards are very OBJECTIVE, and this is why it can't be informative to send specific rejection reasons. Because there AREN'T rejection reasons. There are only absences of acceptance reasons. And there's only one of those. (Did I mention "unique content"?)

 

I can understand that many people don't understand the volume of spam we have. I even think some of them don't understand they are spamming. (They've been slimed by someone selling "e-tailing solutions.")

 

And I can understand why people don't stop and think about the editor's standpoint. Because EVERYONE knows you don't send a polite "no, thanks" to every e-mail from fly-by-night viagra (or quack diet) peddlers -- and the SMC/Vstore/Amazon/hotelnow/etc. dropship order taking websites are the exact HTML equivalent of the SNMP spam. And if people ever make that connection, I don't think they'll ever ask us _that_ question again.

 

Certainly, though another message that we need to get out is "Objective standards".

[jjwill]

hutcheson, yes you got the meaning of my verbal mess. The person submitting is assuming a discriminating editor that doesn't like the layout or navigation of their site with no clue that a 1 page site with unique content could get listed.

Maybe they are confused on what "content" means. In the shopping listings they could be confused between unique content and product. A shopping site could have product changes on a weekly or daily basis. How does an editor know what is valuable content unless he or she is an expert in that field. Does "whats important to a consumer" = "unique content in ODP"? I know what is important to the consumer: price, price, easy to navigate site, helpful hints, lots of info on a product with detailed pictures, safe enviorment, customer service that actually answer the phone, and did I mention price?

I know very little about editing so I maybe on a tangent. Sorry.

 

I think I'll go back to my first input - It's about time, includeing the time and effort to go back and add unique content.

[nareau]

A couple of things I see (and some value-added speculation):

First off, I think a lot of marketing people don't understand the difference between "content" and "presentation". The whole point of marketing is to make something seem valuable to a bunch of people who might buy it. Marketing is essentially the "art" of presenting things. Good marketing presents things in a unique and useful way.

So when someone sets up a really nice, clean, efficient interface for accessing Amazon's products...they think they've got some unique content. In reality, they've got a unique presentation. If I stretch my brain really hard, I can kinda see where they're coming from.

 

Second, on a slightly unrelated note, I think a lot of people are reacting to the fairly negative* responses they get from inqueries. If their site is rejected, and they say, "I need this ODP listing! The internet is a powerful marketing tool, and I stand a better chance of feeding my kids if I can get listed in the ODP!" A lot of times they'll get the response of, "You dumbass! What moron bases their entire business model on getting an ODP listing?! I hope your kids STARVE!!!"

These people believe that there's something small they can change about their site to make it worth listing. They have such strong beliefs about the ODP being a great marketing tool, that they don't realize that it's just a bunch of net-savvy hobbyists putting it together. So they get offended, angry, frustrated, etc.

 

But that's a lot of speculation on my part. After all, I'm not "those people". At least, most of the time.

 

I think when people complain, they should be directed here. The more responses those threads have, the more educational they are about the struggle between DMOZ and site submi...suggesters.

 

Nareau

 

* "fairly negative": by this I mean both "relatively nasty" and "appropriately dismissive". It's like a Zen pun.

[hutcheson]

Nareau, that seems to me a fair statement of the marketroid position. But we don't care about them. They can't do anything for us; we can't do anything for them.

 

I'm concerned about the people who have a real business, who actually hire other people to make goods and perform services for customers. Some of them seem to have absorbed the marketroid view of the ODP; and I'd like to get them oriented back to reality.

[motsa]

nareau, the thread you linked to as an example of a negative thread actually just highlights an upset submitter, not nasty editors. No editor who posted in that thread posted anything even approaching nasty. I will grant you there was a certain dismissiveness, though, because we can't spend all day belabouring a point that has already been made, regardless of how cranky the submitter gets.

[hutcheson]

>The editors depend on good submissions for an excellent search engine.

 

Nay, not so, but far otherwise!

 

The editors don't depend on good submittals. This is an evil and self-serving marketroid myth. The same thing is said of Yahoo, Google, Looksmart, etc. -- and it's false there also. It's these lowlifes that mutter "the internet wouldn't exist if it weren't for us" -- yet never appeared on the internet until it had been running for years -- like tapeworms proclaiming that humans were invented for their own habitation -- then proudly announce that the ODP depends on them (and some people get to believing it!)

 

This is just plain not so. Editors found, find, and will find millions of good sites without a single submittal, and their main work was, is, and will always be finding sites without submittals. In fact, editors frequently wonder whether we wouldn't do better to cut off submittals altogether. And they're serious.

 

Now, the first-order effect of submittals is definitely not very helpful, and might even be harmful. But there are higher-order effects that must be considered -- many editors come to us first as submitters! Some people learn about the ODP through the submittal process -- although by no means as many as we like. Submittals, whatever their value, do bring us some good sites, and remind us of some neglected areas. So the picture is complex: and we aren't about to shut them down. But the idea that we utterly, or mainly, or significantly, DEPEND on them for sites to list, is utterly false and malicious. And if we can disabuse people of that vile cavil, we'll have taken a giant step towards explaining them what the ODP is all about.

[longcall911]

If you submit a manuscript to a book publisher and it is rejected' date=' you are not told why.If your college application is rejected, you are not told why. If you submit your website to Google and it doesn't get indexed, you are not told why.

If you drop a note in a suggestion box and your suggestion isn't acted upon, it's a rare organization indeed if someone calls you back and tells you why they're not going to act on your suggestion.

It is a matter of expectation. If I were an author, I know that the odds are against me. If I'm rejected, I receive notice. And if I want to know why, I suspect someone at the publishing house will tell me. The same goes for applying for college. The odds are against me {especially me}. If I am rejected I know the likely reasons (GPA, SAT score, etc.) If I submit to Google, I expect I'll be indexed. Few are not. And if not, I can email help@google.com. If I put a note in a suggestion box, I do not expect a response.

 

If I am a non-spamming site owner, in the process of submitting to Search Engines and Directories, my expectation is that I will be listed with all, including ODP. I have a good wholesome site. Why would it be rejected? As Joe (or Joanne) Surfer who submits, after going through the process of finding the category, writing a title, and authoring a description I expect that chances are high that my suggested site will be listed. Why? Again, because I don't know otherwise.

 

Obviously, I should know better. But, the fact that so many sincere people aren’t getting the message leads me to question the delivery. I’ve reviewed the DMOZ submission process. I must say, it’s extremely well written. In fact it is too well written. It’s long, and boring, and at times, too subtle. A few facts:

 

Google submit screen

number of characters (including spaces) before I enter a url: 879

number of words before I reach “we do not add all submitted URLs to our index” : 24

Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 7.6

 

DMOZ submit screen

number of characters (including spaces) of only the submission policies and instructions, not including the submission form itself: 7,968

number of words before I reach “we do not add all submitted URLs to our index” : 93

Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 11.2

 

It is simply too long and boring. The message isn’t reaching people. Even sympathetic and generous people just skim the first sentence of each paragraph. If as hutcheson says, you want to dispel misconceptions, and if you want to appeal to good people who might take an interest in the project, or if you want to appeal to those who at least will understand that they should not expect any further communication after making their suggestion, then you must take a hard look at the pages you present to your audience.

 

Make them warm, friendly, simple, inviting, and informative. Those who want more detail should then easily find what you have now, a technical narrative. If you want to communicate with Joe Surfer, you can’t hand him a white paper and expect him to read it cover to cover before the relationship can progress.

 

{imagine me, telling you to be brief}

[hutcheson]

{imagine me, telling you to be brief}

 

Imagine me trying to do it.

 

But you do have several cogent points.

[spectregunner]

In fact, editors frequently wonder whether we wouldn't do better to cut off submittals altogether. And they're serious.

 

Yes, we are!

 

There is a company that builds websites. Lots and lots of website all through the US. There is rarely a locality where 2 to 5% of the submissions are from this firm. Many are templates with little content, many contain but a single page. They submit them all. About 20% of their submissions are dead within 45 days. About 10% of their submissions (within Regional) are to the wrong locality. Maybe 15% don't even have a local address, when local addresses are mightily important within Regional. About 5% have the wrong locality name in the description -- they can't even get that right. When our automated link checker, a lovely little critter affectionately dubbed Robozilla, runs, I'd bet a full 10% of the bad links are expired sites that were initially submitted by this one company.

 

Many editors have tried to give them guidance -- the e-mail address they use for submissions is a black hole.

 

I'm sure some good and honest people have bought into their sales pitch, they just don't realize what garbage is bieng delivered, how haphazard the ODP submissions are. And these developers are supposed to be professionals. In my mind, and in the mind of many other editors they are just spammers with a good cover story. Yet, we have to look at each and every one of their submissions, click through the garbage in hopes of finding the few websites that have enough unique content to qualify. This company totally wastes a huge amount of my time and the time of my fellow editors.

 

Sometimes this type of submitter irritates me more than the spammers do. The spammers are usually honest about what they are -- I despise the marginally eithical companies, whose every submission is an attempt to game the editor comunity, whose very best submissions rank in the bottom 5% of websites in any given locality.

 

That, my friends, is just a tiny bit of the garbage we have to deal with when wading through submissions.

[longcall911]

That, my friends, is just a tiny bit of the garbage we have to deal with when wading through submissions.

So, in addition to submissions, you cover this board? Hmmmm…. a true techno-masochist. :-)

[jjwill]

Yes, we are!

 

There is a company that builds websites. Lots and lots of website all through the US. There is rarely a locality where 2 to 5% of the submissions are from this firm. Many are templates with little content, many contain but a single page. They submit them all.

 

I don't know too much about all of this but are those submissions using a automated script? If so, is it possible and feasable to but a user filter or screen where a the person submitting has to verify a code that is presented to him/her when submitting the form. I know other sites that do this so that only end users are logged in. They usually use a 4 digit code overlapping a grid so that a machine can not recognize it.

[hutcheson]

At this point, our main problem is not automation but bloody animal persistence. There are two distinct spam problems. The case being just referred to here is a "trained pig with a keyboard" scenario, which your suggestion would not help. The other case, the "affiliate-program-coordinated distributed-denial-of-service attack" caused by each one of thousands of vspam/SMC affiliates each submitting their own half-dozen sites several times each. The user filter wouldn't help that either.

 

(It is a known solution, though, and if that form of the problem gets bad enough, you may see it implemented.)

 

This may seem surprising, but the ODP has access to VERY good technical people. In terms of technical analysis of approaches to spam issues, even the internal editors' forums have consistently been a multiple iterations ahead of _any_ technical mechanism that's _ever_ been suggested in _any_ outside forum -- and they don't even paint a complete picture of what staff knows or does. (This is not to say everything has been implemented, just that staff know about it, and has a pretty good idea of why it does or doesn't want to implement it--and when.)

 

However, the _public communications_ aspects of the ODP are still very much under development, and we're still groping for ideas and understanding.

[arubin]

I don't know too much about all of this but are those submissions using a automated script? If so, is it possible and feasable to but a user filter or screen where a the person submitting has to verify a code that is presented to him/her when submitting the form. I know other sites that do this so that only end users are logged in. They usually use a 4 digit code overlapping a grid so that a machine can not recognize it.

 

IMHO, the ODP makes an effort to work in test-only-browsers such as Lynx. I believe this includes submissions....

 

As for details, I can confirm that there are filtering suggestions proposed on the editor-only forums which haven't appeared on this forum. I don't know (nor am I sure I want to know) which have been implemented.

[jjwill]

back to the main topic, it just maybe a simple case of "hope".

 

I hope that my site will be listed.

If not, I hope someone might tell me why(even if it should be obvious) so I can correct it.

Even if I am aware that I probably won't get a responce, I'll try anyway and hope someone cares to give me the "heads up" or recomendation.

So maybe their simple assumption is "someone really cares about my efforts or my well being"

I'm sure some feel if they are persistant enough, they'll get some kind of answer.

 

This, of course, in ignorance of how ODP works.

 

I just read a post (not at ODP) and the poor fool was upset that he had not been listed at DMOZ yet. He even waited a whole hour. He gave up.

Regardless to say, his site was all affiliate links.

[spectregunner]

If not, I hope someone might tell me why(even if it should be obvious) so I can correct it.

 

I think that if one looks at a lot of the threads, if the reason that a site is rejected is quickly fixable, then the editors often drop some pretty broad hints.

 

How, though, do you politely tell someone that their site has no socially redeeming value in terms of unique content, that it is a mass of advertising, it only is designed to redirect users to another site, that it redirects to a site that we would never list, and that it has so much Flash as to be useless?

 

The very real fear (proven by experience) is that if you tell someone that their site was rejected for reason A, it is almost like a loudspeaker announcement "let the games begin." and entirely too many submitters try to do a minimal fix and then demand to be listed.

 

The editors also do a bit of "invisible fixing" on their own, by moving sites that are incorrectly submitted, or even by sending e-mails to submitters telling them how to fix their sites. Even then we get some pretty abusive responses.

 

A quick side note: when a submitter starts quoting the guidelines back to us here in the R-Z, there is about a 99.98% chance that they are doing some very selective reading and quoting to tryand justify an untenable position.

[flicker]

When we used to have poetry workshop classes back in college, it was a hard-and-fast rule that the poet was *not* allowed to respond to the readers offering critique and opinions. Why not? Because human nature is such that authors want to argue in favor of their manuscripts. Bad-tempered ones may snap or seethe, sure, but even the mellowest and best-intentioned ones just naturally want to explain their work: "Oh, well what that metaphor was REALLY supposed to mean was..." or "It's a reference to John Donne, didn't you get it?" or "Okay, I know the sentences are sort of stiff and convoluted, but I had to do that so that the lines would rhyme, see?" The authors put hard work into their poems and feel creatively attached to them; even if they're complete pieces of garbage from any objective or subjective standpoint, even if they have no content, even if they're largely plagiarized from Emily Dickinson, the author is still hoping that the parts they did spend time and effort on are going to be rewarded or at least noticed, and given the chance, will bring them to your attention himself.

 

It seems to me that webmasters feel about their sites much the same way as poets feel about their poems. Even if they're an affiliate seller of the same wares that are available on 250 other sites, they want you to admire their fine layout and nice logo and nifty little inviting biography of themselves on the About Me page and so on, and if their sites are rejected, I'm willing to bet that engaging ANY of them in a discussion about why would result in an argument, the same way inviting ANY poet to respond to a critique would.

 

It doesn't mean they're bad people, but I think the only possible solution is to simply avoid ever having that conversation in the first place, the way we did back in school... and the way we do here.

 

[jjwill]

Why is'nt there a open forum link on the front page of DMOZ.com or listed as a strong sudgestion as part of the submission process. I found, as a novice, that the forum was the best help in seeing what was important and in helping me not to repeat some of the most common mistakes. It also let me view some of the "culture" of the ODP and got me more excited about the whole process instead of frustrated. Just a thought anyway.

[Joseph Lenchner]

ODP responses

 

I have really enjoyed this thread and found it to be very helpful, and agree very much with the comments by longcall911 and luggagebase and can really sypathize with the delimma the editors must face with the spammers and affiliates. I must confess to having breezed through the "How to suggest a URL" instructions the first time I submitted my website well over a year ago, and assumed I had done something wrong when there was no listing, so I submitted again, and because I was unclear on the categories, re-submitted again (sorry). I like the suggestions to make the forum easier to find, and to have at least some sort of automated aknowledgement for the submission, and if this thread were mandatory reading, I probably would have made some editor's workload a tiny bit easier by not doing multiple submissions.

Fortunately, it sounds like you don't need the universal panacea for all ills - money. It would seem the solution is to have a lot more editors. Maybe you could advertise more and require your directory listings to have banners, pop-ups, pop-unders, whatever, to get more help................... just kidding.

How do editors search for sites that are not suggested? Random? Do they edit categories they have expertise in? Could I be an editor, and have a website submitted to that category at the same time?

[hutcheson]

Editors should draw from a variety of sources, including search engines, hand-spidering, personal knowledge, printed sources, and submittals. Where any particular website comes from doesn't matter so much as that it's a good site.

 

The importance of using a variety of sources is that any one source will be inherently skewed in one way or another; using different sources cancels out some of that bias.

 

The ideal is for editors to have expertise in their categories. In reality, that is not always possible; and we do the best we can.

 

You can be an editor and add your own site (that comes under "personal knowledge"). But obviously that's a VERY skewed source of URLs, and the guidelines prohibit giving preference to your own sites. (So you'd have to draw on other sources to make up a comprehensive category.)

 

As for mandatory reading, sigh ... some people can't be stopped from reading, and then there's Dorothy Parker's horticulture. There's definitely no silver bullet. I don't know the solution, other than ... give the information out in as many ways and venues as possible.

[matti]

I'm very dissappointed with the tone of voice used in this forum by editors of the ODP - It is obviously a tough job, but stop complaining - you volunteered to do it didn't you?

 

I'll tell you how to stop all this spamming - stop Google from spidering your pages (I'm sure that's within your abilities) and no spammer would bother trying to get their sites listed in the first place. After all - most normal (non-technical) people use search engines to find sites anyway and haven't even heard of DMOZ.

 

Soon enough reports of long wait times for listings, superior and self motivated editors, poor quality categorization and a general move towards paid marketing will force Google and the other search engines to re-assess the importance of DMOZ anyway.

 

That my friends, is a shame.

[hutcheson]

matti, I appreciate your post, but I've said several times that I'm not interested in the spammer's viewpoint -- except, that is, that all expressions of spammer frustration with the ODP are indications that we are doing well what we set out to do. So, for what it's worth, thanks for your vote of confidence.

 

You do raise another point that deserves refutation, though. Contrary to your assumption (and no doubt contrary to the experience you have had with your friends and associates) most submitters are NOT spammers. (I've done enough edits to declare this with confidence!) Truly, the spammers make up in vigorous and blatant disregard for manners what they lack in numbers, and so provide most of our submittals. But nonetheless you spammers are a very insignificant and dispensable part of the net; and our only concern in this thread is the REST of the net.

[matti]

I am most certainly NOT a spammer and never have been - I have submitted one site to the ODP in my life which has been listed. thankyou.

 

You have jumped to an incorrect assumption which is exactly what I'm talking about when I referred to tone of voice (most notably your air of superiority) - You therefore seem to hold the assumption that all people out ther ARE spammers otherwise you would not of accused me of being one without a shred of evidence!

 

If you made this assumption so quickly how can the ODP be sure that it's editors (if you are representative) can identify spammers correctly in the first place and keep the ODP true to it's values?

 

I am a regular user who listed a site for the right reasons and I am airing my non-spammer frustrations!

[hutcheson]

No, matti, you aren't even close to the truth.

 

(1) To the point of the discussion, no editor volunteered to give feedback to any submitters. In fact, the editors' guidelines (which anyone can read before volunteering) clearly discourage ANY e-mail contact. Editors who've had experience know why this is so.

 

(2) To your off-topic point, no editor even volunteered to review submitted sites! Yes, an editor can be a perfectly good, highly respected editor, amass thousands of edits, and even be appointed editall without reviewing a single submittal.

 

(3) And from an editor's point of view, you're a control freak. You're the Pharisee of Jesus' sarcastic scorn who dump heavy burdens on other people's backs, while you don't deign to touch them with your little finger. You'll sit in the shade sipping your mint julep, and tell the overseers how hard to work the slaves today. This is not an attitude well-chosen to win you sympathy.

 

(4) Frustrations with WHAT? Someone, who has given strong indications of a mendacious streak, has told us your one site was already listed. All that is left to be frustrated about is your assumption that you had an innate right to tell other people what they had volunteered for, and when, and how much. I submit that is another problem that would best be addressed in therapy.

[matti]

well hutcheson

 

1) Yes I am off topic. So sorry.

 

2) You are probably quite right here - not sure how it applies to my off topic post.

 

3) Classic! this is exactly what I'm talking about: "You're the Pharisee of Jesus' sarcastic scorn who dump heavy burdens on other people's backs" a little harsh I think...

 

4) You are calling me a liar now... Really, please grow up.

 

Now, let me tell you why I'm frustrated - and this is nothing personal, but a mature, measured observation in accessible language:

 

The ODP is a great idea - fantastic in fact, and I approve, which is why I have voluteered a number of times to be an editor (unsuccessfully so far) - now I'm not frustrated about not being rejected, I will stop trying after having seen this forum and read a number of the posts.

 

Most of the submitters are moaning about how slow the process is and the rest of the forum seems to be full of editors moaning about spammers, becoming an increasingly frustrated on all sides by submitters, SEOs, bad editors etc

 

ODP can stand on it's own - lose Google and you will lose the problem, lose the phoney editors, the spammers, the frustration.

 

I am frustrated and concerned for the future of the ODP, I don't need therapy at all. I'm actually a rather balanced individual.

 

Now I'm going to turn off the computer eat my dinner, do the washing up and sleep with my girlfriend. Quite normal.