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

[bobrat]

stop Google from spidering your pages

 

Indicates that you have a basic misunderstanding of what Google does with ODP data, and why ODP can't stop Google [without going into a discussion of whether they should or should not try to stop Google]

 

As part of the social contract upon which ODP was founded, ODP agrees to make available its database to other users. A copy of the ODP data is produced once a week, and anyone can use that providing they follow the guidelines for usage.

 

Google is one of the main users of that data, and it's up to them [not ODP] whether they choose to use that data, and in what manner, and how often.

 

Google directory entries are made from that data, not from spidering DMOZ.org and therefore putting in a robots.txt to prevent Google from spidering is of no avail.

 

In addition there are thousands of other users of ODP data who make that data available on various web sites, and Google does in fact spider those sites and include those results in searches. We cannot stop that.

[hutcheson]

It's very simple. The problem really isn't that we don't have enough micromanagement. People who have to be micromanaged can wander away, and we'll put our managers to constructive work. We'll get more done that way.

 

And you don't have to start volunteering with the ODP. I didn't. There are innumerable other opportunities to get started. Yesterday I read an article about a hurricane cleanup "program". Somebody announced where the buses were going to be, and said, "bring your tolls and we'll go clean up."

 

The participant who wrote the article was amazed. People brought all kinds of tools, from chainsaws to window cleaner to Mark IV digits (10 each, symetrically attached.) No bosses, no supervisors, no coordinators, nobody telling anyone else what to do or how much -- except that some people, however, were telling other people to work less because of incipient signs of heatstroke. They just dumped everyone at the end of the block and get out of the way.

 

It works. It just works. It doesn't work better if you take the most productive workers and assign them to watch the others. It most CERTAINLY doesn't work better if you take the LEAST productive workers and assign them to watch over the others. (Both strategies, by the way, common in industry...)

 

Check out Project Gutenberg, for instance: every page is proofed at least twice (their protection against carelessness or sabotage) so it's easy to get in. Proofread a page, or a dozen. Do it every day or once a ... dunno how long. Just don't tell the others how much they have to do, or what they have to do first. There are ten million books out there, take your pick and someone will probably help. Or help someone else, your choice. And let them make their choice.

 

Or keep applying to the ODP -- save your old applications, for future reference (either good or bad examples).

 

I should also mention that even non-editors can see quick results by picking an ODP category, rechecking all the sites, and reporting the bad links in our "Abuse" forum. (Yes, we know they may not have been abuse. But we want to fix them quickly.)

[caspro]

Hi, as a newbie I thought I might add my . I think the trouble is too many people submit after they have created their sites.

 

Now, I know they can't submit before the site is built but, they could 'like I'm doing' come here a check out the 'how to' stuff before hand, saving themselves a lot of time & upset.

 

Just a thought

 

Caspro

[arubin]

Hi, as a newbie I thought I might add my . I think the trouble is too many people submit after they have created their sites.

 

Now, I know they can't submit before the site is built but,

Don't be so sure. I've seen a few submissions when there was no site there. I couldn't swear that that was before the site was built -- it might have been after the site was abandoned.

[bobrat]

The ODP site submission guidelines are quite clear on not submitting sites under construction. Asking for a review to see how you are doing, just doubles the work for us.

 

I've deleted at least two newly submitted sites in the last two weeks, that I know were submitted too soon, cause I checked the URL registration, and they were newly registered in July.

 

I am quite tolerant of sites that were reviewed and accepted, and then something goes wrong with the site, I will unreview them and check in a couple of weeks to see if they fixed the problem. But I have zero tolerance for someone submitting a new site that is still a work in progress, so that means it gets deleted and a note attached to the name, so that when it's submitted again, it already has a warning registered against it.

 

Likewise submiting sites hoping to add content later is not good, if you get refused for lack of content, then when you submit again, you have already been labelled as a premature submitter.

 

We are not a peer group review team, if you need that, find one of the many SEO forums, that have members who are willing to review your site.

[caspro]

submiting sites hoping to add content later is not good, if you get refused for lack of content, then when you submit again, you have already been labelled as a premature submitter.

 

We are not a peer group review team, if you need that, find one of the many SEO forums, that have members who are willing to review your site.

 

bobrat, I'm confused are you repling to my post because I was not asking for a site review, see below?

 

Hi, as a newbie I thought I might add my I think the trouble is too many people submit after they have created their sites.

 

Now, I know they can't submit before the site is built but, they could 'like I'm doing' come here & check out the 'how to' stuff before hand, saving themselves a lot of time & upset.

If you were then I suggest you read the full post next time. If you weren't then I apologise & I'm still confused.

[spectregunner]

I feel safe in saying that my buddy the rat was not answering you, per se, he was making the general statement that if you (not you personally, but you the given/global webmaster) are looking for someone to review a site, submitting it to the ODP is definitely the wrong move, rather webmasters seeking review and feedback should find a nice, friendly webmaster or SEO forum where other webmasters and seos are willing and able to share their views

[jjwill]

Now' date=' I know they can"']'like I'm doing'[/i'] come here a check out the 'how to' stuff before hand, saving themselves a lot of time & upset.

 

I think caspro is misunderstood. Not sure, but he/she probably didn’t mean "can't" but "shouldn't". (Correct me if I'm wrong) Most people understand that even if a few mistakenly or purposefully do so.

 

But the point being made has been overlooked: It is very beneficial to both the submitters and the editors if the submitter is able to view several threads to better understand the objectives of the ODP and to recognize common mistakes to avoid. It is helpful to understand the other side of these issues in order to avoid pitfalls (many of which I myself fell into). You know, "I submitted my site a year ago and haven't been listed, I guess no one got it or saw it, so I'll submit it again" and every year there after. OUCH!

[caspro]

I think caspro is misunderstood. Not sure, but he/she probably didn’t mean "can't" but "shouldn't". (Correct me if I'm wrong) Most people understand that even if a few mistakenly or purposefully do so.

 

But the point being made has been overlooked: It is very beneficial to both the submitters and the editors if the submitter is able to view several threads to better understand the objectives of the ODP and to recognize common mistakes to avoid. It is helpful to understand the other side of these issues in order to avoid pitfalls (many of which I myself fell into). You know, "I submitted my site a year ago and haven't been listed, I guess no one got it or saw it, so I'll submit it again" and every year there after. OUCH!

 

Thank you luggagebase You are right of course, the point I was trying to make was being overlooked, due no doubt to my newbie status and inability to understand the finer points of this forum. However, I am learning fast so beware the pedants

[nareau]

So, what about answers from non-ODP people? I mean, I think I understand the submission guidelines pretty well. If someone asks why they were rejected, do you think it would be OK for me to tell them? I recognize that it would probably be unwise, and of course I'd have to include some kind of "I'm not an editor" disclaimer. But what would the mods think of such a thing?

 

And as a follow-up question: Is there *anyone* these submitters can turn to with their questions? IE, are there any SEOs or savvy web-design companies who can read the guidelines to the submitter and explain them word by word? If not, I suspect somebody could make a *lot* of money by explaining the word "affiliate" to people.

 

Nareau

[caspro]

And as a follow-up question: Is there *anyone* these submitters can turn to with their questions? IE, are there any SEOs or savvy web-design companies who can read the guidelines to the submitter and explain them word by word? If not, I suspect somebody could make a *lot* of money by explaining the word "affiliate" to people.

 

Nareau

 

AFFILIATE from Dictionary

v. / 'flet/ usu. be affiliated to/with officially attach or connect to an organization. →(of an organization) admit as a member.

n. / 'flt/ an affiliated person or organization.

- DERIVATIVES affiliation n. affiliative adj.

- ORIGIN C18: from med. L. affiliat-, affiliare 'adopt as a son'

 

Sorry I just couldn't resist it

[hutcheson]

caspro, in my country you make a lot of money by telling people what they want to hear, not by telling them the truth.

 

I personally don't have a problem with non-editors commenting on sites in general. I do have a problem with what it's likely to lead to -- that is, editors who are new to RZ commenting; or the "diss my baby, feel my wrath" responses from webmasters. If you want to PM a webmaster, I don't see how that could be a problem, though.

[jjwill]

I personally don't have a problem with non-editors commenting on sites in general. I do have a problem with what it's likely to lead to -- that is, editors who are new to RZ commenting; or the "diss my baby, feel my wrath" responses from webmasters.

 

AMEN!

 

I do understand how nareau feels.

"Oh, oh, oh, I know the answer to that one. Pick me, pick me."

 

I often want to tell the poor fools to stay away from this or that mistake or say "you obviously have not read the guidelines and are in violation of 4 of them and those 3 URLs will never be added." then disclaimer.

 

But, I know I have not been around long enough to justify an open response nor do I have a true editor’s perspective. I'm just learning.

 

But it sounds fun.

 

2 recommendations that I see in this thread and like are;

 

1. Make the guidelines initially more attractive and less complicated with links to more in-depth content.

2. Editors response: Radio button menu that only lists the subject(s) in which the url is in violation. Add a disclaimer that there will not be any further discussion of the matter. But at least the webmaster has a starting point.

 

OK, now you can pick them apart.

[arubin]

2 recommendations that I see in this thread and like are;

 

1. Make the guidelines initially more attractive and less complicated with links to more in-depth content.

2. Editors response: Radio button menu that only lists the subject(s) in which the url is in violation. Add a disclaimer that there will not be any further discussion of the matter. But at least the webmaster has a starting point.

 

1. You're welcome to attempt to rewrite them.

 

2. I think this has been rejected in the past. Spammers would slightly modify their site so as to bypass that problem, leaving the others. The major problem with most sites is insufficient unique content.

[jjwill]

1. You're welcome to attempt to rewrite them.

 

2. I think this has been rejected in the past. Spammers would slightly modify their site so as to bypass that problem, leaving the others. The major problem with most sites is insufficient unique content.

 

1. Ya, ya, who has the time. Actually, I'm not a very good writer so I wouldn't attempt it, but I know several of you out there are. Besides, I don't think it is about re-writing as much as re-organizing and adding some eye catching graphics (I know, graphics is an ODP heresy but it helps people from skimming as much.)

 

2. Even if it’s just the basic subject in question? If only a slight modification is needed then what's wrong with that. Either the site has merit or it doesn't.

If its major content needed, then they need to do the work. I don't think you wouldn't get specific enough that slight modification would remedy. Maybe I'm way off, but if most are content issues, then let’s say so and let the webmaster figure out how to add unique content thus making the site valuable. I've also seen threads where ODP Admin has given details to a webmaster on how to improve there site. I know that is not the purpose of the ODP, but it goes on. Yes it is easier to give no response but are we addressing an issue of how to make ODP listing more valuable and abundant or is it just about processing? Or both?

 

Sorry for long answer

[arubin]

I suppose an additional VBCode entry could be created, stating:

The suggestion has been rejected for insufficient unique content. Please do not resubmit unless a significant amount of unique content is added.

in addition to our current

[r]xxxxx[/r]

[hutcheson]

There are two issues. Nearly all the time the problem with a site is "no unique content", and that's an end of it. There's nothing that can be done. There is the secondary reason that for deceptive submittals we don't WANT to tell people HOW we found out their content was duplicate -- and there's no point anyway, as they know where they got it from. (In summary: it's useless, it's harmful, and it's painful. So we don't.)

 

Very very occasionally there's an issue that can be addressed. It doesn't happen more than 1/2 of 1% of the time for rejected submittals, and when it happens, someone will usually pass a hint. (It happens so seldom, that in the larger scheme of things we really don't need a procedure for it. But editors will often be helpful where help matters.

 

Remember, we don't need to coach people to make ODP listings more abundant or more valuable. All we have to do is review more of the good sites, and waste less time on the bad ones.

[nareau]

On the whole "unique content" issue: It seems like the editors consider this a pretty black and white thing. But I've seen a lot of people who don't think it is, especially for retail sites.

 

The basic argument I see from submitters is: "Well, Amazon.com basically sells the same stuff I can get anywhere! So how is their site any different from my Amway site?!?!" And while Amway is a classic and clear example of affiliate sites, the argument has some truth to it.

 

So I guess I'm asking to hear, as explicitly as you can state it, what unique content Amazon.com has that allows them to be listed. Is it the way they present their items for sale? Is it the variety of things you can buy? Is it unique because it's a unique combination? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

And, as a follow-up: could one of the inflatable furniture affiliates start selling fancy air-pumps and patch kits, thus standing out from the rest, and get listed that way? How unique is unique?

 

Nareau

[bobrat]

One analogy you might make is we list Hewlett-Packard as a computer vendor. We don't list a site for each of their sales staff.

 

Likewise we list Amazon as a book seller, we don't list Amazon affiliates since all they are doing is acting as sales staff for Amazon. They hold no stock, they do no shipping. [if on the other hand, the site without the affiliate ads provided content, it could be listed]

 

We we do list other book sellers who actually sell and ship books.

 

But we would not list [in the books category] a newspaper that carried an ad for the bookstore.

[jtbell]

One analogy you might make is we list Hewlett-Packard as a computer vendor. We don't list a site for each of their sales staff.

 

Or, a bit closer to nareau's original Amazon example: You probably list borders.com and bn.com (Barnes & Noble), but if their individual bricks-n-mortar stores had Web sites, you wouldn't list them, right?

[Guest gimmster]

if their individual bricks-n-mortar stores had Web sites, you wouldn't list them, right?

Actually we would, but in the actual physical location of the store, and only if the site contained content about the physical presence (more than just an address).

 

If it was just a copy of the online store with their local address - probably not.

 

If it included photos of the store, staff, opening hours, a location map, information on local reading clubs, local sports teams they sponsor, or any amount of other locality specific information, we would list it in the Regional branch of the directory, in the smallest geographic category that encompasses all physical locations mentioned on the site - usually at the Locality level.

 

Note there are different requirements for listability between the Topical and Regional trees. Topical is primarily interested in grouping like sites together by topic, Regional groups sites primarily by community which usually translates to location.

[nareau]

And another thing about feedback...

 

Keep in mind that a lot of people submi...suggesting sites are people like me: the website guy for their company. They get a lot of pressure from the boss to "make us show up in the search engines!" And however much you might not like it, a DMOZ listing does indeed impact Google's results.

 

Nareau

[pvgool]

And however much you might not like it, a DMOZ listing does indeed impact Google's results.

It is not so much that we don't like it. We just don't care about the influence we have on Google or any other serach engine.

[jjwill]

It is not so much that we don't like it. We just don't care about the influence we have on Google or any other serach engine.

 

 

Now this is where I think that a lot of new members or submitters (webmasters) get the wrong impression. They take a statement like this and twist it all up to say:

“I’m an editor and don’t care about you and your wimpy, content deprived website. I really don’t care if you succeed in life or not.” Then the webmaster comes back with:

"Why are the ODP editors so arrogant?" They really don't care about people and the web community, just their little click of editors and ODP friends."

 

On the contrary, the ODP is not self-serving and people like pvgool spend countless hours serving the web community. I have a site I've been trying to get listed for the past 2 years(I’m sure you can't figure what it's called), yet I know that the ODP is not hear to advance my proprietary cause. The ODP is here to provide a high quality of listings to the web community. If Google finds value in that and wants to use it, then great, the ODP does not care. It is not the responsibility of the editors that you put yourself in a position to be pressured by your client. I could only imagine that editors are tired of people trying to put that burden on them and being labeled "insensitive S.O.B's" when they are just regular people trying to help. Beside, I know for a fact that many of them take extra time (which they rarely can afford) to help webmasters who are clueless like me get out of trouble or give a little guidance to avoid some common pitfalls. It’s not that they don’t care about people’s success; it’s just not their purpose in this setting. (Please, pvgool and any other editor (admin), correct me if I’m wrong.)

 

I hope that helps some new comers.

__________________________________________________

I do not represent the ODP and these thoughts are purely my own. I could be entirely wrong on every point.

[nareau]

It is not so much that we don't like it. We just don't care about the influence we have on Google or any other serach engine.

My apologies for making that assumption. I was thinking along the lines of, "Since DMOZ listings have a large impact on Google's results, spammers target DMOZ highly. And the editors seem to dislike spam."

 

Nareau