I wonder why?

[Jay Anderson]

I am just curious since the questions always seem to be the same why there is not a place to check on sites other than to search.

 

Things I see asked consistantly are:

1) What is the status of my submission

2) Why is my site not listed

3) Am I banned or I have I done something wrong

 

Seems to me that instead of having the editors constantly answer the same questions it would be easier to have a page that would allow users to look up the answers.

 

Such as

1) a page that would say pending as of the date they submitted and no reason to resubmit you are in line and we will get there as soon as we can.

2) unless you are banned refer to 1 we do not supply cheese with your whine.

3) Let the users know what they are doing wrong so they can choose to fix it to comply or continue to be excluded.

 

In my mind it would probably be a scaled down version of what the editors see in their control panel. I assume you guys/girls have some sort of interface for communication between each other seems logicall to have a front end.

[mollybdenum]

In answer to 3. I volunteer to edit the directory.

 

I do not volunteer to provide a service to advise people about their websites. Not only have I no interest in doing that, I think my time is much better spent finding sites to include and writing good descriptions.

 

Trish

[hutcheson]

Jay, your suggestion is probably the fourth most often asked question. I don't know how you managed to miss all of the other versions of it.

 

The short answer is: it would help the abusers, but really can't ever provide any information an honest person could use. (What, never? Well, hardly ever.)

 

Another answer is: it's conceivable that an editor would find out something about a site that would help the site owner--but that wouldn't ever be the purpose of a site review. In the ODP process, a site is being reviewed with completely different things in mind, for completely different purposes, and adding a requirement to collect information suited for feedback would be an extra burden. And when you add that it wouldn't ever help the ODP mission--and would hardly ever help any honest person--it begins to look like a very counterproductive proposal.

 

There's nothing to keep volunteer ODP editors from reviewing websites and giving feedback. There's just no point in including support for that kind of activity under the ODP umbrella. If we're inclined to do that, we can do that just as well in some other venue on some other website.

[aeclark]

Hutcheson/Mollybdenem;

 

I think I must have complete taken a completely different interpretation of Jay's suggestion to you two .

 

I read Jay's remark "...we do not supply cheese with your whine" as being a subtle dig at posters who keep asking about status .

 

Consequently, I thought Jay was suggesting that we put some sort of "fake" form on the website for people to query their status. Regardless of what url was entered, a page would simply come up stating "Your suggestion is still waiting in the queue. Please don't resubmit it. Here is a link to our FAQ if you want to know why it hasn't been listed yet."

 

Regards;

 

aeclark.

[Jay Anderson]

I would not expect you to give advice

 

Advice would have nothing to do with it. Just a status page with generic answers to the very common answers.

 

This would at least stop people asking the exact same questions. As far as banned that can be a toggle with a link to FAQ fix it or shut up then get in line like everyone else.

 

PS

It was a big dig

[pvgool]

Advice would have nothing to do with it. Just a status page with generic answers to the very common answers.

 

That's what our FAQ is for.

 

Things I see asked consistantly are:

1) What is the status of my submission

FAQ: Why can't we ask about the status of our site suggestions anymore?

FAQ: Well, if you won't do status checks here anymore, why don't you provide an automatic status reporting system for URL listing suggestions?

 

2) Why is my site not listed

FAQ: several answers on http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_site_questions

 

3) Am I banned or I have I done something wrong

This is always related to: Why is my site not listed. So technicaly it is the same question.

 

Our experience is that most people

- do not read the FAQ

- do not read the threads marked "important"

- do not read existing threads with the same questions

 

So why do you think another page with the same answers people are able to find already will change anything.

[nea]

I think one reason many people don't read the FAQ until we point them to it in a thread is that almost every other vBulletin board has the same generic FAQ with questions about the technical aspects of the board. So you learn that it's usually no use looking in the FAQ for things specific to the board. (Which is not to say that we ought to say the same thing again, somewhere else - but we have to be prepared to keep pointing people to the FAQ.)

[makrhod]

we have to be prepared to keep pointing people to the FAQ.

Indeed, which is why this happens several times every day, but it is a little wearying when people still don't bother reading them and keep asking the same questions even after being reminded and given links to the specific FAQs relating to their questions.

Some people don't even seem to be bothered reading when the whole FAQ and answer is posted for their convenience.

[lissa]

Maybe as part of the registering at RZ process we should make people read the FAQ and then answer 3 questions correctly to get registered. They'd likely get their answer during the process ...

[pvgool]

We could do the same when people suggest a site to DMOZ.

You can only suggest a site when you answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly.

[jpnutch]

From reading the editors' responses to this thread, and other threads on this forum, it makes me wonder what the point is of having a public forum, if every question or suggestion results in a response along the lines of "we will do whatever we like because we are volunteers," or "read the FAQ" or "if you complain it must be because you are a profit-hungry, lying, SEO cheat who is seeking to trick us into listing your good-for-nothing site on our precious directory."

 

Opening a public Web forum is considered in today's Web world as an invitation to users to offer their suggestions or make the Web site operators aware of issues. If the Web site operators [in this case the editors or at least that part of AOL that is funding ODP] consistently ignore all suggestions, it runs the risk of turning off genuinely interested users [read - NOT lying, SEO cheats] permanently. Ironically, this in turn guarantees that the only remaining users of this forum will be those very lying, SEO cheats that the editors treat as Satan incarnate. The editors will then be left to wonder why the only suggestions remaining on these forums are "why is my site not listed?"

 

Lighten up a little, ladies and gentlemen. Treat the users a bit more seriously, and once in a while, actually incorporate some suggestions. ODP is still a valuable resource in the net. Listen to your users, stay relevant.

 

Cheers,

jpnutch

[pvgool]

.. an invitation to users to offer their suggestions or make the Web site operators aware of issues.

Yes, and we welcome any real issues being brought to our attention.

 

If the Web site operators [in this case the editors or at least that part of AOL that is funding ODP] consistently ignore all suggestions,

We don't ignore all suggestions. Just look at the threads in "Quality Control Feedback". We very much appreciate any feedback we recieve there.

 

Treat the users a bit more seriously, and once in a while, actually incorporate some suggestions. ODP is still a valuable resource in the net. Listen to your users, stay relevant.

We listen to our users.

But people suggesting websites aren't our users, they are providers.

Ofcourse these same people can be users at the moment they use our directory but not at the moment they suggest a site.

[Jay Anderson]

I think this was a good thread

 

Thanks for all the input

[Stern123]

We don't ignore all suggestions. Just look at the threads in "Quality Control Feedback". We very much appreciate any feedback we recieve there.

 

But I don't think he was referring to the types of issues that have to do with Quality Control. Quality control issues are obvious and easy fixes within the system. Suggestions about larger ODP issues is a completely different beast.

 

We listen to our users.

But people suggesting websites aren't our users, they are providers.

 

How many suggestions from regular users do you receive on this forum? Is there even a critical mass of regular unaffiliated users motivated enough to register and participate in this forum? Because it seems to me like this forum (or at least this sub-forum) is primarily correspondence between providers and admin, which -- extrapolating from your statement -- means there's very little "listening" going on. (Disclaimer: I haven't statistically surveyed every thread counting users vs providers, just my impression).

 

I don't know... jpnutch's post sounds very reasonable to me, and I'm surprised by the reply.

[hutcheson]

>How many suggestions from regular users do you receive on this forum? Is there even a critical mass of regular unaffiliated users motivated enough to register and participate in this forum?

 

Critical mass? No.

 

Significant participation? Yes, the "quality feedback" thread is one of the most active part of the forum. And it provides a constant stream of valuable information (with high signal-to-noise ratio).

 

And besides that, there is a regular stream of unaffiliated users motivated enough to apply as ODP editors, and start to gain experience so they are equipped to make informed, useful suggestions about broader issues.

 

>Because it seems to me like this forum (or at least this sub-forum) is primarily correspondence between providers and admin, which -- extrapolating from your statement -- means there's very little "listening" going on.

 

That's OK too. There's lots of clutter and no commercial activity at the mall entrance. But malls need entrances anyway.

[Stern123]

>Significant participation? Yes, the "quality feedback" thread is one of the most active part of the forum. And it provides a constant stream of valuable information (with high signal-to-noise ratio).

 

To keep this on track without sneaky detours, this is not about quality feedback and 'easy' fixes.

 

If this is unclear to you, then let's refer back to jpnutch's thread where he claims that admin have a tendency to default to answers along the lines of "we will do whatever we like because we are volunteers," or "if you complain it must be because you are a profit-hungry, lying, SEO cheat..."

 

It's the above scenario (real or imagined) that's under discusssion. Now, in the Quality Feedback thread, do you get the kind of scenarios that jpnutch might have been referring to? I don't think so.

 

In the post that you responded to, I even specifically wrote "I don't think he was referring to the types of issues that have to do with Quality Control".

 

If you want to be super picky, you might point out that he claimed that "every question or suggestion" was being dismissed. To me, this was clearly being a little dramatic and not the spirit of his argument, and to have taken that literally is being insincere. Anyway, even if you did tear down his argument in context of Quality Control, it doesn't refute his point in context of other sub-forums.

 

So please, enough with the "straw man arguments". These "debates" are difficult enough as is without red herrings and logical fallacies. I don't even know why some admin are trying so hard to "win" these type of discussions.

 

That's OK too. There's lots of clutter and no commercial activity at the mall entrance. But malls need entrances anyway.

 

Sorry, I don't follow...?

[pvgool]

We might default to what you call "standard answers" when people are asking the "standard questions". Certainly if we have made it clear that these questions may not be asked.

If people stop asking why their site is not listed yet or when it will be listed and when they stop instisting that we should change the way we work so their site could be listed faster than we can stop giving the answers you are refering to.

[Stern123]

We might default to what you call "standard answers" when people are asking the "standard questions". Certainly if we have made it clear that these questions may not be asked.

 

To belabor that particular point, for a standard question, you just cut-and-paste a standard canned answer, like "Sorry but this is a volunteer organization and there is limited time..." Which is already being done. If this doesn't appeal to you, you can leave that boring task to other editors, or just ignore the post altogether.

 

If people stop asking why their site is not listed yet or when it will be listed and when they stop instisting that we should change the way we work so their site could be listed faster than we can stop giving the answers you are refering to.

 

In terms of "instisting [sic] that [you] should change the way [you] work"... well, in most circles, that's called constructive criticism, and professional organizations generally do not blatantly dismiss helpful feedback.

 

You complain that these inquiries are hindering your ability to list sites more quickly in the ODP. Since I don't believe anyone is forcing you to post here, may I suggest then that you refrain from participating in this forum and focus your attention on those more important issues? This would be more effective than implicitly or explicitly telling everyone to shut up.

[nea]

In terms of "instisting [sic] that [you] should change the way [you] work"... well, in most circles, that's called constructive criticism, and professional organizations generally do not blatantly dismiss helpful feedback.

 

Indeed. Nor do we dismiss helpful feedback. However, feedback that is based on misunderstanding (in some cases wilfully misunderstanding) what the ODP is is unlikely to be helpful. It is like complaining about librarians who disapprove when parents drop off their offspring in the library and leave for a few hours; some people believe that libraries should offer child care, but that is based on a misunderstanding of what libraries do. Should the library board then take that as "constructive criticism" and tell parents that it's OK to leave their young kids alone and expect the librarians to look after them, and tell the librarians that they must take a degree in child care? Or is it more reasonable to try to educate the library patrons about the services the library actually offers? Or hey, why not put a sign at the entrance letting parents know that the librarians cannot be responsible for the kids, rather than forcing those same librarians to tell five different dads and mums the same thing each day?

 

(Yes, I used to work in a children's library, back when I was at school.)

[Stern123]

Thanks for the reply, Nea. I appreciation the explanation, but I feel the analogy is incomplete -- yes, it is valid when limited to certain discussions on this forum, but not the other issues.

 

To further your analogy, I think this is about the parents who point out the crumbling paint and neglected library books in certain corners of the library, and the librarians look angry and shush the patron, or when student points out that the library is still using the old card indexes and microfilms whereas all the other libraries have upgraded to electronic catalog, and the librarian puts his hands over his ears and say 'lalalala' very loudly, or when a patron points out that there are lots of books about 'X' and strangely few books about 'Y' and the pro-X librarian dismisses the pro-Y patron as if this is sole reason to evade the merit/logic of the argument in an objective context.

 

And while my analogy is exaggerated and can only be taken so far, I think it's more relevant than the childcare library example (if we focus on my posts on this thread that you've been replying to). One definitely feels a certain resentment from certain admin and/or editors when faced with constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement and would rather waste time on long insincere arguments instead of honestly acknowledging the issue and thanking the poster for their feedback.

[makrhod]

So basically your criticism is "constructive", but our arguments are "insincere?

Sounds like a case of "Heads you win, tails we lose".

[Stern123]

So basically your criticism is "constructive", but our arguments are "insincere?

 

Well, that depends on what discussion and which editor(s) you're talking about, right?

 

I never meant to imply that *every* discussion with *every* poster and *every* editor involves constructive criticism and insincere counter-arguments. Note that my posts have referred to certain types of discussions and certain editors.

 

So I wasn't making a blanket statement like you try to make it out to be.

 

(I suppose you're guilty of an "Either-or fallacy" -- according to the link you provided above)

 

So to answer your question, I honestly don't know if your arguments will always be sincere but your statement above certaintly is not, and is a good example of the kind of run-around I've been referring to.

[pvgool]

You complain that these inquiries are hindering your ability to list sites more quickly in the ODP.

No. I never said that.

Me posting here does not have any influence on my abilty to list sites more quickly.

 

Since I don't believe anyone is forcing you to post here, may I suggest then that you refrain from participating in this forum and focus your attention on those more important issues?

I volunteer to edit at DMOZ and I volunteer to answer questions here.

I and only I can determine what is important for me.

 

This would be more effective than implicitly or explicitly telling everyone to shut up.

I am not telling people to shut up. I am just telling that we will only discuss those things that the editor community has decided that can be discussed. You are free to discuss all other things, just not at R-Z.

 

What can you discuss

pretty much anything ODP-related except asking about the status of your site suggestion, public posting of details of suspected abuse (please use the public reporting system for that), discussion of internal editing issues or confidential ODP information, discussions of how to SEO your site or circumvent/violate ODP policies, and complaints about being removed as an editor (please contact staff@dmoz.org if you wish to appeal the removal of your editing account) or rants/complaints about the ODP, its editors (either specific editors or in general) or how the whole system functions.

[hutcheson]

stern, you are correct when you say that uninformed suggestions about changes to the ODP governance invariably get a response that consists of information about how the ODP actually works.

 

And that seems to you like a cop-out. But it's not. It's the only possible true response.

 

A suggestion that involved ANYBODY (let alone webmasters) given the power to tell editors what to do and when, is invariably going to run into the basic facts: the ODP is a volunteer community, in which nobody who can tell anybody else what to do; its members are people who joined the community because they are comfortable with that approach; and its active members are people who (in their opinion) work more effectively here, this way, than they could work somewhere else another way. There's no point in discussing such an idea further here.

 

There are other directories that see their mission as serving site suggestors. And people who like that mode of working, or people who want those services, are free to go there. They serve their purposes, I suppose. But they don't serve the ODP purpose as well as the ODP does. And there's no point in trying to make the ODP into a cheap imitation of some other, less-successful, less-respected project.

 

So anyone who thinks anyone can set up procedures to tell editors which sites must be reviewed when, is simply so uninformed as to not be able to make any constructive suggestions. What they need is not learned discourse on how unworkable their particular scheme is; what they need is information.

 

And what they invariably get in response is the most important information: that this is a volunteer community based on members who enjoy volunteering in this environment.

 

Now, you've asked, what is the use of that community and its activities? And if you say it's no use at all to you, I will not disagree with you. I know there are other people like you. But when I decide what to do with my free time, that simply won't matter. I know the ODP it's useful to me and to some people who are important to me, and I've heard it's useful to some people whom I don't even know.

 

And the community may do other things, such as this forum, that are of no use to you. But that doesn't mean it's no use at all! There are other people in the world. And the forum remains useful to some people, both editors and non-editors.

[Stern123]

No. I never said that.

 

Oops, my mistake. There was a grammatical error that made it confusing to me... it should have been written "then" instead of "than"... but I acknowledge my error and I admit I put words in your mouth, and, for that, please accept my apologies.

 

What can you discuss

pretty much anything ODP-related except... or rants/complaints about the ODP, its editors (either specific editors or in general) or how the whole system functions

 

Ha, ha, well, if you must adhere to the draconian terms above, then I guess you have to close this thread right now. Which, ironically, would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ODP doesn't accept criticism period (constructive or not) not to mention the bad PR generated from this authoritarian criticism-will-not-be-tolerated policy.