1 Strike and You're Out?

Thanks SO MUCH! I really appreciate the comments, you're right about the personal nature of this endeavor. I've pretty much busted my butt trying to do everything right, and of course promote, promote, promote. It helps to have a lot of time, and an addiction to everything computer/internet related, but I feel like such a small inadequate fish in a large accomplished pond. And, you really have to believe in the product. John's stuff is awesome (in my opinion). Re: the wall-paper, I was just doing something in that direction last night. However, instead of the wall paper, I was going to offer screen savers to make sure the branding remains intact And, Ive been incredibly lucky with Google. I'm one of the few that has prospered in the wake of the Jagger update. (punch up desert photography So, I believe Google may agree with you.

 

I did. And i sthe problem.
Reread what you wrote.

As a DMOZ editor you may never be influenced or bothered by the site asthetics.

Based on the amount of wrong answers I have seen you are giving in this forum to my opinion you seriously need help with the DMOZ guidelines as it is clear you don't understand them. Which is a big problem for an editor.

 

I would just resubmit if I were you

 

LOL, you're opinions don't seem to be very popular, and you're no doubt one of the reasons DMOZ has so many problems. We've all heard your whinning about talking about DMOZ's secret policies and know you object to any editor discussing the inner workings. You might also want to work on your comprehension - it would be a start to becoming a good editor, assuming that is a goal of yours. Did you ever figure out if affiliate sites are allowed in DMOZ?

 

DMOZ doesn't have any secret policies*. And the workings aren't exactly secret either given there are 40,000 former editors out there. It does have problems with clarity of guidelines that confuse even experienced editors including Administrators at the top of the tree. If you have a problem with specifics like Affiliate sites then the best place to get clarification is on the inside forums. Once you have clarification of whatever your issue with those is, there is no problem with communicating that outside if it crops up.

* to clarify, it has ways of implementing public policies that are secret to avoid abusers, be they editors or submitters, circumventing them.

 

The policies are not secret and may be discussed everywhere.
But internal DMOZ discussions, editor notes on sites and specifics about tools and techniques editors use to evaluate site may not be discussed outside of DMOZ.

Based on the number of awards I have been nominated for and have won and the level of editor I am I think atleast some of the other editors think I'm a good editor.

Yes, IMO the guidelines are clear about this.
Affiliate sites (sites primarly build to send visitors to the sites they are affilietd with) are not allowed. Sites with (a few) affiliate links might be listed if they have enough unique content. Just mentaly blank out everything related to the affiliation and all advertisements. Is there enough left to see and is it easely to be found? If the answer is yes the site can be listed.

 

Ok, and you're the self-appointed DMOZ sheriff who spends their day trolling the boards looking for any editor who dares violate the prime directive in an effort to help people who might have been waiting over 3 years to have their site looked at.


"Based on the number of awards I have been nominated for and have won and the level of editor I am I think atleast some of the other editors think I'm a good editor."

Congrats on your gold stars! While I respect any editor that takes the time to volunteer to edit a category (and who isn't doing it just to list their own sites), it's not like you are solving world hunger. I was recently asked to edit one of the larger DMOZ sections, BFD... but I guess that means something to some. I've also seen you post that you have listed your own sites... and while this is certainly allowed, I suspect you became an editor because you couldn't get your own site listed, or got tired of waiting a few years for it to be reviewed.

"Sites with (a few) affiliate links might be listed if they have enough unique content. Just mentaly blank out everything related to the affiliation and all advertisements. Is there enough left to see and is it easely to be found? If the answer is yes the site can be listed."

Here is a sample quote from DMOZ guidelines (you know, the secret ones I'm not supposed to share with the outside world) Do you think opening publishing it might help the general public have a better understanding of what DMOZ is looking for, and possibly cut down on non-qualifity submissions?:

What Does "Affiliate Marketing" Mean?

Revenue sharing between online advertisers/merchants and online
publishers/salespeople, whereby compensation is based on
performance
measures, typically in the form of sales of products and services,
clicks, registrations, or some other hybrid model. There are four
basic types of affiliate sites: Affiliate Links, Sites Consisting
Mostly of Affiliate Links, Affiliate Reseller Sites (aka Fraternal
Mirrors), and Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) Independent
Representative
sites.

Why Doesn't the ODP List These Sites?

It's not the business model we don't like. It's the mirrored and
duplicated content. For example, suppose you have a company
offering
data storage products and services. They have exclusive resellers
who
provide a front for selling their products and services. While the
reseller sites may be designed and written differently, their
content and aim are exactly the same. Adding sites with the same
content or that point to the same place are not unique or useful.

Guidelines for Specific Types of Affiliate Site

Affiliate Links
This is an affiliate relationship based on clicks. Affiliate links
are URLs for a commercial site that usually, but not always,
include
an affiliate or referral ID in the URL, such as
AffiliateID=19555&ProductID=508. The person whose ID is in the
link
gets a commission from anyone who buys from the site after
following
that link. Affiliate links should never be added to the directory.


You contradict yourself. First you say that sites with a "few affilate links" can be added (remember, the DMOZ guidelines say they don't list these [affiliate] sites... wait, in other places it says it might be ok), but then you say to mentally block out all the links and make the decision based on content. Define "few affiliate links" - is it a number, is it a percentage? If you mentally block out "affiliate links" and make the decision based only on the other content, then it shouldn't matter how many "few" is - or do you only mentally block out a "few" affiliate links? You sound confused by DMOZ's contradictions in its written policy, the one you must follow. A better understanding of their guidelines will only help you become a good editor. I suggest that you go back and read the printed guidelines and ask assistance from other editors that will give you their own interpretation of what the guidelines say. I'll bet you'll get a dozen different views if you ask enough times

There are many worthwhile charities that could use volunteers - but be forwarned, they only benefit you'll get is the satisfaction of helping someone else, and you won't have the advantage of listing your own sites.

You can have a life outside of DMOZ, really you can.

 

There are sites that are affiliate sites and there are sites that have some affiliate links. Those designed to be affiliates are excluded. Those designed to disseminate original content but which have some affiliate links, e.g. to fund the website, are tested according to the blocking out of the links and see what is left technique.

An example of an Affiliate Link that should never be listed is lets say I submit the Amazon URL with my affiliate code attached to it. That link is prohibited from being listed, only the main Amazon URL can be listed.

Or I put up a site that contains nothing but a series of Amazon URLs. A "Site Consisting Mostly of Affiliate Links". That would be prohibited. Lets say I put up a site with original content and a handful of Amazon links to point people at additional resources. That would be OK.

Affiliate Reseller Sites - I put up my own site and receive (maybe just a copy of) the order but it is entirely processed and delivered by someone else. Prohibited. MLM sites the same.

There is no contradiction. Sites with affiliate links on them as a by-product of running the site are generally OK if the site also contains original material that would be listed if the links did not exist. An URL that actually is an affiliate link is prohibited entirely. But all this is explained in detail at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude which are openly published and available to all. Where are the secrets, where are the contradictions?

When it comes to the number of affiliate links, is it a certain number or a percentage? No, you can't be that prescriptive, every case is treated on its merits. It isn't the links that count but what is left when you block them out. Lets say someone put up a site with 30 pages of detailed original information, then 70 pages of Amazon links. 70% affiliate links. But probably OK. A directory submits and has 10% of its links going to affiliates but those affiliates are given top spots and a write up. The remaining 90% of links are not affiliates but of poor quality. Only 10% affiliate but probably falls foul and won't get in. The problem with % is % of what? Word count? Pages? Links? Space? Listing sites can't be done on a mathematical formula.

 

BTW when it comes to how you discovered a site that looks entirely original is in fact an affiliate reseller then even if the information is obvious it is clearly not something it would be wise to share. Even in the open internal forums. The techniques I used to use to trap fraternal mirrors were of the utmost simplicity and so easy for the webmaster to counter if they knew so I kept them to myself, most experienced editors do. Even as a former editor no longer bound by any confidentiality constraints in this area wild horses couldn't part me from that information.

 

Anytime you use words like a "few" or "mostly" it becomes subject to individual interpretation. pagode says a "few" is ok, you say there is no number, that even 70% could be ok. Then you say to ignore the affiliate links and base it on content. In theory, you could then have a site with 100% affiliate links, but also 100% original content.

Again, a direct quote from DMOZ....

What Does "Affiliate Marketing" Mean?

Revenue sharing between online advertisers/merchants and online
publishers/salespeople, whereby compensation is based on
performance
measures, typically in the form of sales of products and services,
clicks, registrations, or some other hybrid model. There are four
basic types of affiliate sites: Affiliate Links, Sites Consisting
Mostly of Affiliate Links, Affiliate Reseller Sites (aka Fraternal
Mirrors), and Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) Independent
Representative
sites.

Why Doesn't the ODP List These Sites?


That statement doesn't say anything about listing a site if the content is otherwise original. There is certainly a contradiction. It may not be a contradiction in your mind because you have come to your own interpretation of the guidelines and determined that "70%" isn't "mostly". I would say a site with 70% affiliate links certainly meets the test of "mostly".

If you did a poll of DMOZ editors to put a number to "mostly" - ignoring the DMOZ statement "Why Doesn't the ODP list These Sites [affiliate or mostly affiliate] you are going to get a wide range of opinions. If you are supposed to ignore "affiliate links" and base the decision on content alone, then you are really saying affiliate links play no part in the decision process - because something you are completely ignoring cannot factor into the decision process at all - which directly contradicts DMOZ guidelines.

As editors have access to rejection comments made by other editors, I know that many sites have been rejected for having "too many affiliate links" (stated reason) and that some of these sites otherwise have all original content.

 

It is not about an exact number. As both Brizzie and I tried te explain it is about the intention of the site. A site trying to earn a little with some advertisements next to his own content is no problem. A site just build for the advertisements is a big problem.

 

No, the guidelines are saying that affiliate links and affiliate content do not count as original content. A site that is 100% affiliate links has 0% original content. Sites that consist mostly of affiliates links. Prohibited.

Unless... are you getting confused? Are you counting the links and making a decision based on the links? Rather than the other content?

This site has GoogleAd affiliate links at the top of each page. 10 posts per page. Roughly 10% affiliate links but the links are 100% affiliate (if you ignore signatures). It is the 90% of the site that is non-affiliate link content that matters. The links are 100% affiliate so ignore 100% of the links when making a decision. If this site contained a link page for members - non-affiliate - then you could include that page as original content when making the decision.

Correct. Ignore the links and focus solely on the content.

Correct.

No! The guidelines point at certain categories of site which are considered to be designed as affiliate sites and therefore are considered not to have any original content worth listing.

A site consisting only of Amazon affiliate links and little else has no original content to list - all the content is affiliate link or padding for the affiliate links.

A. Is the site designed to be an affiliate site - see the 4 types - instant rejection.

B. The site isn't designed to be an affiliate site... when you ignore any affiliate links it contains is there sufficient content left and is it original? If yes then you can list.

There are three possible reasons for that. Either the editor has incorrectly interpreted the guidelines (and you seem to be doing that so it isn't impossible). Or the proportion of affiliate links to original content means the site is clearly designed to be an Affiliate Site (and falls foul of (A) above), the original content being deemed padding to the intention of the site. Or the number and placement of affiliate links has obscured the original content - it is not unknown for the home page of a site to be crammed full of affiliate content with the original stuff on other pages but the editor gets no further than the home page before rejecting it.

 

Again, you have made your own interpretation of something that isn't stated in DMOZ guidelines. You are saying they are talking about affiliate links as a percentage of total content, which it doesn't state. If what you said was true, there should be no mention of sites running "affiliate links".... it would say to base you decision on the original content. It wouldn't matter if a site was running "mostly affiliate links" if all other content was original. If a site was 95% of affiliate links and 5% original content, and you mentally "ignore" all affiliate links, then the content is 100% original. It doesn't say that, therefore you aren't following DMOZ guidelines. ALL links do not qualify as original content, so the policy would say base your decision on the content, ignoring all links. Of course that isn't what is said, nor what is meant.

"Or the proportion of affiliate links to original content means the site is clearly designed to be an Affiliate Site"

If you are ignoring links, it's impossible to determine a proportion. You can't have it both ways.

I never said anything about not approving sites with affiliate links, I made a statement about why a large percentage of other editors were rejecting sites. DMOZ policy states they don't include sites running affiliate links, or "mostly affiliate links", therefore your statement about completely ignoring the links isn't correct.

There are several tools that ad block affiliate links, if it was DMOZ's policy to ignore links (it isn't) an editor would merely view a site with a tool that would not show any links and leave only other content to make a decision on acceptance or rejection.

 

Purposely or not, there is a bunch of misinformation being tossed about in this thread.

Some here are comparing apples to oranges. There are two different types of sites being discussed. An "affiliate site" vs. a site that uses affiliate links.

An affiliate site is one which gets its content from the affiliate program. Sites like friendfinder for personal ads or SMC for merchandise. Most affiliates of these programs provide no unique content of their own. They share a database of content with hundreds of sites and only the "main" site is supposed to be listed. By the nature of these sites they provide no unique content.

If your site provides personal ads, and the personal ads come from friendfinder, where is the unique content? If you have a shopping site and your merchandise comes from SMC then again, where is the merchandise that is unique to your site? Such sites should not be listed. End of story.

Now the other type of site people are talking about are sites that use affiliate links. Amazon or Adsense, whatever. It's these kinds of sites where an editor needs to "block out" the affiliate links and look at the content the site is providing.

So if you set up a "music review" site and have links to amazon for people to buy the music being reviewed, then the site stands or falls on the quality of the reviews provided.

If you have a "directory" site and all you are providing are links to various affiliate programs, and the links are the content, then the site will not be added to the directory.

An editor is supposed to use common sense and some judgement about the intent of the site. If the site is providing I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N that is unique to the site and uses affiliate links as a revenue source, then so long as the information adds value to the category, the affiliate links mean nothing to the review process.

If the site is a bunch of shlock, and the information is very basic or talks in circles, but is overflowing with tasty keywords and is more interested in providing traffic to other sites then it probably isn't going to add much value to a category and won't be listed. (Now let's not play naive, you know what types of sites I'm talking about...)

It really is just common sense... Splitting hairs and playing games with semantics are really not needed. When an editor is ignoring the affiliate links on a site, the content unique to the site should be adding value to the category being considered in relation to other sites on the same topic... not just the sites listed in the category of the directory, but of sites available on the topic.

The more popular the topic, the more competition out there, the harder it is to gain a listing, so the content has to be powerful either in amount (10 CD reviews ain't gonna cut it... thousands will) or depth (one paragraph saying the reviewer really really liked the CD isn't gonna compete with a site that goes into a more lengthly analysis of the tracks on the CD). In many of the more competitive topics, one must really devote a considerable amount to time into building the content.

Content Content Content. There is no substitute.

 

mjewel - if you really still don't get it then I strongly suggest you start a thread in an internal forum and request a ruling or adjudication. And pursue it to the nth degree in a place where a bunch of Metas and Admins can tell you definitively the correct way to interpret the guidelines. Then feel free to spread that knowledge far and wide as "the answer". Suggest a re-wording of the guidelines if the way they are worded now confuses you.

But of all the examples of contradictory/out of date/badly written guidelines you could have chosen those for affiliate sites seem, IMO, crystal clear. Then again that is the problem with trying to clarify things - reword them and someone who thought they were clear is now unclear and vice versa.

One last try. I assume you are OK with affiliate reseller sites (fraternal mirrors), MLM sites, and affiliate URLs. All banned. That leaves:

Sites Consisting Primarily of Affiliate Links

[guidelines]Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory.

Seems clear to me - primarily must mean more than 50% or it would be primarily not consisting of affiliate links. Or the intent of the site is to drive traffic to its affiliate links which, depending on circumstances, could be as little as 10% or less but those 10% may be placed or promoted in such a way as to be clear the intent of the site is to drive traffic to them.

[Guidelines] However, a site that contains affiliate links in addition to other content (such as a fan site for a singer that has interviews and photos plus banner ads and links to buy the singer's CDs) might be an acceptable submission to the directory.

OK - the site isn't designed to drive traffic to its affiliate links but does have some. It might be listable. How do you decide if it is listable?

[Guidelines] General rule of thumb: Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP.

Seems clear again. If the site is not designed to drive traffic to its affiliate links at that point in time apply the rule of thumb and mentally block out any affiliate links it does have.

So you start off by looking at the site and its affiliate links and make a judgement on that. Reject or pass to the next stage of the decision. If you have passed to the next stage of the decision process then mentally block out the affiliate links and judge on the value of the content that remains. That isn't interpretation, that is what the Guidelines actually say, and that is what all editors who know what they are doing actually do.

And of course you get borderline cases, shades of grey. That is what the internal forums are there for in those circumstances - state the URL and ask for opinions. Then make your own decision based on the balance of those opinions. The Guidelines are not intended to be rigid instructions, and there will always be exceptions - the site with the majority of pages turned over to affiliate links but at the same time more unique content than any other in the same field. Use common sense and judgement and ask for opinions.

 

DMOZ u can say is a submit and forget directory. you can't push the editors to get your site listed any sooner. if you are listed on DMOZ, that's great. if you are not listed on DMOZ, eh...