Fellow Directory owners, I would like to know whether or not you take submitted websites' design and looks too into consideration during approval. For instance, a site could be informative but lack in proper navigation structure, could have an empty internal page, a broken link or an image that doesnt show... Would you approve such a site in your directory if it adheres to all your directory guidelines? Feel free to share your opinion. Thanks
Editorial guidelines are just as stated guidelines. The editor has to review the website as a whole. As an editor these are my three major qualifiers for submissions that have passed our minimum submission standards: Professional looking Informative A useful internet resource
Unfinished sites??? Editors call them "Under Contraction" and send them back Design doesn't matter but if site is missing: About Us, Privacy, Terms of Service, Sitemap etc. whatever makes just another mushroom farm directory look like real Web Site, then you're out fastreplies
Depends what type of site it is, if theres a few problems on the site thats fine, if the site is a complete mess with some things missing then thats different.
To some extent website design is like art, it's personal. I also take into account that not everyone is or can afford a pro web designer. My primary focus in reviewing sites is whether or not they share information that I would consider worthwhile or at least make a half-decent attempt at selling their product or service. With businesses, I ask myself would I ever consider buying from them based upon their site's presentation. Again, quite subjective. If the site isn't quite done and I think it has merit, I'll leave it in the queue and change the description to include - not finished as of <date>. If I check a few weeks later and it's the same, I usually dump it. I've been known to let a website owner know when I've found a broken link or other boo boo in their acceptance letter and won't let that sort of thing disqualify them. (Granted, running niche directories involves a much smaller number of sites to review each day.) If however, the site is virtually impossible to navigate or spawns a multitude of pop-ups, it's gone.
Since my broken links and under construction pages are against my guidelines, then probably not. In practice though it's always a matter of degree: one or two misspelled links amongst a rich and useful resource is not a big problem.
Totally agree! The look of a Web site IS important because it shapes the first impression of the visitor And this is something I don't understand when it comes to DMOZ cuz many sites listed there are poorly designed. I like DMOZ very much. It's just strange why its stringent editors do not take the design factor in consideration.
Well it's always going to be an editorial decision which is why human editing is the only way to run a directory. I like aesthetically pleasing sites for first impression, BUT it's the content that counts. Say you had a 'cashless society' category, would you accept this site? This guy actually lives cashless and updates his blog at internet cafes, he can't pay a designer and makes it even worse by using all the wrong fonts, colours etc. It looks a mess, but I wouldn't think twice about listing it.
I just checked the site and its awesome. I'd not think twice about listing it either...The good thing about the site is that aside from the content, the page actually "loads". All the images show properly. If the same site with same information had little red xs instead of the images, then I'd have to think twice before adding it. Therefore, considering whether not a site is "complete" AND informative is perhaps more important than the quality of its design(?)