Well, you may have a point there, but there are two sides of the coin. Listing a site in a directory is very different then selling a paid link. Directory listings have descriptions, which paid links don't. Directory listings are arranged with similar listings in a category and paid links are not. Directory listings will pull up in search results when somebody is searching the directory and paid links will not. At Linkspub, if we find that we cannot list a site, we refund their fees. We also give a 7 day trial period and if the lister is not happy, they can ask for a refund and will will give it to them without any haggle. Alot of the so called directories which will not refund fees have been around for many many years, and have a name in the market. (Yahoo, Botw) We are new compared to them, and have to bend over backwards to get to that level. Very true. At Linkspub, if we find we cannot list a site, we sort of eat up the evaluation cost. In the United States, just about any merchandise you buy has a money back guarantee. People sort of like the idea that if they don't really want the product, they can always refund it. Doesn't mean the retailer loses money. It's all in the business model.
Unless, my mother was the buyer. She would always return a product with the slightest defect. Back on topic, I think that a percentage of the review fee should be refunded. This way, you are saying: I took 25% to cover my review time, but the other 75% was for the link space which you did not receive. I believe that is the fair way of providing a "no-refund" policy. If you do not refund a decent percentage of sites, it is a very thin line, between being biased towards making money, and providing a quality service to your submitters.
i think it's not a matter of second-guessing what the fee is for. just make it really clear at the point of payment what you (the directory owner) expects the fee for - i.e. for the link sale or for a review fee. once you state that and the submitter still submits, he basically will have to follow what the directory owner expects.
Transparency is all its about nothing more nothing less, no need complicating the complicated. Tell people what you offer, provide what you offer, end of story.
You hit it again friend. As i have stated on my previous post in this thread I need some house cleaning first before doing drastic changes. I was wrong at the start of my directory and trying to correct it. It is difficult as even MOST directory owners could not even understand it. I just don't care and don't give a damn anymore. I will continue as what I deem is right for my directory and let it grow. I will add more content to it and that is my objective then I will just decide in the future about the payment terms once everything is in place.
Clearly, you did not understand my intended point. I'm certain that Jeff understands my point, and I would like him to answer my question.
We'll always have a choice John, it just depends on which path we choose, the right one or the wrong one. (Whoah, philosophy. )
Sometimes you can choose the right path, but it won't mean nothing if you don't reach your destination (I have a secret passion for philosophy, hahah). Back to the topic. I do feel like it would turn off some potential submitters if it stated no refund. Even if you have a site that you feel is good enough and clearly not a MFA, you still will never know what the actual reviewer thinks or how high their standards are. I feel like this is a type of decision where it will depend on your directory and its status.
The majority of directories may not have that status and I'm sure it will deter submissions overall regardless of status. But, I also imagine that it would reduce the number of submissions made that completely disregard the published guidelines. There are a number of issues to consider if one does decide to change over to a non-refundable review model and this discussion has brought up many valid points from both sides. It seems that we could all benefit from better guidelines regardless, and it might be a good idea to have a published Terms of Service outlining exactly what a submitter receives for the fee paid.
Well to sum it all here is what I have understood from the discussion above. Directory Owner's point of view. 1. It takes time and resources to view each listing and then it needs "brains" to accept or reject each submission. Outcome (My view as a directory owner): Each site owner should understand that sites are acceptable only if they qualify the terms and conditions. Also as a big giant directory I might/might not refund you. As a growing directory I might refund you but after subtracting my review fees (Can be anything between 10% to 25%) Needs to e implemented as soon as possible.. 2.It means less submissions and less money Well you can't have all in the world Either we as dir owners can sit through all night rejecting/accepting sites and making money else do with less work and less money. The choice is your's 3.As a directory owner I would definitely make a whole page (optional to read though) listing all the requirements very clearly for the submitter to read. (Don't play dirty games without telling the site owner what he is getting into) All terms and condition and requirements along with policies should be listed here. 4. Major change that needs to be done Please explain the site owner why his/her site was rejected in the email sent 5.Integrate more payment options (encourage people to pay via other means even if it means to offr a 5% discount) 6.No denying the fact that Paypal is a major financial player for online business and all of us need to live with it. But slow gradual changes such as the above can be incorporated, benificial for all directory owners. This way, we can have a better life (sleep at night), have less submissions to deal with, have clearly stated our policy so no paypal issues and are also paid our review fees if a site is rejected (Still what each owner rejects or accepts is a subject matter of his/her nature) I hope this helps all Al
The main thing is transparency on two fronts first making it clear whether fees are refunded are not - I don't think that a note at the end of the guidelines, after 10 other general guidelines about online casinos etc - is sufficient (as with idk.in) I think it needs to be stated loud and clear on the same page as the submission form, yahoo style. second, if fees are not to be refunded, making it very clear what the standards are. Most directories say they reject MFA and affiliate sites. Fine, but there are many sites that have adsense / affiliate links without dominating the site or being MFA. As an owner of several of these types of site I need to know the directory owners viewpoint before submitting, if I won't get my fee returned.
Plus practice what you preach which many people don't as I demonstrated in my response to smub. We can all have guidelines that are transparent, but they are usless if you have no intention of sticking to them.
I just want to clarify about Big Web Links. "Unique content" --- every description submitted to Big Web Links and the other directories owned by Mystik Media are re-written at least a little. Therefore, I feel that it does provide unique enough content for that justification. However, I am not arguing about the rest. I do not agree with the Yahoo approach. I feel that refunds are appropriate if a listing is rejected. If a web directory is offering a service to list web sites, and a web site is not listed, the service is not being fulfilled. Therefore, in my opinion, a refund should be given. The review is what the web directory is suppose to do for the listings. It's part of what they are paid for. I didn't word this post the best because I have been sidetracked several times while writing it, but I hope it makes enough sense.
Could you please do me a favour and quote a relevant post of mine not just three dots ...'s that doesn't legitimise your reply. Did I ask you to clarify anything?
I agree with those who believe in refunding for rejected listings. From a business standpoint, it would be great to have everyone pay for a review. However, in reality no one in their right mind would pay $50 for a review fee and no backlink. People want protection for their investment, such as a refund if rejected. People take a risk on Yahoo because they know most sites are approved, including MFA's. Also, the benefits of being listed there are great. So, there is a low risk factor. Ask yourself, would you submit to any non-authority directory if you had a 50/50 chance of rejection? I think not. Only a handful of directories make it to authority status, so implementing a "no refund" policy would simply kill your business. Right now, I could think of only 3 directories where I would submit to if there were no refunds: Yahoo, Business.com, and BOTW.org......maybe Aviva and Alive if their review fees were lower. A lot of directory owners do not like the term "listing fee", and understandably so. Google does not like sites that sell links. So, why not rename it to "advertising fee" or "review and listing fee"? Google doesn't have anything against advertisements.
I'm glad that you feel this way! I will keep this post for the record in case you changed your mind in the future BTW- Your statement does make perfect sense!!!
Jeff, "onlinedude," please address http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4261716&postcount=55