What's wrong with my site? - Good enough for the BBC, but not for Dmoz.org

We have a pm system or you could email me at

Thanks
Notting

 

I'm sorry, I wouldn't do that, which is why I've disabled both forum pm features here. I wouldn't do in private, what I wouldn't do in public.

 

You are wrong crowbar. You point me in the direction of policies regarding affiliate websites.

However this is not an affiliate website.

This is a quality site, and should undoubtably be included in the directory.

It is 10 times more informative than some of the other sites in the category.

Am i wrong?

Notting

 

Perhaps it's because:

?I don't think so myself. Different parrots/different sites makes sense to me.

Just as you could own a site about photoshop and on about fireworks. Two flavours of web design.



What do other members think?
Notting

 

I didn't say that it was. I was talking in general terms and pointing you to the part of our Guidelines that speaks about sites that we do not include in the Directory, not to your site situation specifically.

I haven't reviewed your site, nor do I intend to. I was pointing out possibilities, including the link I gave you, the url being down temporarily and delisted for investigation, or the site content changing and the site being moved to another category for consideration. All common possibilities.

This is a really good example of why site status reports don't work and why our internal information isn't open to the public.

Even without reviewing your site or giving you a site status report, you are ready to argue your case with an editor who hasn't seen it. You want to know what your status is, what was said, who said it, what's wrong with your site (if anything is wrong with it), and anything else you can find out that will help you get your way and get it listed.

You want a one on one arguement with an editor, and the truth of the matter is that it would not get you listed or listed any faster, so it's wasted time and energy. Which I why I pointed you to the same Guidelines that every editor edits by, which is open to the public.

 

No - Its another example of how Dmoz.org doesn't work any more.

The truth is:

THERE IS NOT REASON WHY THE SITE SHOULD NOT BE LISTED!!

It's a high quality site and it is frustrating that Dmoz.org do not recognise that fact.

Dmoz.org have lost a lot of credibility recently...because of cases like this.

They obviously don't though....

Notting

 

First off, a disclaimer - I haven't made any decisions regarding the listability or not of this site. All I will do is give you my opinion, for what it is worth.

When editors look at sites they spend some time trying to work out what the purpose of the site is. If the site *appears* to be for informational purposes only, they will list it. If it appears to have as its primary goal selling products through affiliate links, they will often choose not to. It is a subjective decision, of course, and often looked at by more than one editor if it is borderline case.

I have taken a look at the site, have not read any internal discussions or notes on it, and my guess is that the reviewing editor chose not to list it because the appearance of the site makes it looks like it is more affiliate content than information. Not sure what your intentions are with the site, just telling you how it looks to my eyes. I looked at old versions of the site and it didn't look quite as "affiliate"-like.

Other people may look at the site through a different set of eyes, using different criteria, so they may treat the site differently. I am just letting you know how the ODP editors tend to evaluate sites.

A general comment, not specifically about this site: The trick with any site is to make the unique, valuable stuff really, really evident on the main page - this helps DMOZ editors to see the site for what it is, but it also helps your surfers who will have to do less clicks to find the content they may be looking for.

Hope this helps.

 

HI,

Thanks for your response Alucard.

I think that it is a great shame that the site has been delisted.

Changing the adverts from "google ads" to "different ads" seem to be the problem.

However the content, and therefore its usefulness to users, has increased.

It simply doesn't make sense to me.

This is a site that has a good breadth and quality of articles/information and knowledge, yet Dmoz.org only see the adverts on the site.

Well, I don't know what to say really.

Perhaps Dmoz.prg should just put a link to the Wikipedia article for each category. Good information and no ads.

in my own opinion, this is ridiculous:

Does Dmoz.org honestly believe that all the "reliable sources" of information (what ever the media), give information out for alturistic reasons? No, every source of media (except, perhaps wiki) does it for the money.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand this site has no more ads than any of the other sites in the category.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I would urge an editor to take another look at the site and let me know specifically why it has been taken out of the directory.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks
Notting

 

I think I would just move on with my life, I don't think we can be of further assistance to you in this matter.

 

Finally an editor that agrees ... The ODP can not help.

Pity though, for the end user that is. It's also a pity that I was told why my site was de-listed while this person is only pointed to a list of reasons that his site does not fall under. Are you allowed to say why one editor can give a reason, but another can't? Are there more then one set of rules for this type of thing?

Another reason could be that the editor that removed it has stock in a competing site? I mean, that IS a possibility right?

 

You're forgetting that the Directory is not a listing service for site owners, no site has a "right" to be listed, no site is "promised" a listing, all sites are listed at our sole discretion, and no site owner is owed any explanation whatsoever.

Does that sort of cover it?

 

Notting, you have been told by a senior editor how he would view the site (and I have neither reviewed the site nor the editor notes) he has given you some valuable tips and you still argue that the site is listable as it is.

Once again, Q, you chose to make mischief, you have also read the comments of the senior editor and then want to try and project that the edit was done by a corrupt editor. I feel more and more sorry for you with every post you make. You also try and make misschief when you were told by the editor who removed your site why it was removed. If you had not been told it would all be part of the ODP secrecy which makes Ivan post of Nazi Germany and death camps.

I invited you to ask us to not re-list your site and asked you if you really believed your quote "forget2submit" but you have failed to answer. But we are big enough to want to create a directory, not hold grudges so when an editor saw it was working it was re-listed.

You have been treated more than fairly, despite a lot of squealing and a lot of mud slinging. Perhaps you would like to reflect on that for a few moments before your next noxious post, for what comes out is reflected on what is inside. Perhaps your interest in the occult and pagan religions takes you that far.

 

I feel you are going off topic. I am not interested in your ramblings about other members of dp or other sites.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really dont believe that I have been told why the site is not listed.

I have been pointed to a list which is unhelpful.

If you join a community like DP surely you should be sharing your knowledge not hiding it.

Notting

 

But isn't that also favoritism? Some websites get listed because editor likes them more then others which might have more useful content but editor has failed to see it because it has little more ads? Isn't DMOZ goal to be objective and treat all websites equally?

Your forgetting about Soviet Union and Gulags where anyone who dares to question divine meta rule ends up.

Sharing knowledge like editor notes, which is considered top secret at DMOZ, is grounds for editor removal, so you should become editor and then you can read them as much as you want!

 

First of all, please put on your spectacles and re-read the post from Alucard who is a senior editor and you will see his comments on how he sees your site and suggests that may be why it is not listed. If you read that post it also gives some real clues about how to present a website to give it a better chance when an editor reviews the site. he has also indicated that because we are humans who edit we all have slightly different emphases within the guidelines we are given. It is one of our strengths, we don't use bots to list with any more, I believe they were used to seed the directory.

The information given in that post and crowbar pointing you to the guidelines is not hiding anything, but we are reluctant to redraft sites for people or to analyse any and every site offered as to why they are not listed. Remember we could face thousands of those questions every day.

 

Why is it that when Crowbar gave possible reasons that was OK, but when I did, it was some how bad? Are you saying my reason was not a possibility? If that is the case we can knock that reason off the list of hundreds of possibilities, but then, if my possible reason is not case, then what is the reason?

When the guidelines seemingly state that crowbar can not give a reason for Notting's site delisting, but when there was no problem for an editor to tell me mine was gone, and for why (note I didn't even have to ask) is some how bad. The difference between my site, and the one here is that I WAS TOLD why my site was de-listed. IMHO, favoritism if ya ask me. And oddly enough, favoritism to ex-editors. I mean, I didn't even have to ask why my site was removed.

So no, it's not mischief that I want, it's consistency, fairness, and a little more communication. (sorry, without communication, there does seem to be an aura of secrecy around the directory).

Notting's site used to be listable, now it's not. At one time the editors thought that it would be good for the end user to see that site within the directory. What changed? Notting's site? If that's the case, whats wrong in once again helping the end user?

 

Dmoz is a paid directory(unofficially) .....they must have sent you email to pay else ur site will be sacked out of the directory and you must have ignored it
Believe me they did it before also!

 

Perhaps because I'm a current editor with 6 years of experience to back up my answers, and my answers were fact, while you are an ex-editor with minuscule experience, and your answers are based on speculation?

Why a site is either listed or delisted specifically is proprietary information that is the Directory's business and no one else's. We're not a listing service for site owners, so we are not accountable to site owners and owe them no explanations whatsoever. We've gone a little bit further than we needed to and tried to offer what help we could offer, without breaking a trust that we agreed to when we became editors.

I took one approach in answering the ops questions and gave him factual possibilities.

Alucard, who is not only a senior editor, but my mentor and a very independently minded editor, took a different approach and not only gave his view, but added some very good advice to help the op.

The editors who comment here have earned their knowledge the hard way, by actually doing the work over many years, and devoting a great deal of their personal time to building something worthwhile so others could freely use it. We are accountable to no one but ourselves and the Directory, not to individuals trying to bully their way into the Directory for personal gain.

Some of us react to unwarrented attacks, and others of us try to ignore that in favor of giving what help and information we can without sounding haughty or power mad (as many accuse us of being), but sometimes when explaining certain truths it has to sound like that because there's no other way to explain it. You boys don't make our task here any easier.

 

The general standard of the best websites is always improving, as more information is added to them and more effort is put into building them. You only have to look at the Wayback Machine to see that.

I'm not a Dmoz editor, but the main problem I find with that website is that it's not really clear who wrote the articles, and who has the copyright. I think the source is important, because you see so many affiliate sites that just use free articles that are duplicated all over the place, and that makes it harder to recognise the real deal without going digging through the search engines. So my advice would be to add bylines, copyright notices, and the odd picture of yourself with a parrot. And spellcheck those articles, some of them are full of typos.

 

Most of the articles only show up on that site, and that site only ~ if they were stolen, then they were stolen from someplace other then other websites. Typos are not against the ODP guidelines, so that is not a reason. And the site is clearly not an affiliate, as the links are all direct.