|Why is DMOZ so particular about affiliate sites?|
What's so wrong with affiliate sites?
One of my friend has a great site, it is a community based site but for some services it relies on other sites (so it refers and earns through leads). DMOZ keeps rejecting it saying it is an affiliate site.
It is one of the most useful sites available on web but still they tag it as affiliate. What is so wrong in being (direct or indirect affiliate) if you have something additional (useful) to offer with it?
According to Google
If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value. Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.
Google has a better call for affiliate. (IMO google is the biggest affiliate site).
So will DMOZ ever change this policy? Don't you think DMOZ should change its policy?
There isn't any notification about site rejections, so there's no way you could be hearing voices about "keeping rejecting" a site.
And there's no need for (and no way for) it to "say anything" if-and-when it rejects sites.
And after several times, an editor would be likely to reject out-of-hand "because two editors I know and trust have already rejected this site, so why waste anyone's time with such a low-odds proposition." In other words, there's no necessity for anyone to "keep rejecting for cause."
And finally, there's nothing in the social contract that promises any site would be reviewed more than once. So there's no reason to think a site HAS been looked at twice, or WILL be looked at twice. (It might happen, it might not. Who knows? Who can know?)
So I don't know whose voice it is that you keep hearing, but I'm confident it isn't the voice of DMOZ.
at #*$! forums the editors confirmed that it is getting rejected as it is an affiliate site.
DMOZ is still valued so it will be great to have a listing there.
you can't realistically expect DMOZ to change their minds, or their rules, so there's only two ways you can go...
1) you can try removing all the affiliate stuff whilst your review is pending (but that could take months and months),
2) you can try adding more content or some other stuff to the site so it doesn't look so affiliate heavy.
or... there is a third one... you could just forget about it and move on. that is what i would probably do. a DMOZ listing is definitely a handy thing to have for new sites, because it's a good link to get your page rank going, but it's not going to make or break an already successful site.
|that is what i would probably do |
This is what I have done for last 2 years (almost), now planning to resubmit :).
|1) you can try removing all the affiliate stuff whilst your review is pending (but that could take months and months), |
2) you can try adding more content or some other stuff to the site so it doesn't look so affiliate heavy.
1) Is not a good option, at all. It's called bait and switch and when discovered the site will be removed and possibly flagged as such and thus permanently damage its chances of being listed.
2) Is the better option of the two. Combine that with the third option of submitting and forgetting and I think you have a winner.
Don't forget, "useful" is NOT a criterion for an ODP listing. After all, it's only fair that "usefulness" be determined by, um, USERS. You and I (the webmaster or reviewers) simply don't get a vote that matters to anyone else. For that matter, any particular user's vote can only matter to people who have already learned to respect that person's judgment (and that kind of reputation CANNOT be built quickly or easily online!)
So, don't even SAY "useful" when you are talking to the ear of the ODP. It's not something that matters anyway, and it's not something on which your opinion CAN matter!
So what would an editor be looking for?
"Unique information" or "significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge" would be more, um, USEFUL criteria for evaluating websites. Of course, different kinds of sites provide different contributions, different kinds of significance, different things that actually matter.
-- For a "community site", what matters is information about the unique identity and culture of the community. (Aside: "community based" means different things to different people. In a rational world, it ought to mean "a website that is based on a community": that is, some community decided to create and support a website to express its unique identity--as many organizations both real-life have done. I don't know why, but I get the impression that's not what you mean.)
-- For a "personal site," what matters is information about the unique experience of the person (and the unique perspective it gives.)
-- For a "business site", what matters is information about the unique services its employees/partners work to provide.
So when an editor says something is an "affiliate site", it doesn't mean "there are affiliate ads present on it." It means "if you ignores the affiliate ads, there isn't any unique significance left." (Of course, by definition, affiliate ads CAN'T have unique signifance.) In practice, this generally indicates that whatever "usefulness" the site has, probably isn't unique anyway.
Here's a significant caveat. The ODP doesn't (and shouldn't) try to do everything. There are sites that do OFFER services which ARE useful and MAY be unique, but which we can't REVIEW. We simply CANNOT tell whether the PROVIDED services are unique or not. That is a fundamental limitation. We don't cover it up. We can't change it, and we won't try. We do what we can do, and we avoid trying to do what we can't do. So the guidelines tell all editors (new and old) not to do some things, simply because the experienced editors finally figured out that we couldn't do them.
Which is all another way of saying the ODP is not everything, and won't ever be. It's just "one part of a balanced internet." If you see something it doesn't do -- no surprise at all there: it's not the only website I contribute to either!
And if you think that something is important enough to do, then go do it. If you don't think so, then don't expect that anyone else will think so either. But telling other people to do something that you don't and won't do, is a kind of arrogant discourtesy that is unlikely to be tolerated by acquaintances, let alone strangers.
After reading the posts I have decided to resubmit it. Is there someone who can guide me submit it? I seriously want to get a listing this time.
You mean you submitted it more than onece? How do you think any directory (DMOZ or other) should treat any website that deliberatly flouts the guidelines agreed to when submitting?
|DMOZ keeps rejecting it saying it is an affiliate site |
|After reading the posts I have decided to resubmit it. Is there someone who can guide me submit it? I seriously want to get a listing this time. |
You should read the guidelines, and submit a site that fits ONCE to the APPROPRIATE category - having read the category's local guide too - then walk away and get on with your life.
Resubmitting is usually utterly pointless, as it moves your application to the back of the line (maybe it was just about to be reviewed ... you just set it back two years).
Also, a site that has been declined will likely continue to be declined. So you waste your time, and the editors (but much more of yours). And still will not be accepted.
ODP has zero objection the the fact of affiliation; what they wont accept is sites that are no more than affiliates.
Why? Because of their mission; to list useful, quality, and unique content. Your site could be the the most useful site on the web; but if it is first equal with 10,000 others, why would ODP list more than one?
Your site needs to be WORKING, USEFUL, USABLE, UNIQUE - place "AND" between each word. they want it all.
Why do they want it all? How dare they! - Because they want to be the best directory on the web. Quaint, old fashioned but true.
Submit once, and move on. Don't even look over your shoulder. They list your site, or not. End of.
|You mean you submitted it more than onece? How do you think any directory (DMOZ or other) should treat any website that deliberatly flouts the guidelines agreed to when submitting? |
It was some 2 years back, when I submitted it twice after correcting some of the errors pointed by them.
My whole concern is not only about DMOZ but why affiliates are counted so bad? Affiliates are of different type, some really add their own services along with some affiliated programmes for the belly.
The issue is NOT affiliate vs non-affiliate.
The issue is about quality and UNIQUITY.
Now, I'm not suggesting your site has any problems with quality; but many affiliate sites do.
I don't even know for sure that your site has no UNIQUITY - just that the vast majority of pure affiliates do have that problem. So they are declined NOT because they are affiliates, but because they are not unique (many, as you doubtless know, are simply 100% clones of 7,592 other sites)..
If you look in ODP there are many thousands of sites that are useful, unique sites - that happen to have some affiliate content.
If your site made itself more than JUST an affiliate, then it would have much better chances in all directories.
Don't obsess about affiliation; think about UNIQUITY.
THAT is the issue, in 99% of affiliate sites.
It has a forum with over 70,000 members and 2,00,000 posts. Very good posts on financial issues from our members. Guides, Videos, audios, books and so many other things that are added by community members. A list of blogs are there with us.
I am afraid even after someone will say it is affiliate and will reject :). If someone can guide me then it will be great.
Why are you so obsessed with the affiliate issue - especially as you also insist your site is much more than 'just' an affiliate. If what you say is true, then there MUST be another reason.
You can't have it both ways, it just doesn't make sense.
Maybe you should go read their guidelines (A) before resubmitting and (B) making accusation that you then deny apply to your site.
Good Luck; I don't think I can help you any further at this time.
thanks Quadrille, I will go through the guidelines one again to make sure there is no other violation.
It's not a matter of editors looking for violations of the code--that is, reasons to exclude a site. Nobody needs a reason not to do something with a site: you and I will both do nothing with a hundred million sites today!
Editors are looking for a reason TO do SOMETHING with a site. What you can do is, if they find your site, make sure they can see a reason to review it: make sure the unique content is prominently visible. If the home page is, for instance, wall-to-wall ads with tiny texts links to content stuffed into the cracks, any visitor should reasonably conclude there's nothing too see here--and move along.