Publish a directory moderation policy reviewers can apply
A visible submitter policy and internal decision framework aligned to approve-or-reject moderation rather than unsupported change requests.
The practical answer first
A directory moderation policy should state scope, eligibility, prohibited content, evidence and completeness standards, approve-or-reject outcomes, paid rejection refund behavior, featured-placement disclosure, decision records, correction handling, and a contact route. Apply the same substantive standard to staff-sourced, free, and paid listings.
For directory owners, reviewers, editorial teams, and support staff who need consistent decisions and accurate public expectations.
Copy the policy structure, have the accountable owner review it, and align the submission form, reviewer checklist, notifications, and commercial terms.
Publish scope and eligibility
State the audience, eligible listing types, geographic or topical boundary, required source evidence, exclusions, and what inclusion means. Explain that submission and payment do not guarantee publication. Avoid broad discretion language when a clearer rule can guide submitters and reviewers.
- Apply one standard across sourcing channels.
- Separate factual eligibility from commercial treatment.
- Reserve removal rights for changed or misleading records.
Define the decision standard
Review identity, scope fit, completeness, source links, prohibited claims, category, duplicate status, public rights, and presentation quality. Current Directoryz moderation supports approve or reject, not a request-changes state, so the policy and form should gather enough information for a final decision.
- Record decision notes and reviewer identity.
- Do not imply credential verification without a process.
- Escalate conflicts under a named owner.
Define payment and featured treatment
If submissions are paid, state the one-time price, optional one-time featured add-on, review sequence, rejection refund, failed-refund escalation, and what publication includes. Label featured listings and never describe payment as a recommendation, rating, or recurring sponsorship schedule.
- Keep payment status separate from review status.
- Do not approve because refunding is inconvenient.
- Use the directory owner's connected Stripe account.
Define corrections, removal, and communication
Provide a contact route for factual corrections, privacy concerns, policy questions, and disputes. State reasons a published listing may be edited or removed and how records are retained internally. Avoid promising an appeal workflow or response time the team cannot operate.
- Protect submitter and visitor private data.
- Retire stale or ineligible records consistently.
- Review policy decisions for recurring ambiguity.
Copyable policy clauses
Adapt these clause headings into public policy language and maintain a linked internal checklist with the same criteria.
- 01Scope
We consider [listing type] serving [audience/market]. Inclusion means [meaning] and does not mean endorsement.
- 02Criteria
A submission must be eligible, complete, sourceable, lawful, non-duplicative, and suitable for public display.
- 03Decision
Staff will approve or reject. Submission does not guarantee publication, and decision notes are retained internally.
- 04Payment
Paid rejection is refunded through the connected payment process; featured treatment is labeled and one-time.
- 05Aftercare
Contact [address] for factual corrections or privacy issues. Published records may be updated or removed under policy.
Frequently asked questions
Should the moderation policy be public?
Publish the rules submitters and listed organizations need to understand, especially eligibility, payment, review, featured treatment, refunds, and correction contact. Keep security and internal abuse details private.
Can reviewers ask for changes in Directoryz?
The current product decision states are approve and reject. Teams can communicate separately when necessary, but should not advertise a built-in request-changes moderation workflow.
Should paid submissions use a different quality bar?
No. The same eligibility, evidence, completeness, and content standard should apply. Payment covers the stated commercial offer, not a lower editorial threshold or endorsement.