|DMOZ Listings for Website in French, Using .FR domain and in English using .Com domain|
Submission for French language version of website ends up listed under .Com domain
| 3:02 am on Jun 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A couple of months ago I was very happy to find my French language website approved and listed in DMOZ, however not so happy to find ODP used our .COM URL in the listing - which .Com website is already in DMOZ - which .Com domain was used instead of the .FR domain I submitted.
Normally I'd be more than happy to have any sites listed in the Open Directory.
<Besided resubmitting, which I've done> are there any other avenues available I've yet to explore?
[edited by: Webwork at 5:37 pm (utc) on June 25, 2008]
[edit reason] Tidying up a bit. See Charter for policy re DMOZ threads. [/edit]
| 5:33 pm on Jun 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hi chal00d. Welcome to WebmasterWorld and the Directory Forum.
We rarely host threads relating to administrative action by DMOZ/ODP, preferring that such issues be presented directly to DMOZ. However, the "globalizing and localizing" trends of commerce on the WWW makes it likely that your company won't be the only one confronting this issue. That raises some interesting question.
What's the best way for a company or website owner/operator to present multiple versions of their company website, which websites may be "substantially similar", except for their language differences?
What happens when the "second language website" is launched at a later date - so the submissions aren't simultaneous? Would the presence of the first website argue for "presumptive admission/listing" of the second language website?
[edited by: Webwork at 3:30 am (utc) on June 26, 2008]
| 6:43 am on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
We strongly prefer to list the main root URL in each language for which it has significant content - which is presumably what happened here.
Most multilingual websites have a readily accessible means of hopping from language to language such as a row of flags. Why wouldn't they?
Listing suggestion date order isn't a consideration because different categories in different languages are processed entirely asynchronously.
| 6:44 am on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The only thing directly related to the DMOZ-part of the question I would like to add, is a pointer to our guidelines for multi-linguial sites [dmoz.org] which state (partial quote to emphasize the usual behaviour):
When listing a multi-lingual site, list the URL for the "doorway" page that provides links to all the language editions;
This is partially to have a common rule, partially to allow our software to correctly identify multiple listings of one site. The guidelines allow exceptions for badly visible (or of course nonexistant) language choosers.
Apart from the above issue (which is an ODP policy question, which webwork states should be discussed elsewhere), let me think about possible pros and cons of "all incoming links point to the same domain, regardless of language":
Con: Visitors reaching the site via that link will not directly get content in the expected language. That might drive impatient visitors away.
Possible solution: Some people coming from search engines will always arrive at the wrong page. To catch all of them, either implement automated region (aka IP) or language detection, or make the language chooser a prominent feature on your site. Apart from working around this issue, to me this seems to be a good service to your visitors.
Pro: Incoming links all increase PR of the same page. So less PR loss due to links pointing to subpages.
Pro (you may argue here, but at least IMHO): Promoting a single URL instead of two is cheaper and can be done far more efficient.
|What happens when the "second language website" is launched at a later date - so the submissions aren't simultaneous? Would the presence of the first website argue for "presumptive admission/listing" of the second language website? |
Speaking about the ODP here? In theory there would not be much impact, since all submissions are evaluated on their own. Since submissions are not evaluated in a timeframe after site launch, it does not matter much if the site exists for a month or for years when it is reviewed. (Except for the obvious: A site lacking content because of being to new).
There might be a slight timing advantage above unlisted sites, because one of the many views available to editors marks sites "already listed elsewhere" in italics. This is usually used to identify spam, but when the checks reveal that the site is listed in a different language, the editor who did the check might (might!) decide to list it right away, because he already needed to open the form.
| 1:32 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Most multilingual websites have a readily accessible means of hopping from language to language such as a row of flags. Why wouldn't they? |
I suspect the motivation for creating ~mirror sites on ccTLDs, instead of making a single multilingual site, is a desire to geo-target the search engines that offer ccTLD specific versions of their service. So, to improve rankings in Google.Fr a business may create a .Fr version of their website, host it on a server located in France, translate the site, seek links from other .Fr domains, etc.
I suspect localization will increase for small to mid-sized businesses that don't have a strong international brand. If they are attempting to rank for generic product or service names, not brand names, they will have to take this approach if they want to draw new customers "from search".
I don't see this as an attempt to spam the ODP, though in some cases it might.