| 11:12 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
In all likelyhood yes.
| 11:14 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No it wouldn't.
You're subject to the same criteria though, that page will have to contain unique content that adds value to the category you're submitting to.
A better strategy for multiple listings in to submit diretories like /products/ or /articles to dmoz. I, like many others have multiple listings in dmoz that way. If the editor considers the dir to add value to thier cat then you're in.
| 11:17 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|would it be considered spam if I submitted an additional url |
In saying that... most web sites are entitled to a single listing, and possibly two (one a regional location - where the physical business or establishment is & one topical - the subject matter of the web site.
An exception to this are web sites which contain a great deal of topical content covering a broad topic base, a very unique perspective not covered by other sites, or a high level of informative content, research or educational value.
However - this is very subjective and completely up to the editor of the category you submit to... thus additional listings may not necessarily be added.
| 11:26 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I base my comment on the fact one page is index and one is products.htm
7 out of 10 times this indicates it is spam and 2 times out of 10 innocent people not checking the rules b4 they submit.
| 11:33 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why is it spam? - If the editor considers it to be worthy of a listing, where is the problem?
I don't see the logic in your argument?
| 11:50 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Deep-linking is the exception rather than the rule."
Lee is asking if he can get a listing for his index page in one catergory and then find another catergory to list his product page.
In all likelyhood the index page is a storefront and the product page the "shelves" in the sore.
Or as the Dmoz rules state "The purpose of the ODP is not to replicate the individual listings of an online shopping catalog"
| 11:54 am on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|exception rather than the rule |
And there's the point. It's down to the editor. If it adds value, it's in. If it doen't, it's out. No spam problem there unless you're the editor.. but that's another topic.
| 12:07 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Most editors do not list in this situation. Some will even "flag" it as spam.
In the worst cases Meta Editors can and do place bans on the submitter and the urls.
| 12:16 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree: Listing an index page plus the main product page is probably not good practise with the ODP.
A different scenario would be to have different content sections in a site. Example: widget factory main site and widget factories cool section on the history of widgets.
| 12:24 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|"The purpose of the ODP is not to replicate the individual listings of an online shopping catalog" |
But that's exactly what they have done with the Catholic Encyclopedia - the entire index is now a part of ODP with 11.500 links to 'the Catholic thesaurus of archaic superstition and "Catholic Truth" '.
| 12:39 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
here comes the dog fight
|submitting multiple url's to the open directory |
|I have a listing in the open directoy for www.domain.com/index.htm, would it be considered spam if I submitted an additional url (e.g www.domain.com/products.htm)to a different catergory? |
Specific to LeeJ26 specific (question) guidelines which like DMOZ are opened to individual interpretation - you can submit and be accepted as you have described, however, do not be surprised if the listing is not accepted.
This has nothing to do with spam and mostly to do with the editors interpretation of DMOZ guidelines.
A good rule here - if the main page is primarily informative with a vast assortment of content links to in-site "non-commercial" information and the products page sports a vast assortment of products which can not be directly represented by the mainpage then there is a fair chance of having the additional listing.
Please bear in mind that the editor of that category "makes the call" not WebmasterWorld members.
[edited by: fathom at 12:41 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2003]
| 12:41 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When has the Catholic Encyclopedia been a shopping catalog.
Yes Heini different infomation sections can be a way to get more listings.
Indeed I have just asked a meta to consider a deeplink to a indepth article on our site. ( As I am the Editor for the Cat ).
| 1:09 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|When has the Catholic Encyclopedia been a shopping catalog. |
I won't touch that straight line - not even for 11.500 links :)
The title of this thread is "Multiple URL's in DMOZ" and I thought that maybe one (1) link to an encyclopaedia would have been enough.
| 1:27 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The product page is extremely likely to offer information (specifically: more details) about the same topic as the main index. This means that any theoretical listing would have to be made in the same category or close proximity to it. Since this would be redundant, it is explicitly prohibited by the editing guidelines. Any such submission is very likely to be regarded as spam.
Of course, just submitting the deepling once will have no direct negative effects, other than causing unnecessary work for the editor who has to delete it. But if you try to submit redundant deeplinks again and again, then your domain is in serious risk of getting flagged.
If you really don't see a difference between a product page and an encyclopedia entry, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in terms you'll understand. There are actually specific guidelines that regulate the large-scale inclusion of deeplinks to certain types of information sites. Encyclopedias are only the most prominent example. But certainly no page trying to sell a product will ever be treated that way.
| 2:06 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see that you've received several replies already, but I won't let that stop me from adding to it.
There is no prohibition against deeplinking in the ODP, but deeplinks are the exception and not the rule.
For the most part, whether to accept a deeplink or not will depend on the editor. If the editor believes that the deeplink will enhance the category, it might be accepted.
Regarding your examples:
Without seeing the actual site in question, I would guess that the editor would probably opt to list only the full domain and not the deeplink.
When deeplinks are accepted, this is usually because they relate to a subject other than that of the main domain. For example, on a domain for someone's personal page, they might include subdomains for unrelated subjects of interest to the author. For example:
Since there is little relationship between mountain climbing, wild turkeys, and Moxie (a soft drink sold mostly in Maine), it might be decided, based upon the uniqueness and worthfulness of the content, to list domain.com in a personal homepage (or other) category, the mountain climbing subsite in a mountain climbing category, the wild turkey site in a category relating to wild turkeys, and the Moxie site in a category devoted to the strange beverage.
Please know that these subsites must have sufficient potentially useful and unique content to justify a listing within their respective categories.
However, if the deeplinks clearly relate to one another. For example, for the following structure:
In the above situation, the editor might reasonably decide to simply list domain.com in the parent category for each of these individual soft drinks, since we frown upon deeplinking within the same, sub-, or sibling categories.
A decision to deeplink or not to deeplink would be based upon whether the deeplinks add to the categories, and not on any perceived right of a webmaster to have his deeplinks listed.
The above is my opinion only, and is not intended to represent official ODP policy.
| 2:34 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What catagory are you listed? if you are Regional, you may have a good chance of bieng listed by product or service. Send a nice leter to the editor of the catagory you wantd to be listed.
| 3:30 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is really very simple.
Submitting a second URL won't get you in trouble. Whether or not the second URL will be listed, who knows. Depends on a lot of things. But it won't get you in trouble.
Submitting every page of your site to 10 different categories will get you in trouble
| 3:34 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It is highly unlikely that
would both be listed. Spam to submit both? Not unless its done repeatedly and/or all over the directory IMO.
Looksmart would be the best place to get both listed.
| 3:42 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Please bear in mind that the editor of that category "makes the call"
He is right. By definition this is human editing. Every submission is a human judgement call.
| 4:55 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> If you really don't see a difference between a product page and an encyclopedia entry, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in terms you'll understand.
I only mentionened the Catholic Encyclopaedia because I was puzzled. For the record, I link to the encyclopaedia myself, but I don't feel a need to copy the entire index to my own site.
> There are actually specific guidelines that regulate the large-scale inclusion of deeplinks to certain types of information sites.
Good. Can you give a link to these rules? Or explain them in terms I'll understand? Hint: I understand non-abusive language best.
| 7:06 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Can you give a link to these rules? Or explain them in terms I'll understand? Hint: I understand non-abusive language best. |
Those rules have been removed from our guidelines, but they basically stated that if you felt your site have a great deal of unique content and you wanted to deeplink all of it, you could contact staff to work out an arrangement. In DMOZ parlance, such a provider was known as a PCP (Professional Content Provider).
Rolling Stone magazine was one of the more (in)famous PCP's in DMOZ history.
AFAIK, staff no longer accepts PCP arrangements.
| 11:33 pm on Jan 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have one URL (main page) in a cat, added Dec, 01,
took about 2 weeks.
Also have two utilities listed in another cat (same cat),
one added in Dec 21, 02 (took 7 days) and the other
added Jan 28, 03, (took 2 weeks)
I feel they are all 'different products' with different uses/output
|which can not be directly represented by the mainpage |
Will probably submit another this weekend to a different cat.
| 4:53 am on Feb 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Didn't wait :)
|Will probably submit another this weekend to a different cat. |
Submitted Jan 30, 03
Added Feb 05, 03
my setup is like:
| 12:37 pm on Feb 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|AFAIK, staff no longer accepts PCP arrangements |
I think this explains the Epinions links too (discussed elsewhere).
My $.02 worth is that its probably time to purge those entries and replace them with a single one. It's not as if the ODP is short of content, is it?
| 3:25 pm on Feb 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I think this explains the Epinions links too (discussed elsewhere).
Correct. They helped build out some Consumer Information categories.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is, for all its medieval philosophical bias (its content on Reformation leaders would probably, if repeated today, get a Jesuit censured for slander by his own superiors, according to our Catholic editors) has a wealth of information on historical figures -- articles often several times longer than the corresponding ones in other encyclopedias. In many "important person" categories, the CE has the most substantial biography from any web-based authoritative source. It ought to be deep-linked MORE often.
You want deep links for your site?
Go through our categories for famous historical figures--writers, composers, artists, religious leaders, etc. We have good biographies (book-length) for maybe 1-5% of them; we have good magazine-article-length bios for less than a third. [BTW: magazine-feature-article is my benchmark for deeplinking reference subjects....less is OK if the ODP is sparse there; more would be needed if we've already got a book-length bio.]
So grab the Dictionary of National Biography (UK) or some equivalent source from before 1923 (in the U.S.; your local laws apply) Scan those articles, proofread, and post. go easy on the advertising--but a generic ad banner at the top, and a "sponsored by" link at the bottom, would be no problem at all. We'd happily deeplink that...regardless of the nature of the sponsoring site (well, almost regardless--I do not recommend this process to porn sites.)
If you can scan a public-domain portrait or two, that would be slick. Or add some other links -- maybe to a writer's work at Project Gutenberg or a composer's MIDI files at ClassicalMusic.net. Or ... use your imagination.
If you have UNIQUE content, magazine-feature-article length-and-quality-and-authority about some historically important person or topic not well represented already on the web, "integrated" with some multimedia content or web links, I WON'T just deeplink it. I'll hunt up the home page and go through the site, systematically looking for other similar features to deeplink. If we don't have a category for that topic/person, I'll seriously consider building a category around it.
But if you're looking for deeplinks for each page of a catalog, ... you need to be talking to froogle.com or one of its competitors. The ODP isn't in that business, and other people do it better than we could.
| 10:19 pm on Feb 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Due to some questions about the previous post, perhaps I should re-double and emphasize the bit about UNIQUE.
If the content is already available on the web, then it's NOT nearly unique, so go find ANOTHER source to scan and publish. It's the collaborative model of finding an important person without a good biography available, as opposed to the competitive model of trying to push your personal copy of the official PR company's Madonna promo/bio to the top of the 40,000 pages of Google search results. (Yes, I know, some of you are SERP perps, not content developers, and this kind of thing isn't what you do: but you can take the message back to your clients. Good advice is part of your service, no? It's no harder to tell them about than doorway pages with random text, surely?)
This isn't hard: I can easily scan, proof, and markup a DNB page in an hour: a 4-to-8 page article plus some ancilliary library research for the corroborative multimedia detail is going to be a couple of days' work.
But it must be UNIQUE: the one and only web copy; Unparalleled and Unequalled on the web; different from all others; neither cut and pasted nor copied and reformatted.