| 1:31 am on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its possible that both may be listed. Much of it will probably be the luck of the draw. It depends what editor reviews them, how closely they get scrutinized, if the editor thinks that one site is primarily designed to drive traffic to the other.
Th official response is likely to be submit an update request noting the affiliation and the desired outcome and the reason for the change. The ultimate decision will lie in the hands of the editor who reviews it.
If they were my sites, I'd take a hard look, try to forget I was affiliated with both of them. From that POV, if they both had unique content I'd submit the second one (presumably they would be listed in different cats if one offers online ordering and the other is not a commerce site) and not note the first one.
If the editor would think that they were very closely related, I'd submit the second one to the shopping cat with the note accompanying that submission. I would not submit the update request to the existing category because if an editor w/o editing privs in both cats reviews it you may and up with nothing listed for an indeterminate amount of time if the editor who processes your request can't list the new site in the new cat.
| 1:50 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|designed to drive traffic to the other |
not at all - I am currently removing all content from Site B that relates to Site A.
Then I'll make a little prayer to all the Saints in Italy that the editor
will find it within himself to re-list Site A.
| 2:12 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Considerations about certificates and ownership and all that are of no concern when deciding to list a site.
The nature of a hyperlinked world: when a site is being (correctly) used as a subpage of another, as you did, the subpage site is just a subpage, not a site, and an editor should treat it that way. If a company chooses to spread out its "offerings" over multiple domains, that's their business, but it should NOT get that company more listings in a directory.
| 2:15 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Also keep in mind that each time a site is reviewed it is logged so if someone thought they were close before and left a note, it will show when the site is reviewed if previous notes were left when the site was edited.
This [dmoz.org] gives a little detail
| 2:31 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If a company chooses to spread out its "offerings" over multiple domains, |
that's their business, but it should NOT get that company more listings in a directory
However, I own 15% of the sales of site B. We joined site B because both
our services complimented eachother well.
We would have never included the content of Site A on Site B if we thought it would
have caused a problem. We assumed that having Site B offering many other services
and not just what site A offers was OK.
What steps must be taken to have site A listed. We are willing to make any changes necessary.
| 3:01 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am amazed that an ODP listing means more to you than participating in an apparently successful online business partnership.
| 3:20 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
4 seperate distinct companies work closely together on a variety of projects.
Site B was created to advertise all our services into 1. We would have never created
site B knowing that it would have affected the respective sites of each company
regarding the DMOZ directory.
| 9:16 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>We would have never created site B knowing that it would have affected the respective sites of each company regarding the DMOZ directory.
The ODP submittal policy warns about what may happen when you submit "related" sites.
Even if site B had never been submitted to the directory, part of a site review often includes hunting up "related" sites, since often a "related" URL makes a better listing. So generally speaking, all "related" sites should agree and clearly state which is their "main" or "homepage" site. If they don't do this, we have to assume it's part of a vanity-URL spamming attack, even if it's only brain-dead site navigation design.
| 9:24 pm on Jul 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now that there has been an obvious mistake, how do I get rid of site B in DMOZ so that
Site A can be added?
| 12:13 am on Jul 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Use the Update function.
Functionality may be impaired due to some server work still going on.
| 12:30 pm on Jul 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Where were you when this thread started?
| 2:31 pm on Jul 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
when using ODP's update URL to request a URL change you should make clear (to the editors) that the request is legitimate, otherwise it's unlikely to even be considered. I.e. a note on site B saying s.th. like 'This site has moved to site A URL', or a redirect from site B URL to site A URL.
If this is not possible then you may consider setting up a a special stand-alone page (i.e. siteB_URL.com/odp.html) where you explain the situation, and mention the URL of this page in the 'reasons' field of the update URL form, along with other information you think is useful. But even then it's not sure your request will be accepted, it depends on several factors, including the content of both sites, links between them, categories involved, the points kctipton and hutcheson mentioned, and what the editor who reviews your request thinks is best for the directory. I suppose you are aware that the editors' opinion on what is best for the directory is not always what webmasters think is best for their sites. ;)
| 2:52 pm on Jul 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good Call senox!
I will definitly make that change prior to making the update request.