| 4:23 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There are 3 possibilities.
1) It is some kind of hosting service (like geocities)
2) The editors have dicided that this site is worth listing more than once.
3) In some parts of DMOZ sites may be listed as deeplinks
Option 2 and 3 can only be used by editors. If you want to suggest a site you must pick the one best category. If the site is in more than one language you are allowed to suggest it in all these languages.
| 4:55 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd also add that the "parts of DMOZ in which sites may be listed as deeplinks" do not include the business or shopping parts. A museum or university site or news source or high-quality online encyclopedia will often have multiple deeplinks in the educational areas of the directory. But in the commercial sectors where most people here are submitting their sites to, deeplinks are generally unacceptable except for multilingual (non-machine-translated) versions of a site.
Unless the domain belongs to the hosting company, of course. Then each website will still be considered separately, as pagode says.
| 8:07 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most websites aren't listable. (And this probably applies to most websites generated by WebmasterWorld visitors also!) If they aren't listable it doesn't matter how many times they aren't listable, or how many categories they aren't listable in, or how long they've been waiting to be not listed.
That seems obvious. So what happens to sites which aren't listable (or even sites that have not yet been found to be listable) really doesn't have anything at all to do with the number of deeplinks for an exceptionally listable site.
In fact, looking through an exceptionally listable site for deeplinks on obscure (poorly represented) subjects is a highly profitable editing activity. While looking through sites with no listings yet, is more than 90% time wasted (unless the editor has a good nose for spam).
Which brings up another important point: websites don't get listings. TOPICS get listings. The point of the ODP is to help people find information from a source, about a subject. So it's the source and subject that are central. The presence or absence of a domain name isn't a significant datum.
| 10:09 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hutcheson: Points well taken.
I have a site with DMOZ listing for the main page.
I have translated that page into two foreign languages.
Should I submit those two translations, or is it wiser to wait until they are discovered by editors?
| 10:26 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can submit the main page to the corresponding category for each language for which you provide a translation. The ODP prefers to list the base url, rather than the specific entry page for the different languages (as long as there is a link from the front page to the other language options).
| 1:51 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
larry, if the translation is "fluent human quality", (not babelfished!) then yes, definitely, editors would consider it a helpful action (and not spamming!) to suggest it to the appropriate language-specific categories. It's helpful because YOU may speak Na-Dene and Swahili, but the Swahili-language-category editor is fairly unlikely to know any Amerind languages (and vice versa). And editors are allowed/encouraged to cross-post sites like that, but are not required to. So outside help is appreciated.
This is a standing exception to the usual "one-suggestion-per-site" guideline.
Note that the Swahili-language-category listing will be judged based on the uniqueness of the site's Swahili-language content compared to other sources of Swahili-language information. This means that the same content may be listable in one language but not another -- that's the editor's call, but you've still helped the editor to have a chance to call it.
| 2:47 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not one of you editors have the balls to even admit that the site may have a relationship with an editor.. typical
Not that it has to ..but thta it could be nefarious
| 2:55 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Number of listings isn't nefarious, whether or not associated with an editor. Now, a consistent pattern of poor links WOULD be nefarious, whether from one domain or a whole passel of different ones, whether from one webmaster or a whole swarm of them.
A lot of people get all worrited up about statistics, but they're basically not relevant if you're dealing with individuals -- individual persons, websites, or listings. Should we ban all suggested websites because submittals are more than 90% spam? NOT, because we don't know which 10% might be worthwhile!
So if you think there's a pattern of bad listings (doesn't matter whether it's editor abuse or submittal abuse or webmaster abuse or just poor quality work), report it, in this fashion: give several apparently bad listings, and describe the pattern. If the listings are really bad, the investigators can (and will) explore the pattern on their own. And if the worst listings you mention aren't inappropriate, then ... it's likely there is a subtlety of the guidelines you misapprehended.
| 5:09 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Not one of you editors have the balls to even admit that the site may have a relationship with an editor.. typical |
Whats typical? Is that not a "typical" pot shot at editors from someone who has no idea? How do yo know or not know that the site in question is or is not associated with an editor?
I could certainly provide a list of lots of sites (except its aganist the TOS of WebmasterWorld) that have many many many listings and have nothing to do what-so-ever with an editor, so why do you assume the site in the first message is related to an editor? Why did you make up the possibiliy as a lie to just take a typical pot shot a DMOZ and the above editors? .... guess this is where the thread takes a turn for the worse ...
| 5:05 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the category News/Online_Archives/CNN.com/ has over 227,000 listings. i guess somebody from CNN must be a "corrupt" editor ;)
| 5:58 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
claims there are 3 Possiblities.. that's incorrect there are 4 possiblities, the 4th being it is possible that some corruption could be at play..
Of cource the editors refuse to even admit thats a possiblity ..
Oh no it must be something else .. lets not even discuss #4 How dare that even be insinuated yada yada yada
| 6:09 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What would a dmoz related thread here be w/o dauction and friends? shorter!
That's all the bait I intend to take, as I agree with another who has already noted the usefulness of this thread has done turned south.
| 6:58 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Of cource the editors refuse to even admit thats a possiblity
The editors have set up not one but three abuse reporting systems -- that is rather a lot of work for something that's not a possibility!
What simply isn't true--regardless of who asserts or admits it--is the claim that number of listings has anything to do with abuse. The fact is, a single listing for a domain can be just as abusive, and just as much a pattern of abuse, as a deeplink on a domain.
| 8:03 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's what I intended to discuss in my thread:
This explains why my homapage has a few DMOZ listings and hasn't been penalized, even if you need just to make a domain search in DMOZ to detect it. It has unique resources of content for completely separate subjects so this duplicate listing hasn't been considered a spam. Good to know that DMOZ rules are followed so reasonably.
But I guess that submitting the deeplinks wouldn't be wise - if a root page for certain subject is listed, editors will search for deeplinks themselves eventually, if they find it worth doing.