|Dmoz Will Not List me |
have commercial site, high up in google, can't get on dmoz
| 7:57 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hello. I have a site that I've been trying to get listed in DMOZ for nearly three years. It is a commercial products site and all my competitors are listed. I am number one and high up for a lot of keywords in my industry. My site is not spammy and for an online store, it has quite a bit of content. I did everything they way they asked, I would check back only every few months on their forum and ask politely if they had any idea when I'd be listed. I gave up asking over a year ago. I know it takes a long time sometimes, but waiting three years is a very long time. Why would they just out and out refuse to list me? I've not done anything wrong, and in fact my site is better than a lot of the sites listed on there. Just wondering if you had any ideas?
| 9:35 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
1. When you say that you have been trying for 3 years, what do you mean? If you have done anything more than submit once to the one best category, then you have probably been harming your chances of a listing
2. Why should DMOZ list your site? Does it offer something that your competitors that are listed do not offer? Unless it offers products or something unique or different that they do not, what is the point in DMOZ adding it? Why would having another site offering the same old same old be of any use to the DMOZ visitor?
| 4:50 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
FTR: This is a followup to [webmasterworld.com...]
| 2:51 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Why should DMOZ list your site? Does it offer something that your competitors that are listed do not offer? Unless it offers products or something unique or different that they do not, what is the point in DMOZ adding it? Why would having another site offering the same old same old be of any use to the DMOZ visitor?<<<<<
Typical short sighted answer and thinking of an odp editor. I can think of at least 10 different reasons why a site should be included even tho there are already others in that category.
first and foremost is choice for the surfer, particularly in a commercial sector.
Second, if that IS your reasoning then why have more than one listing for anything in any category?
How about competition? Competition does nothing but benefit the shopping surfer.
How about attributes that most reviewing editors don't even look for. A better return policy or more choice of colors in a product. Maybe a larger support staff.
It just seems arrogant to me that someone can say...we have enough. Forget that one.
| 3:15 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>It just seems arrogant to me that someone can >say...we have enough. Forget that one.
It depends on the content, doesn't it?
I mean, if twenty different pizzerias in the Chicago metro area have websites, then you're right, it would be a disservice to our users not to list them all. One might have better-tasting pizza than another one. Or maybe some of them don't deliver after 9 PM. Maybe only one of them is hiring right now. In any event there's something unique about each of them that might really matter to someone looking them up.
If twenty different websites have the same three-paragraph biography of William Shakespeare, on the other hand, that's nothing but useless clutter. One copy of it is fine, and any more than that would be wasting our readers' time and making it harder for them to find the dozens of *original* websites about William Shakespeare that exist out there.
I can genuinely say that before I started volunteering for the ODP, I really had NO idea how many useless, content-free, completely spammy websites there were out there. The scraper sites, the endless mirrors and plagiarisms, the fake directories, the fake blogs, the fake portals, the fake websites that LOOK like they're going to have information but don't, the fake shops that LOOK like they're going to have something interesting to sell but don't... when we keep saying 90% of all websites out there are garbage, we're not insulting other people's layouts or something, we mean 90% of the stuff out there is actually COMPLETELY USELESS SPAM that the Internet would be much better off without. That's not actually arrogant... it's just the way the online signal-noise ratio really is right now. It doesn't mean the REAL websites in the other 10% aren't better than anything I could make, or that your site might not be one of them. (-:
| 3:55 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Unfortunately DMOZ is an example of online discrimination at its finest. The whole system is based on subjective opinion and that in itself is going to show prejudice.
Think about this fact, a person who has a website built around green widgets gets accepted as an editor in that category. Now this may have happened years ago, but they proved themselves by adding in a few other websites that appear to be related to the right topics, so they are accepted as good editors.
Now, DMOZ decides that category is closed for editors because they have "enough". If the only editors doing work on that category have all decided to themselves or even amongst themselves that there is no way they are going to help their competition out, they're just not going to list any real credible competitors that could give them slide in the market.
That is the whole reason why I personally believe DMOZ should not have as much weight as it does in SEO. By being such a heavy factor in search results it has created this very tight lipped community that will keep on rejecting credible sources of new information and keep those old outdated sources ranking well.
I'm not saying that there are no good editors, please dont think that. I'm just saying that human nature has a dark side.
Try submitting to different but related categories, you might hit an editor that's more open to new requests.
| 5:39 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have got one site into dmoz, but my two main sites have been rejected. Lets call these sites "widget News" and "Widget Reference".
Widget News does more analysis of the stories than other free widget info sites (although not as much as some very expensive subscription sites).
Widget Reference is more detailed that similar stuff on other widget sites - the level of detail is more like a text book.
I have years of experience in the widget industry (in jobs that involved writing/analysing widget news for my employers) and two widget related post-graduate degrees.
The feedback I have got from visitors is positive, I get plenty of returning visitors, many visitors read lots of pages, I have had no problem getting into Yahoo etc. This is a much higher quality site than most in dmoz.
So why can I not get these sites into dmoz? What I am writing now is similar to what I used to be paid to write. My bosses ALL thought I was good at my job - but dmoz in its wisdom thinks what I write is "completely useless spam".
bigmack19, other WW threads have suggested directories are losing their importance, and that dmoz mirrors are getting dupe penalties, so they do matter less than they used to.
Directories do not work well. A story to illustrate the point. I was a volunteer editor for one directory (smaller than dmoz but reasonably well known). I added the Berkshire Hathaway site (if you have not heard of it, search and look carefully at the content and the names on the site) to a finance category. Not only was it rejected for being "low quality" by a senior editor, but I also got a little note chiding me for wasting time with such poor sites!
| 5:56 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>Now, DMOZ decides that category is closed for editors because they have "enough".
This doesn't happen.
(1) DMOZ doesn't actually control or monitor where editors work. (Edits are logged, but a log has no predictive value anyway, and logs are not systematically reviewed except to try to figure out why a category looks bad.) Editors choose their own priority.
(2) No category is closed to site submittals, except temporarily (in the middle of a major burst of reorganization activity), or unless to push submittals to an appropriate subcategory.
(3) No category is closed to editors, either, not that that has anything to do with the discussion. (Some categories are closed to INEXPERIENCED editors.)
(4) Not that closing a category to editors would have anything to do with determining whether or not editing activity occurred there.
| 6:39 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>Try submitting to different but related categories, you might hit an editor that's more open to new requests.
Or you might hit an editor that doesn't want to put up with egregious violations of the submittal policy, calls spammer on you, and asks for sanctions.
Sanctions are there to keep editors from HAVING to put up with this sort of thing, and if as a result surfers never see the site -- it's worth it.
| 12:25 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
bigmack19, I think that's already happened. An ODP listing does not have very much weight in SEO anymore. Google representatives have officially announced that an ODP link gives no more advantage than any other themed link from an authority site (of which there are thousands.)
graeme_p, I didn't mean to imply that EVERY site we don't list is useless spam. We also generally don't list the same site multiple times on the same topic. If you have one site about widget sales, a second site about widget news, and a third site about widget facts, we're usually just going to give that a single listing under the main heading of "widgets" (which it sounds like you already have.) This may seem unfair to you, but in fact, it works to your advantage. There are millions of pages containing content on big sites like Amazon and Microsoft. Webmasters of regular sites have a much better chance of being noticed if their book site is listed once in Books and Amazon is listed once in Books than if their site was listed 5 times and Amazon was listed 5 million times.
| 1:29 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Flicker, what I meant was I have two separate sites (different domains, different look, although there are lots of natural links between them), neither of which is listed.
The site I have listed is on a completely different topic.
Yes, not listing the same site under different topics is good. However both my competitors and sites in topics I have looked at just to see what dmoz did do have links from multiple categories.
The last time this topic came up I had little difficulty in finding links from dmoz to individual content pages - not site or sub-site front pages, or even index pages: just single pages on the subject. See this thread: [webmasterworld.com ]).
Actually hutheson did give one piece of advice in that thread that I think is spot one: submit your site once and forget about dmoz if it does not get it. It will help, but so will links from elsewhere.
| 1:33 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I have a site that I've been trying to get listed in DMOZ for nearly three years. |
Stop wasting your time. It doesn't matter anymore.
No traffic, and no significant value in the search engines.
|That is the whole reason why I personally believe DMOZ should not have as much weight as it does in SEO. |
It hardly has any! Stop keeping the myth alive.
| 2:21 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually, we consider two "separate sites" with different domains and different looks to still be part of the same site. It doesn't matter to us whether your pages go [domain.com...] and [anotherdomain.com,...] [domain.com...] and [another.domain.com,...] [domain.com...] and [domain.com...] etc. We treat two sites by you exactly the same way whether they're hosted on the same domain or not.
But, of course, there's a third reason for not getting your site listed in the ODP: just because we haven't found it and listed it yet. Though there are many of us who do work very hard to try and keep the directory as current as possible, the ODP site suggestion mechanism is not the only or even the primary one we use and it really cannot be considered a timely way to get links to your site even by those of us who are great enthusiasts of the directory. The suggestion to submit once and then forget about it is one that almost everyone, from ODP editors to SEO's, agrees on. It's not worth spending too much time or energy worrying about as any link from a themed source trusted by search engines is equally valuable to the webmaster of the site.
| 6:57 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>That is the whole reason why I personally believe DMOZ should not have as much weight as it does in SEO.
>It hardly has any! Stop keeping the myth alive.
A bit more appreciation of the limits of one's own knowledge -- on both sides -- would lead to greater respect for one's pronouncements on subjects where one does have genuine knowledge.
The reality, as everybody agrees, is that the ODP has enough importance to take the 10-20 minutes to write a good site suggestion, but not enough importance to spend a spare minute a week obsessing about it afterwards. Exactly where between those two limits it lies, nobody knows, and it really doesn't matter to anyone.
Now if only everyone could live up to that knowledge.
| 3:44 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, it seems I've struck a nerve with you hutcheson.
Yes, I agree the value of the ODP has decreased, but no I don't agree that it is non-existent or even par with any other on-topic listing.
Let's see, a listing in the ODP guarantees you an "authoritative" link that holds obvious greater value to google - obviously there's an even deeper debate on the value of other authority links such as .edu,.gov links, one that's been discussed many times over - not to mention the feed right into googles directory which has to account for some traffic considering the big G's hold(which imho seems to be loosening lately) on overall traffic referrals.
|Or you might hit an editor that doesn't want to put up with egregious violations of the submittal policy, calls spammer on you, and asks for sanctions. |
Sanctions are there to keep editors from HAVING to put up with this sort of thing, and if as a result surfers never see the site -- it's worth it.
hutcheson, this is the kind of pompous attitudes that frustrates publishers to no end. Read back over the posts and you'll realize I said nothing about spamming, nor did the OP. Resubmitting under a different category after a few months of waiting should not be considered spam.
|A bit more appreciation of the limits of one's own knowledge -- on both sides -- would lead to greater respect for one's pronouncements on subjects where one does have genuine knowledge. |
I agree, please re-read that quote. I appreciate your insight into the editorial process. I really do. Do not assume you know my limits of knowledge because you see a small post count near my name.
To sum up all this bs,
Does the ODP still have higher value in my eyes? Yes
Does the ODP have as high a value as it used to? Of course not
Am I saying to spam the directory? Nope
Am I saying there has and is corruption in the ODP? Let's not be naieve please. I have no time for it.
Do I worry about it? Not at all, there are many ways around this issue
| 4:34 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Try submitting to different but related categories, you might hit an editor that's more open to new requests.
That statement makes no mention whatsoever of waiting, it's too easy to assume it implies submitting to several at once. And regardless of timing or spacing out multiple submissions, it's only logical that it could easily be caught.
| 5:00 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|we consider two "separate sites" with different domains and different looks to still be part of the same site ....... We treat two sites by you exactly the same way whether they're hosted on the same domain or not. |
LOL, this is so insane it is funny.
What you are saying is that if, for example, someone has a political site to campaign for a cause they support, and a commercial site to make a living from, you treat them as the same site? Are you also saying you will list only one of them?
| 6:22 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Mack, the process you recommended is the kind of violation of the submittal policy that we ODP editors call "shotgun spamming." I do not want to ever stand by silently when that kind of advice is given out to innocent people. If I were a suspicious person, I'd wonder if you were trying to get your competitors to do something that would give them a reputation as spammers. Because that is what it is likely to do if it's noticed. And it is very likely to be noticed.
Hit a nerve? Not me, not here. But you WILL hit a nerve with the ODP editor. And ... we will do without a site (and possibly any related sites) rather than tolerate it being promoted that way, as the submittal policy says (in different words.)
This is not a good idea. Your reputation as "not a known spammer" is at risk.
| 6:37 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Graeme, the example you describe might conceivably be considered two sites crammed into the same domain, and could thus be considered for two listings, just as if it had been spread over two different domains.
The other example was one site spread over two different domains, which would typically be considered for only one listing, just as if it had all been published on one domain.
That's what it would mean to "treat a site the same regardless of whether it was spread over multiple domains."
If it weren't a good approach on its own merits, it might still be necessary as a rule to protect editors from doorway-domain spammers. Which may be why the rule and its penalty are both in the submittal policy.
| 7:40 am on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"treat a site the same regardless of whether it was spread over multiple domains." |
I am glad to hear that hutcheson, but it was not what flicker said. It would not have been relevant in the context of the posts to which flicker replied.
| 1:09 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry for being unclear.
When I said that we treat two sites by you the same regardless of your domain structure, I mean that we treat [mydomain.com...] [mydomain.com...] and [mydomain.com...] exactly the same as we treat [mypoliticalblog.com,...] [mywidgetnews.com...] and [mywidgetsales.com....]
In most cases that means one listing for the political blog and one for the widgets. We wouldn't give you an extra widget listing just because you bought a second domain, and we wouldn't penalize your political blog just because you didn't. The way you decide to organize your website's structure is your business, and we treat it the same way regardless of those decisions.
Of course, if the political blog had very little content we might not list it at all, and if the political blog was very deep and content-rich we might even decide to deeplink, say, its excellent and unique timeline of political parties in American history in the American history category, too. It's the content that drives these decisions for us, not how many domain names you own or don't own.
| 1:19 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the clarification flicker.
Sorry about the tone of my reply - It seemed logical to interpret it the way I did given that I had explained the situation in my earlier posts.