|Do all directories list by page or by site?|
Which are which? What does what? Where were you on 5/16/98?
I'm pretty sure that most directories list by page and not so much the site themselves. I'm also realizing that since themes are becoming more prevelant that if a company had multiple themes in a site that it would only be fair if directories listed by web page given they make the relevency grade.
So do all directories accept individual pages? Do some? None? Do I belong in the looney bin....?
Where's my prozack?
I just checked my bottle, I thought so --no "k"
ODP declined to allow me to link page by page, even though each page was individual content and they had an individual, identical category (city guides under the city name, seems reasonable doesn't it? --go figure! ).
Snap Live Directory approved linking by the page --it's a lot of pages, so I usually ask first. They've been happy with the "content" for their directory and hundreds of the pages have advanced to the main directory.
Depending on the ODP editor, Joe, you can get additional listings in the directory. Here are some formal guidelines given to ODP editors, current as of last week (drum roll please....)
"Multiple Listings of an URL
In most cases a site need only be listed in one Open Directory category. However, there are occasions on which a site could be listed in more than one category. These sites should be limited to those that have true research value and/or cover a number of different subjects to such a degree that one category isn't sufficient in describing the site's contents. There are also some instances in which an URL might be listed in both a subject category and a regional category, such as a site about a professional sports team. Please make multiple listings the exception though - not the rule."
When I did a little digging a few months ago, there was some post internally in the FAQ about a site having 4 listings with up to 9 and after 9 the additionals would be deleted. However, do a search for 3com.com and see if this rule applies. My exp. is that if it is good content and applicable to a site category, the editor may take it. RC, you may have just gotten a stinky editor. They want to build their directory bigger and better than Yahoo but the subjective aspect of the directory makes it very hard to standardize anything with a lot of power and discernment left up to each editor (big mistake).
James there is a difference between multiple listings and deep linking to a specific page within a site.
The guidelines within your recent post refer to multiple listings, whereas the other 2 posts refer to deep linking to single pages.
I think the guidelines probably apply to both deep linking and multiple listings, though it does not neccessarily follow.
You got it when you said:
"The subjective aspect of the directory makes it very hard to standardize anything with a lot of power and discernment left up to each editor (big mistake)."
This is a subject that is currently close to my heart. I have a large site which would legitimately fit into 200 different ODP categories. I am currently still trying to fathom out the best way to approoach this.
Incidentally, in my subject area there are numerous examples of sites with multiple deep links, including one site with 127 seperate listings.
Sorry for the lack of clarity but I did mean deep linking and not multiple listings for the URL. If you have several sub directories with unique and relevant information, you can get them listed in different categories. Big health sites that have several sections with great content on different conditions and diseases or services can get listed in different categories. I have had as many as 13 different deep linked pages (sub directories with unique content) listed in the directories (please let me know if I am using the wrong terminology here :)) and don't feel bad at all. The sub directories are useful for the editor's category, if they weren't, they wouldn't have accepted them. Anyway, this is an old argument that is still unresolved and seems to be left up to each individual editor.
>RC, you may have just gotten a stinky editor.
My letter to staff
The above went out on approximately Dec 01/99. I politely waited about two weeks --NO reply. So, I wrote the aforementioned script and fired off a quick burst of about 125 submissions into each of 2 states --in hindsight, probably not a good way to get attention (Kids, do as I SAY, not as I DO!) However, I did get this reply within 24 hours as I recall.
|> To dmoz: |
We have developed a detailed town-by-town "destination research" site which is used by both the travel and real estate industries. It now covers 3800+ communities --each site is different and contains very community-specific informational links, such as local schools. Additional databases covering airports servicing the community and military bases in the region are nearing completion and will be integrated soon.
I can easily develop a script that will "bulk submit" these community sites to their proper dmoz "Cities" category, but I am afraid that that would have the appearance of spamming if I did so unannounced. Is there a policy for this procedure somewhere?
For a representative site, see
|Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 |
Thanks for inquiring about this. I have discussed your site with our staff ontologist, and she recommended that you submit ONLY your main page to the following category:
Per our Submission Guidelines, we request that you submit only once, and that you choose the most appropriate category for your site. Deep linking your site (especially with 3800+ pages) could definitely be considered spam.
I received another email from one of the state editors that said he didn't want multiple listings to ''mess up'' his directory ??? (Oilman, sound familiar?)
I'd absolutely-for-sure like to be in ODP, and they DO have a separate category for each of my pages, so I'm quite puzzled as to exactly how my site is a square peg to their round holes.
Maybe it is time to resubmit, the sites have turned out to be quite hot --even to the point that some of the editors in pay-for-rank engines have listed them themselves (for free --maybe their hometowns??) in their proper categories. And they've been picked up by several national sites as utility-style guides.
RC, continuing on, here is more info from official ODP guidelines:
"In some cases, sites will be deeplinked. For example, a restaurant guide might be listed (in a different category) in addition to the top-level city guide. In these cases, the deep links should offer content that is extremely useful to a particular category and unique in content. Deeplinking should be the exception rather than the rule"
I think your response from the staff ontologist again points out to the inconsistency within the system. I haven't looked through your site, but if you have some sub categories that have a lot of good information on a city, I would try slow submits to the other categories. Even an explanation that your site is already listed but the benefits of having the site in your category Mr. editor [text]further legitimate sales pitch here[/text] and "extremely useful" and would be beneficial...I would accept it. Creating a dialogue with an editor will help and preempting any opposition beforehand will also help. Don't give up on ODP, too valuable as you know.