Forum Moderators: open
So now I see that despite much jargon about limiting one site to one category, some sites have many dmoz links. So, a "site" is actually a webpage of a larger website... mysite.com/cars.html is a different "site" and can get a different dmoz listing than mysite.com/baseball.html
Correct?
some sites have many dmoz links
There are a great many sites for which this statement is true. Some of these sites justifiably having many entries, others (only) having many entries because of an editor with a vested interest (should you come across such an example fell free to email a meta with details, sometimes they remove the offending editor, sometimes they do not).
Its easy to check numbers of DMOZ entries if you do a search in DMOZ for "mysite.com" you get a complete list. (well, just about a complete list, there are some technical problems still with this search). There are some sites with links running into the thousands (rules do not allow me to post them here!)
mysite.com/cars.html is a different "site" and can get a different dmoz listing than mysite.com/baseball.html
By and large, assuming decent content, that statement is true. As "cars" is different from "baseball" then you stand a (decent) chance of an editor accepting both. However they are unlikely to accept sub categories of "cars" like" "cars/ford" and "cars/general motors"
In between there are a number of othe examples and in the end its down to "editor judgement", which, as with anything involving human judgement, can be good, bad or indifferent.
mysite.com/cars.html is a different "site" and can get a different dmoz listing than mysite.com/baseball.html
No, it is not true at all
The open directory lists sites not pages.
Yes, there are exceptions to this - but they are exceptions. The rule is that the editor will list domain.com, or domain.com/index.html - unless there's a good reason to use an alternative page (excessive flash or no content at index, perhaps).
Some submitters try to get around this by having no index, and submitting multiple pages - they risk getting no listing, or one random page, likely as not the first one accepted.
The vast majority of editors, in the vast majority of categories, will delete deeplinks. And (sadly) will not always seek out the domain - and they needn't - the submission guidelines are quite clear.
To maximise your Google rating, you need a a good index page - and by good, I mean good site navigation. Individiual pages pretending to be individual sites will not get the best of google, as the poor little robots end up in blind alleys.
The guidelines clearly discourage the vast majority of people from doing the single thing that is the key to rooling the web right now: getting multiple high PR links from dmoz.
This forum is about Internet: Searching: Directories: Open Directory Project: and in the lowest possibly sub-categories Forums
As I said before look from the users point of view -
If you went to DMOZ and wanted to find an open forum that discussed Open Directory, would you believe this listing to be appropriate or inappropriate.
The rule is that the editor will list domain.com, or domain.com/index.html - unless there's a good reason to use an alternative page
Whilst that may be the rule, there are a great many exceptions. It is difficult to put this across without giving the specific examples (which the moderator would remove if I put them in here).
But for example one site in an Asian country returns "Open Directory Sites (1-20 of 1309)" when ones queries its URL. IMHO 1309 separate entries in DMOZ overstresses the importance of this site
I would be more than happy to quote the site if allowed.
This site is not "unique" in being "over represented" in DMOZ
Again, what does this matter? Forum 17 is a great place to go for information, but it isn't a "site" and why should an exception be made here but not in a zillion other categories? It's ridiculous on its face.
If DMOZ wants great a great, useful complete directory, then let everyone make multiple appropriate submissions. It makes no sense for some people to have multiple listings while they directly, bluntly discourage people with equal or better content from having more than one.
mysite.com/cars.html is a different "site" and can get a different dmoz listing than mysite.com/baseball.html
Unless things have changed greatly, this is true. The mission of DMOZ is to list sites which are useful to the searcher.
How would someone searching for baseball know that mysite.com/car.html is relevant to him/her?
From [dmoz.org...]
"Does adding this deeplink enhance the category by adding quality and unique content not found on other sites in the category? Does it provide usefulness to the searcher?"
A site can potentially get multiple listings if each listing provides useful content that isn't available elsewhere online.
Of course, you are correct that there are many cases where sites receive multiple listings with no apparent reason - those many cases are the other result of the fact that the directory is a human project. Humans make mistakes in judgement, and they disagree.
It's ridiculous on its face.
Believe as you will, and I'll keep adding my "non-site listings".
Of course, you are correct that there are many cases where sites receive multiple listings with no apparent reason - those many cases are the other result of the fact that the directory is a human project. Humans make mistakes in judgement, and they disagree.
You know, I really like that quote, I think that we all could agree on that (well most of us anyway - there will always be the wayout "DMOZ is always right/DMOZ is always wrong" wings of editors/non-editors but that quote sums it up.)
It always seems sad to me that forum discussions can polarise on those lines
The open directory lists sites not pages.
Actually you're both wrong. The directory lists content, not sites, or pages.
Moving on . . .
There are two types of deeplinking. One is where there are several pages of a subsite all dealing with radically different subjects. Since the content on these sites is so different, each subpage is listed in the applicable category (geocities is a good example of this).
The other kind of deeplink is where there are several subpages dealing with a broad overlying theme in greater detail. For example a site about the British monarchy would have individual pages about each king/queen. In these cases the main page would be linked at the upper-most applicable category, and the subpages would not be listed. There are exceptions. "Official" sites dealing with the subject will be deeplinked. For example in the case above, the Offical webpage of the Royal Family has a biography of each king/queen - those would be deeplinked. The other type of deeplinking occurs when a subpage has content that is far and away much (better, comprehensive, etc), than anything else in the category (it happens very rarely).
This is ideally how it should work. As it has been noted above people are human.
people are human
How can we be sure? ;)
No, you're wrong. The directory provides links to sites and pages that provide content. Other than descriptions there is no content at DMOZ.
People don't visit ODP for content, they visit ODP to find sites and pages that provide goods, services and material that can be read. The ODP is like a Table of Contents, the actual content is found not in the Table, but in the chapters, (web pages) that are listed.
Links of sites with pages that actually have content. :)
I always wanted to submit a blank white page/site (must roll-over to see anything) and list in a high topical category "hidden agendas".:)
Well, it seems that many directories frown on sites that are merely compilations of links and descriptions because they have no content.
Which means that directories that are merely compilations of links are...
1. As a general rule, ODP lists sites not pages.
2. But there are exceptions, and these are selected based on ODP's over-riding principle 'Content is King' - in other words, where there is a genuine case for individual pages being in the user's interest, then pages may be listed.
3. Individual pages will not be listed just because webmasters want to build their Google rating, or have failed to build a sensible site navigation system.
4. Remember, if you have good navigation, you do not need multiple deeplinks - Google will find them all.
5. Repetitive submission of deeplinks may be considered abuse, with the site being barred (it's rare, but it has happened).
6. ODP exists as a service to web users; not site owners. There are, however, benefits for site owners who can read (and follow) the guidelines.
and finally,
7. No-one is making anyone submit to ODP; it's a choice.
Tough old world, huh? ;)
Because as a specific rule webmasters are told to only submit to one category, when this in fact is not what they should be doing if they want to get their content before the public who want to see such good content.
Multiple ODP linked websites rule much of the Internet not due to the slightest bit of merit over the competition, but because they ignored the submit-to-only-the-best-category meaninglessness in the guidelines.
mysite.com/cars.html is .. different .. than mysite.com/baseball.html
Try mysite.com; "baseball and cars"
realistically - home pages aside - what professional mixes diverse content on one site - not you guys, is my bet.
If baseball and cars coexist it's because, let's guess wildly, you're "selling" or "marketing" baseball and cars ... so your site is a 'selling' site, or a 'marketing' site.
Keep it simple, we ODP editors can cope with simple :)
Good, professional websites have multiple levels and a variety of focuses.
This may be too specific but a site about movie directors could have ten+ pages on a dozen directors who each have their own dmoz category. A site on royalty could focus dozens of pages on French, or British, or German families, pages on individual kings, etc. The thirty page section of this site on Queen Victoria could be the greatest web treatment of her that exists.
In all honesty -- yes, there are many site owners that could benefit and be accepted in other categories because they do have the content to support.
But most are oblivious to DMOZ guidelines and most do not visit WebmasterWorld.
An ad, product, or services page is generally not considered unique enough to get a deep link.
ODP is much more likely to deep link pages and sections of sites that are there to provide info and not trying to sell something. In this case individual pages are much more likely to get listed.
If the ODP is slow to list now, it would grind to a halt if [more]people started blanketing the directory with multiple submissions in an attept to improve rankings in Google.
If the ODP is slow to list now, it would grind to a halt if [more]people started blanketing the directory with multiple submissions in an attept to improve rankings in Google.
Totally agree. Submit only to improve the quality of the directory, and the research/informative/educational value to the user.
The majority of sites over 100 pages, certainly any of 1000, have plenty of content that merits multiple categories -- in other words, quality of content equal to their primary listing.
I have a number of sites in that 1000 plus pages category. Interestingly, we get back to the "all humans are different" when it comes to acceptancce of deep links.
For example if I have a site on "Widgits of the USA" , I can get around 25 editors to accept that my page on their state offers users good content on that state and they put in a deep link. However there are another 25 editors who do not include the deep link to their states. Assume. for the sake of arguement that all my state sub sites are equally good (or bad)
Given that I do not know whether or why a link to the latter has been rejected and that an ODP editor writes here
Repetitive submission of deeplinks may be considered abuse, with the site being barred
What do I do about resubmitting to the states where a link has not appeared?
Damned if I do and damned if I don't!
Generally, editors are encouraged to add websites-- sets of whole self-referential hypertext documents self-identified as a collection-- rather than individual pages. But the deeper and more abstruse the category subject, the fewer whole sites devoted to it. There are three thousand sites in the ODP about fishing. In contrast, there are only four sites for fly tying organizations. So let me open up another can of worms of worms for you by underscoring the significance of unique content.
I can get around 25 editors to accept . . . However there are another 25 editors who do not include
Well, even if your pages are equally "good," i.e. contain substantially similar quality content and design, there's a relativity factor to contend with. The directory has 184 listings in its Robert Jordan category and only 6 for Ammianus Marcellinus. If you have an "authors" site with a short biography, picture, and a list of quotes from each author, I'm not going to be in any particular hurry to list the Robert Jordan page, but I will actively seek out and list on my own accord the Ammianus page. The deeplinked page is a site within the context of the Ammianus category. And of course, if pages of similar quality are already listed in the Jordan category, there is no reason why new ones would not be accepted.
It's really a catch 22. Adding paid staff would require monetizing DMOZ in some significant manner, and that might also turn off volunteers. I don't mind contributing some time to this effort, but at the point when I think my efforts are going to fatten Steve Case's paycheck, my interest is going to wane rapidly.
An editor recruiting drive might help - I'm not quite sure how to do this, but there are certainly many, many people out there capable of editing a small cat... if they can be located, and motivated to try.
I don't mind contributing some time to this effort, but at the point when I think my efforts are going to fatten Steve Case's paycheck, my interest is going to wane rapidly.
If anything, the ODP consistantly loses money for AOL. Your point also illustrates why AOL could never succeed in "monetizing" the ODP - all the editors would leave.
