Forum Moderators: open
But I dont want to give 3 more links for the category because the additional links would be my competitors - who are not smart enough yet to be listed:)
Will the 3 new links be added?
Can I complete the application and not list 3 new links and yet have any hopes of becoming an editor?
My site is as clean as they come. Probability because I’m so paranoid. (GRIN) As I stated, I did file what I’ll just call a FYI to their feedback.
than there's nothing to fearexcept of course fear itself.
etoile
I mean OK to have many editors for one cat, not OK to have many cat's with one editor.
rfgdxm1
This is copied and pasted from dmoz. Maybe I’m misinterpreting it.
[dmoz.org ]
‘Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites. ’
Maybe I’m just stupid for honoring their request, or as I said maybe I’m misinterpreting it.
cornwall
OK, I’ll read the thread, and I’m sure it will explain it, it always does at webmasterworld.com, but to me it seems pretty clear ‘Multiple submissions of the same or related sites…’ and I still think it is an open invitation for abuse. Especially since they could automate some kind of checking to enforce, as I interpret ‘Multiple submissions of the same or related sites…’ and allow everyone to be listed only once. This would be, to quote an all news channel, ‘Fair and Balanced’
While it says that, the problem is how can an ODP editor know *who* is submitting these? It could be someone who is spam submitting their competitor's URL to 50 different ODP cats. Thus, the idea of deleting a site with multiple submissions obviously has problems.
>OK, I’ll read the thread, and I’m sure it will explain it, it always does at webmasterworld.com, but to me it seems pretty clear ‘Multiple submissions of the same or related sites…’ and I still think it is an open invitation for abuse. Especially since they could automate some kind of checking to enforce, as I interpret ‘Multiple submissions of the same or related sites…’ and allow everyone to be listed only once. This would be, to quote an all news channel, ‘Fair and Balanced’
It is possible that the deeplinks were added by ODP editors without them being submitted. I suspect this is the case with most, if not all, of the CNN deeplinks.
- Do not submit mirror sites. Mirror sites are sites that contain identical content, but have altogether different URLs.
- Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory. Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.
- Do not disguise your submission and submit the same URL more than once. Example: [dmoz.org...] and [dmoz.org...]
- Do not submit any site with an address that redirects to another address.
I don’t know that I accept the ‘deeplink’ stuff. Just my opinion. Looks like a crutch to me for people to dishonor dmoz’s requests. Of course that is just my opinion. The site I am talking about reviews software, but they are listed in a software cat. I am sure it was not the intent of dmoz to make a software cat a topic for reviews. That would be naive.
As for that software review site, is there a cat for just software reviews? If not, I can't see where else to put it but a software cat.
I know it can be hard to select only one category for a web site, but, if that is the hardest thing I have to do all year, I would be one happy camper. Your assumption is that a person cannot select only one category. I disagree. I think that everyone smart enough to create a web site ought to be smart enough to select a single category that best fits the web site they are submitting.
When I was entered into dmoz, there were a lot fewer categories. The one I selected was the best fit that there was at the time. There are now better ones that fit my web site, and I would have selected them instead of t he one I choose. I am trying to get my single category changed right now to a newer one that better fits my site. However, I doubt that it will happen due to an editor. If everyone just picked one category, then maybe the editors would have more time to do their jobs. If they put some automation into their site and only allowed one listing, it would require smaller drives, less people time to maintain and it would be better maintained because it would be simpler. And that makes for a better directory.
Just my opinion.
I think that everyone smart enough to create a web site ought to be smart enough to select a single category that best fits the web site they are submitting.
Not necessarily. Having sites listed in more than one category cuts down on the legwork both users and editors have to do - if a site fit more than one category but could be listed in only one, editors would have to evaluate the possibility of relcat or @link to the other appropriate cat. If this were the case for more than one site, the number of relcats/@links would increase. This makes more work for the user, who has to wade through even more listings to find the information they're seeking.
This makes more work for the user, who has to wade through even more listings to find the information they're seeking.
heini
in short: there are lots of legitimate reasons for sites to have more than one listing
If you believe this is not the case with your competitor...
I don’t want to tick anyone off, but I do feel it is a very important topic and much more substantial now than when it was originally started. So if I should shut up, I will. It just seems to me that this is an important topic because it creates backlinks doesn’t it? I’m not sure. If it does this would of course effect the google placement and the guessestimate or 1%, pointed to in the prior message, may be totally off now. If the above is true, then the opportunities for abuse would be very high. Wouldn't it?
Wish I had the time and knowledge to write a perl script to actually audit the number of categories over 4 or 5 or so. Personally I believe the 1% to be much, much too low now, although it could have been dead on at the time it was written.
Nothing more to be said about this.
That is what keywords, content and search engine algorithms are for. To help an end user find what they are looking for, in my opinion.
Perhaps you've noticed that this is the Directories forum. ODP isn't a search engine, and isn't governed by keywords, content, or a search engine algorithm. A directory serves a different purpose, one of which is to expose the user to relevant sites they might not find through a search. The functioning of the site - allowing a site to list in more than one category provided each category is appropriate - is designed to cut down on the work for the user, as I described.
Sorry to keep beating the dead horse. Feel free to ignore this post.
Perhaps you've noticed that this is the Directories forum. ODP isn't a search engine, and isn't governed by keywords…
They get married as soon as a search engine starts using a directory, don’t they? At what point is there separation if a search engine uses a directory for at least partial criteria in the listing process or the searching process?
I do see your point and perhaps this is where the discrepancies are coming into play.
And I certainly think the ODP should not even take Google's PR into consideration.
Everything else will fall in it's place eventually.
I have studied this subject in some depth, and as far as I am aware there is no evidence to support that remark
Perhaps you could post evidence if you have it. I would be interested to see any evidence that Google gives cumulatively any more weight than the one backlink.
count ODP and everyone that uses ODP on their site
This might be nearly impossible, as it's not always apparent to the human eye - and certainly not to Google software - that a site is using ODP data.
I have studied this subject in some depth, and as far as I am aware there is no evidence to support that remark
In a previous message I wrote
It just seems to me that this is an important topic because it creates backlinks doesn’t it? I’m not sure.
Wish I had the time and knowledge to write a perl script to actually audit the number of categories over 4 or 5 or so.
However, go to google, digpile et. al. and type in…
[domain-with-lots-o-cats.com...] +dmoz
And see that every category comes back with a link.
However at google when you enter…
link:http://www.domain-with-lots-o-cats.com +dmoz
It comes back with nothing, even though if you leave the +dmoz off, it has them listed.
This was interesting, when I was messing around with trying to prove the above, at MetaSearch I came back with a DMoz.org Open Directory Project: Unofficial Editor Support page on some PA ISP. Wonder if there is an official one.
etoile
Pretty much anything that one can view with one’s eyes, there can be a perl script to fetch it and store it. It’s just a question of if you want to use SQL or a text database.
>At what point is there separation if a search engine uses a directory for at least partial criteria in the listing process or the searching process?
At every point. Search engines have been using links from listed pages as criteria to the listing and searching process since their inception. Throughout the entire history of SE's, anyone could set up two or three (or 400,000) link pages on their site, and had them used as criteria (in various mysterious ways) by the search engine spiders and rankers. Google/Alexa/et al are merely continuing the tradition in their own clever idioms.
This is the directories forum: you probably want to suggest that over in the Google forum (where at least it will be the right people who will be ignoring it). Here you should be saying something like:
"I don't think ODP should design its structure around Google's current way of using and/or spidering it," which would be ignored by the right people for the right reason -- that is, because it is already ODP policy.
Pretty much anything that one can view with one’s eyes, there can be a perl script to fetch it and store it. It’s just a question of if you want to use SQL or a text database.
jim_w, you obviously didn't understand what I said. It's not always apparent to anyone or anything that a site is a downstream user of ODP data. You specifically said ODP and everyone that uses ODP on their site should only be counted as one backlink by Google. What I am trying to get across is that while some sites may use ODP as their data, they might hide that fact for their own reasons. (Many sites do this very well.) Because it is not obvious that they are using ODP data, they would be counted as another backlink. All I'm saying is that it's impossible for your statement to be implemented.
No, they're just good friends, otherwise Google would be a bigamist (remember the Yahoo feed?).
At every point. Search engines have been using links from listed pages as criteria…
(where at least it will be the right people who will be ignoring it)
"I don't think ODP should design its structure around Google's current way of using and/or spidering it,"
My only point, which I thought I stressed, is that according to the submission rules as stated by DOMZ, look above for the URL, et.al. is that only one listing is allowed and there are editors giving out not just 2 or 3 but listings in 7 different categories. Due to this, and depending on how the algorithms of google work, and given that it is now the biggest search engine, that there is a potential for abuse by the editors, which is the topic of this thread, as I perceived it. And that it would be simple enough for DMOZ to insure that there is only one submission per site thus solving all the issues I have brought up.
The fact that people won’t stop kicking the proverbial dead horse and keeps defending the multiple listings in DMOZ even though it violates their submissions rules, probably indicates something.
etoile
When you do a search in most search engines, if a site is listed in a directory, it will come back with the path to that site as …
www.searchsite.com/misc/business/quality
or whatever. If you do a normal search in google, they actually have the category just above the last line in the description if there is a directory listing. While it could be possible to disguise it, most I have found do not go to the trouble because there is no logical reason to. Too much work and not enough buy-back. Not to mention that someone will figure out they are disguising it thus making them potentially look like a fraudulent site.
All I'm saying is that it's impossible for your statement to be implemented.
I’m wrong there is no such rules for multiple listings at DMOZ, my monitor must be playing tricks on me, and there are no potential ways that any editor could possible do anything that would change the results of any specific search on any directory or search engine. This has now become more time consuming than it is worth I'm not even marking the Do you want an email notification of replies Silly me, why didn’t I realize that before.
[edited by: Laisha at 7:09 pm (utc) on April 16, 2003]
[edit reason] delinkified [/edit]
Irony alert.
I think you will find that the topic of this thread is "I want to be a dmoz editor But I dont want to give 3 new listings" ;)
Does this mean that AOL do not take steps to police their licence conditions [dmoz.org]
These among other things state:-
"2. Attribution Requirement. As a material condition of this Open Directory License, you must provide the below applicable attribution statements on (1) all copies of the Open Directory, in whole or in part, and derivative works thereof which are either distributed (internally or otherwise) or published (made available on the Internet and/or internally over any internal network/intranet or otherwise)..."
Just goes to show that very occasionally ODP editors and I find things to agree on!
Define site.
www.mylittlewidgetsite.com -- yeah, have to agree, one listing.
www.geocities.com -- hmm, different plan required?
www.small.isp.with.non-obvious.name.com/username -- human review?
You misunderstand the circumstances, and mischaracterize the guidelines.
LISTINGS of multiple PAGES in a single site are "allowed in exceptional circumstances" in the EDITORS' guidelines. Editors MAY review a site submitted once, and may list it, or subpages of it, multiple times. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "SUBMISSIONS RULES".
Multiple _submittals_ of a single site or related sites are _forbidden_ in the SUBMITTERS' guidelines. Although no exceptions at all are mentioned there, editors have mentioned certain exceptions, and encouraged specific kinds of multiple submittals (i.e. regional/topical, multilingual) in forums like this, and even occasionally in private e-mail. (I have written to a few dozen webmasters suggesting how they might submit particular types of deeplinks, to help editors quickly find and review high-quality _informational_ -- as opposed to marketing or retailing -- content.)
This is why the frequently-heard reasoning that "I saw my competitor with xxx listings, therefore it must be all right to submit my site xxx" is ALWAYS invalid.
If I became an editor, of course, I would add my competitors listings - if they apply. <<
The idea of being an editor at Open Directory is to improve the content of the categories you edit.
As an editor you should be improving the category and making it as complete as possible. If you do not want to contribute to the quality of the directory then you do not deserve editorship. Editors aren't supposed to be passively waiting for sites to trickle in, they are supposed to be looking for sites that are appropriate to their category and list them.
Anything other than that is a doing a disservice to the cat and to the Open Directory Project.
