Forum Moderators: open
Who can find the site with the most DMOZ listings?
What do most of these sites have in common?
They are all related in some way, or owned by AOL (Time Warner)
You want another interesting statistic? Chew on this one: the number of entries for Rolling Stone was higher, and the relationship between RS and DMOZ was closer, BEFORE TW bought AOL. And that reduction in listings was approved by AOL/Netscape staff.
A kind user regularly provides us with a list of domain names sorted by number of entries. These aren't from that list: they're just domains I frequently run across. They include commercial, noncommercial, educational, and personal sites. And they have more entries on average than the other list, despite some of them being fed by MUCH smaller organizations.
Need anyone ask what they have in common? They aren't all related to TW/AOL, surprisingly enough: actually, they're all NOT related to TW/AOL.
Anyone can always find a pattern in a subset of entries ... that were preselected to fit that pattern. And on the internet, you can usually find someone stupid enough to believe almost anything. (Notice how many people are still convinced Google gives an artificial boost to sites on .EDU domains, or sites with ODP listings, or Hominids Of Unusual Size as opposed to little people, or even My_Competitors as opposed to My_Doorways.)
But even P. T. Barnum wouldn't try to sell imperial vestments as transparent as THIS theory.
However,
The IMDB listings are simply product pages, the same as the rolling stone artist pages. I have several questions.
1. Why can they get a listing for each page when they are in no way a departure from the theme of the entire site. If I have a site with 7,773 different types of the same widget (or completely diferent types of widgets), can i get a listing for each page? Additionally, they are not providing unique content which can't be found elsewhere on the web. We have been told on this forum and others that that is the litmus test for additional listings (other than regional vs local or world vs regional)
2. How have these listings been obtained? Professional Content Provider(PCP), Trusted feed, the old fashioned way, etc.
3. If they have been provided as a result of PCP or trusted feeds, shouldn't that be noted next to the listing?
4. IF the listings are a result of PCP or something like that, doesn't it bother you too?
Hutcheson, I have always valued your opinion and unfortunately you usually end up being right about these matters too. If you ever care to post on my other site (I'm guessing you know what it is), it would be welcome. I know there's alot you can't post about, but there's also a lot of other information regarding submissions, Google's use of DMOZ, etc which I think is mostly correct (albeit tinged with bias) and seems to be right up your alley. You would be a valuable reasoned countervoice there.:)
BEFORE TW bought AOL
Other way around, methinks.
*You* may be convinced that your own website has ten times the informational content of your competitors--really, if a webmaster *didn't* think their site was the best one, why would they spend their time? But that's a pretty subjective opinion on your part, one surely not shared by your competitors. The fact that Project Gutenberg has a thousand more listings than your site really shouldn't be surprising to, or contested by, anyone.
If you find a competitor of yours or an auto-body shop or something like that which has that many listings, please do let us know about that--it would be highly inappropriate. But wired.com? Come on, that's original article central. (-: You're complaining about the leading online sources of useful non-plagiarized information here. They're not comparable to a widget store that wishes it could have a separate listing for each of its products; nor does CNN's prominence hurt the widget store in any way.
-----------------------------
Disclaimer: Personal, non-official opinion, yada yada.
None of this answers any of the questions posed, specifically regarding the difference in standards which must be met by Joe Webmaster and Joe Giant Media Corporation for unique content.
Also, on the lighter side, who has the most and how do we find out how many there are once they go past 10,000?
Which pretty well nixes the idea all those Rolling Stone entries got their because the owners of the ODP pulled strings.
I could understand being irked if some commercial site competing with yours had lots of deeplinks, but are you really begrudging links to online exhibits on a subject from the *Smithsonian*?
No. His theory was that AOL/TW was using improper influence. However, from the examples hutcheson gave of competitors to AOL/TW properties having more lostings than the AOL/TW ones, the answer is most likely that this happened for other than dishonorable reasons.
If not, I may just need to agree to disagree with him on this. Personally, I find those substantive articles from authoritative media and library sources among the most valuable. I'm always happy when I'm looking up a topic and find sites like those in a directory or search engine.
1 110,074 GEOCITIES.COM
2 38,376 ONET.PL
3 35,818 TRIPOD.COM
4 31,499 ANGELFIRE.COM
5 23,577 AOL.COM
6 17,901 CNN.COM
7 14,501 YAHOO.COM
8 14,017 NEWADVENT.ORG
9 11,133 WIRED.COM
10 9,802 FREE.FR
Is it permissable to post the URL to the entire list here? :)
(Edit: according to the site, it was last updated from dmoz on Nov 12)
I don't actually know quite what you mean by PCP, so I'll leave that question to a savvier editor. They're certainly not paid listings if that's what you mean. The ODP doesn't have those.
I mean, I'm not personally a big fan of sites with ads all over them (as all the free online encyclopedias including this one seem to), but the URL you're complaining about does have a page worth of original content on a pretty obscure historical figure. Why do you think the ODP or any other directory would be higher-quality if its "Macarius Magnes" category was empty than if it had this site and others of comparable quality in it? Someone who's looking for online information on Macarius Magnes would probably be very glad to find a brief but scholarly encyclopedia article, don't you think?
The PCP's (including Rolling Stone, Encyclopedia.com, and a few others) were entities with a broad ("encyclopediac") range of content across multiple subjects, and a willingness to provide those links to the ODP in the VERY early days (that is, mostly before my time, and I've been editing almost 5 years.) This is before Netscape bought AOL (;)) and most of the arrangements were, IIRC, even pre-Netscape. That was with a view to "priming the pump" of ODP ("Newhoo") listings.
Even before AOL entered the picture, the bar was rising. I asked about one source -- of greater depth than encyclopedia.com; staff really wasn't interested. Today the pizzley online encyclopedias (encyclopedia.com, Microsoft's clueless encarta, and even Brittanica Micropedia) hardly ever have articles long enough to be worth listing in their subject area. The Catholic Encyclopedia, although it has some very short articles, has many articles that are worth deeplinking for their own sake (Synesius of Cyrene is one that I listed recently -- CE had the best biography I could find online.)
I'm not even sure we're even considering the possibility of taking PCPs any more. Some of them have basically been purged. Others have been cut off and pruned. Others are static. To the best of my knowledge none are actively adding sites right now, and no new ones have been accepted in more than 2 1/2 years. (For new submittals, Rolling Stone relies on submittals and editor searches just like anyone else.) And the chances of either Time Magazine's site or your site being accepted today as a PCP are basically identical zeros.
So you ask: what do you need to do today to get that? And the answer is simple. Build a time machine. Go back 10 years. Spend 4 years building content, and then meet the Newhoo founders with open arms and file formats. And -- this is not the least important nor the easiest part) target a broad subject area that isn't well represented in the ODP already.
It's just like saying "I know there are grandfathers out there...so how can I grandfather my newborn infant?"
Wasn't that the other way around?
>and most of the arrangements were, IIRC, even pre-Netscape. That was with a view to "priming the pump" of ODP ("Newhoo") listings.
This was long before the days when anyone was even thinking about Google PageRank and such. And, before a material number of people thought it made any sense to spam the Newhoo directory.
Can I ask what URL's out there you think have better information on Macarius Magnes than that one?The aforementioned Christian Classics Ethereal Library has more info and no affiliate links. I told you to listen to hutcheson, he knows his stuff.;)
And the chances of either Time Magazine's site or your site being accepted today as a PCP are basically identical zeros.And that officially marks the last time my site will compare favorably to Time.com.
Doesn't it feel better now that it's out in the open.
This is coming rather close to arguing about how ODP does or has done things rather than how to build a really great site deserving of multiple listings.Thanks for taking the time to point that out. I guess I feel if I have a great site about authors, it should be listed in the authors category. It doesn't mean i should get a listing for each page I have about an author.
Hutcheson,
Everything you have said makes sense, but the time frame doesn't jibe with this article [traffick.com] which leads one to believe the PCP program still existed in the middle of 2001, well after the purchase by AOL.
I'm really failing to grasp the issue here. I understand why webmasters complain "My widget site has more content than Joe's, and you listed Joe's, so you should list mine!" I understand why webmasters complain "Joe's widget site has less content than mine, so you should de-list his!" Why would a webmaster complain "Joe's biography of an obscure Christian apologist doesn't have enough content"? Do you think it is hurting your widget sales somehow that some theology student can find two short biographies of Macarius Magnes (and one translation of one of his works, I see) in the DMOZ directory? Do you think the directory would be better if it had only two listings related to him instead of three?
I suspect we're never going to see eye to eye on this one, Powdork... for my part I greatly prefer to see relevant Wired.com articles, encyclopedia entries, and IMDB filmographies included in search results, whether that's in a directory I edit, directories I don't edit, or search engines. Those are well-respected and valuable sources. If I'm trying to learn about Macarius Magnes, or Angelina Jolie, then as a surfer, I'm happy to see those listings among my results. I'm not sure why you're not... but I guess that's just different web search preferences on our parts. *shrug* Takes all kinds...!
I have no problem with this, it makes sense, and it seems to be what regular folks must actually do to get additional links. The problem is that it appears not everyone is held to the same standards.
I have no problem with the Macarius page from newadvent per se, I just think it falls well short of those criteria, especially given the fact that the ccel page also has a listing (although I couldn't find it).
If I'm trying to learn about Macarius Magnes, or Angelina Jolie, then as a surfer, I'm happy to see those listings among my results. I'm not sure why you're not... but I guess that's just different web search preferences on our parts. *shrug* Takes all kinds...!And when you search with Google they both do show up. But do they both deserve a DMOZ listing given that they are part of sites that already have listings for the parent categories.
Everything you have said makes sense, but the time frame doesn't jibe with this article which leads one to believe the PCP program still existed in the middle of 2001, well after the purchase by AOL.
If you're using that article to back up your arguments, you are really not going to get anywhere. The author of that article had most of their facts wrong where they thought they were right, and is so out-and-out stretching the truth in spots as to be lying.
If you're using that article to back up your arguments, you are really not going to get anywhere. The author of that article had most of their facts wrong where they thought they were right, and is so out-and-out stretching the truth in spots as to be lying.No, I am not stating that the article represents facts, only that it exists, and 'leads one to believe' that there is some dispute over what hutcheson posted above. I personally am not a fan of the whole pseudonym article writing thing. It certainly does not help to lend credence to one's arguments. At the same time, I haven't been able to dig up anything to discredit it. If anything this thread [webmasterworld.com] seems to point towards most of it being true.
Where in the guidelines is this specifically prohibited? The reality appears to be that in cases like where the topic is an obscure Christian apologist, such is not uncommon due to the relative scarcity of content.
Well, there *are* some of us who like to look for information directly via directories, you know. The ODP doesn't exist merely as a feed for Google. (-:
Anyway, to the original question: I don't think it's possible to "get" yourself more than one DMOZ listing. If a deeplink of somebody's site gets listed, it wouldn't be because of any marketing efforts on their part, but rather because the editor of a category decided their subpage was one of the best resources available on the topic. Other than being an encyclopedia-type site that was added in the Newhoo days (an option that's not available for the temporally bound, as Hutcheson explained), the only things you could do that might improve your odds of being deeplinked would be making sure that one of your subpages is among the 3-5 most authoritative Internet sources for a non-commercial topic, with content that is unique, plentiful, and very useful, particularly on a topic that doesn't have many websites dedicated to it in the first place. That's how the Smithsonian and such sites got all those deeplinks.
Just my own opinion there, though.
Well, there *are* some of us who like to look for information directly via directories, you know. The ODP doesn't exist merely as a feed for Google. (-:Agreed, but directory like joeant where keywords are encouraged to promote seachability would be better. An exampke of this is my inability to find the ccel Macarius listing you mentioned on DMOZ. Don't get me wrong, I can tell without looikng that joeant won't bring those two listings up.
Other than being an encyclopedia-type site that was added in the Newhoo days (an option that's not available for the temporally bound, as Hutcheson explained), the only things you could do that might improve your odds of being deeplinked would be making sure that one of your subpages is among the 3-5 most authoritative Internet sources for a non-commercial topic, with content that is unique, plentiful, and very useful, particularly on a topic that doesn't have many websites dedicated to it in the first place.That sounds a lot like what I described above. Those are the standards that I feel are not being close to met in the case of rollingstone and IMDB. Those are very commercial categories with similar information plastered all over the web.
Where in the guidelines is this specifically prohibited?Specifically, where are these guidelines?
The Catholic Encyclopedia page I looked at had two paragraphs of primary-source information from a well-respected theological publication. The IMDB page I looked at had 150 photographs of the actress, a functioning forum that responded to a questioner within hours, and a complete filmography with links. Those sure seem like unique content to me. Not a huge amount of it in the CE case, but for such an obscure topic even two paragraphs of good content would be welcome to me as a searcher. And no, those aren't in commercial categories (Religion and Arts). They're predominantly informational. A student doing a paper could get information from either one. If it were my decision, I wouldn't remove either of them. *just two cents*
