Forum Moderators: open
The guidelines state that the category name and site titles should not appear within the site description.
I.e. If you have a site for Ohio and its correctly categorised then Ohio will not appear in the description.
Search engines use the ODP descriptions to weight the results. The ODP search engine is the worst offender.
Part of the problem is that keywords can't appear in the description without breaking the guidelines ... so the sites which are in the wrong category benefit from "optimised descriptions" as opposed to sites correctly categorised.
The ODP has other problems also - (can you say politics?) but this is the one that affects webmasters the most.
I would of aired this in ODP but I think there is a danger that every "keyword" would be stripped from all the categories I edit.
I know quite a few ODP + webmasters hang out here - is this a problem for any of you?
Gethan
Ps. I still say ODP is better than Looksmart, Yahoo, in terms of quantity, quality and intentions - generally :)
Its very frustrating and a concept that I think the ODP needs to revisit. The editors would know best how to handle a situation like mine and the one you described rather than having a blanket policy which doesn't always serve the directories best interests ... not to mention the site owners best interest.
IMHO editors should use this as more of a hard fast rule in the case of geographical regions. It looks sloppy to and is extremely redundant have a site in a regional category and (say Ohio) and then write the description so that is once again states that the site or business is related to Ohio.
When it comes to non geographical keywords, from an editors point of view and that of a submitter, again IMHO it is not practical to never include Title or Category words in the description. The best bet is to add qualifiers to those keywords in such a way that they do not sound redundant, are included in the description, and help identify the unique properties of the site.
Such a strategy aplied to YAHOO! submissions works well too.
It should be remembered that this is a guideline and not a hard fast rule.
Yep, but ... when applying to edit either further up the tree, or another category your current category is looked at. If you bend the guidelines then you will get rejected for "promotion". If you ask for a category check - a thousand cries of "Ohio is unneccessary in such and such a listing as its already in the category title" will occur.
The ODP power wielders seem oblivous to the fact that no one uses the directory - its the search engines that count. (generalising of course - I use the directory ;) 1000/1 ratio?)
I guess the problem is as bad or worse in Yahoo and L$ but I have insider visiblilty of ODP and am starting to see its flaws. (LS deliberatly strip keywords so I hear ;) - I got lucky and had a few extra one added)
I lucked out with my LookSmart description. Perhaps it was because I paid to submit in the first week the pay to play programme was launched. I suggested a good description but the editor wrote a better one ... and none of my keywords were stripped!
It should be remembered that this is a guideline and not a hard fast rule.
In my experience the editors in the categories that are relevant to me do not seem to adhere to this quideline. I can find many categories where the crucial keyword is in the category name, the site title and the site description.
Um, that's like the whole point.
Take one RDF. Garnish to taste. Finish however you wish. Enjoy!
>>The ODP power wielders seem oblivous to the fact that no one uses the directory - its the search engines that count.
The keyword-stuffing is considered something that the search engines can add however they like.
The activities of too many stupid and greedy SEP types have forced some search engines to ignore the place where (according to the internet as conceived) keywords should be stuffed -- the meta tags.
The ODP originators do NOT want the ODP to be another collection of data that must be ignored because of abusive keyword-stuffing. Ergo, their strict rules (that, based on the experience of the editing community, are being made stricter) about what and where KWs may be S'ed.
Gethan, its maybe worth bringing up on the boards at the ODP, your concerns !
There is a difference between keyword stuffing and a policy of removing all keywords from titles and descriptions. The latter is indeed practiced by many ODP editors. Some of those are abusing and do such stripping discriminately. Others are just not aware of the only part of the guidelines which is bolded for emphasis. [dmoz.org] That portion says "...we ask that editors maintain editorial integrity and always employ good common sense."
One of the constant battles is to get editors to heed both parts of that advice.
Another constant battle is to get editors to realize that in order to continue to be used by "downstream" entities, they must be useful, and if one cannot find information by using search terms, the product is indeed rendered useless. Logically, if the product is useless, the last three years has been a colossal waste of time and effort.
While it makes sense not to load a description with keywords, common sense would tell you that any description of a site would necessarily and naturally contain keywords.
>The ODP originators do NOT want the ODP to be another collection of data that must be ignored because of abusive keyword-stuffing.
I am certain that the ODP originators do NOT want the ODP to be a collection of data which has no practical use, either.
>Ergo, their strict rules (that, based on the experience of the editing community, are being made stricter) about what and where KWs may be S'ed.
The strict rules are badly in need of updating with an eye toward usefulness, particularly in this time when so many of the search entities are demanding outrageous amounts of money for submission, hence promoting a profound lack of relevancy.
As one of the most vocal ODP editors when it comes to policy and policy change within ODP, I have myself given up the battle on this one. And I am not a bit surprised as ODP is dropped from search entity after search entity, and in those cases where ODP has been retained, those data are no longer as pertinent as they once were (i.e., AOL and Netscape).
All the jocular sidestepping of this issue on forums across the Internet may be amusing, but it certainly hasn't prompted anyone to seriously look at the issue, let alone address it. I am of the belief that if this continues, the prognosis is not good for ODP. There are, as we all know, plenty of other entities waiting in the wings, and when THEY begin to address the issues ODP refuses to, the prognosis for ODP isn't great.
As an editor, I am not concerned with keywords per se. I'll seldom look at your meta keyword list, unless I find myself fumbling for a descriptive word, and I'm not as concerned with arriving at a description that is search engine friendly as I am with arriving at a description that is truly descriptive. I remain convinced that when this is done correctly, both interests are served.
Again however, the words that I use in a site description may be different than the ones you've used in your meta keyword list. In some cases, this might be a failing on my part. Often, the keywords you'd like me to use simply don't match the content on your site.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it unless someone gets really mad at me.
progeny
I am all for the editors using artistic licence, but progeny for heavens sake, that is just taking the mick.
Everyone else in the category else gets litters or puppies in their description and what do I get, progeny ! Who on earth would use that word in a search ? :)
For those that are interested see: odp category [dmoz.org]
BTW: Like the Murphys, ....... :)
Well, heavens! What kind of #$*&@! *%# *&@#^ #*&@# $*# $%@#*& opinion is that??? Now I'm really mad....
Wondering what his *new* opinion will be...
I never ever edit a description with the overriding thought of "what would a searcher look for?" If I did, I'd add "Britney Spears" to nearly every one.
Not intimately famliar with the regional section, but from my experience (in topical categories) which has included approved applications and denied applications, neither staff nor any meta has ever declined an application for including category words in the description. I often find it necessary to duplicate these words in order to accuately describe a site. The title of a site should be a complete non-issue because the title in ODP should be the title of the site plain and simple just like any other directory.
Again however, the words that I use in a site description may be different than the ones you've used in your meta keyword list. In some cases, this might be a failing on my part. Often, the keywords you'd like me to use simply don't match the content on your site.That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it unless someone gets really mad at me.
I agree with this opinion - I think its been mis-interpreted though. Kflander is talking about where webmasters misrepresent the content of their sites in the meta data. Fair enough - why should I put MP3 in the description of a site thats got nothing to do with MP3's except in the keyword metas?
I also see why this inflames the responsible webmaster - I carefully ensure that my keywords are relevant to the site I've produced. I'd hate to think that my listings in directories are deliberatly checked against this data and then have descriptions cleansed.
In the ODP its very rare for a reviewer to look at the source code. They look only at the content. I think this is the right way to do it.
I've thought of a better example of what I'm referring to.
- The website of a web design company - a correctly classified site will go into (generally) a regional web design and internet category.
- The listing (adhering strictly to the guidelines) will be something like
- Acme Design Ltd
- Includes a portfolio, pricing guidelines, information on hosting options and contact information.
What are people looking for this site going to search for? -- "web design in location" - none of these words are included in the description. It is already given in the site category.
Whereas a site incorrectly categorized will contain the keywords, or if the editor bends the guidelines they will also appear. These descriptions do have weight - in Google (where matching terms are highlighted -- only in the description, and not in the category), and in some of the "dumber" search tools only this information is used - try the ODP one. It will show the category first but most users are not good at using directories and will use the results suggested by the search first. The exception to this appears to be Yahoo.
So we either need all search engines to be smart and use category information to weight results better. Or we need editor guidelines to be relaxed to allow descriptions that include category information - I agree in the directory it will look a little daft - but 99.9% of the use of this data will not be from the directory but the search engines.
Its basically pot luck on whether your keywords appear in the description - but if they do and your feeling smug ;) ... don't, its only a matter of time before someone else reviews the category and decides that the descriptions don't adhere to the guidelines ;)
Caine - you might be able to guess why I don't want to bring this up in the ODP now :)
The strict rules are badly in need of updating with an eye toward usefulness, particularly in this time when so many of the search entities are demanding outrageous amounts of money for submission, hence promoting a profound lack of relevancy.
Exactly - additionally - how can anyone justify $299 to list a website for a small business that has only paid $500 to have the whole site produced? Its daylight robbery - but it also means that people searching on these entities will not find what they are looking for.
Maybe they need a small business flag - $49 but your site is flagged as a small business on all affiliated search engines ... erm needs more thought but I think you see what I mean. But thats where I hope the ODP will be the saviour of the small business and hobby site ;)
Given that the Open Directory Project is staffed by humans, and given the fact that most humans are essentially lazy, you will probably find that, if your meta tag description is truly descriptive and meets our guidelines, we are apt to use it. Or, if you are submitting the site, this would be the description that you enter into the form.
I know that I do, although I seldom get the chance. Too often, the description submitted with the site is entirely inappropriate, comprised of advertising hype and improper capitalization. If I have to change it, then I'm likely to use my own words. If you give us a description that we can use, we're likely to use it.
Again, this is my opinion only, with no intention of obligating other editors, and may not hold true in all categories. Still, I think you'll find it helpful.
This is a VERY good idea, and it often has the desired effect.
After you've reviewed a few thousand submitted titles and descriptions that read like a dictionary of nothing but keywords, the tendancy to wipe out what's submitted and start from scratch can be overwhelming.
I agree with kctipton and kfander that if a webmaster was smart and wanted more input in the title and description that ultimately gets used in the directory they should put something concise and descriptive on the home page. Likewise, don't submit desciptions with exclamatory *!punctuation!*, CAPITALIZATION, or unnecessary claims that "We are the best, coolest, superduper, can't live without website on the Internet".
