Forum Moderators: open
I'm resolutely on the side of describing the business and its services. A lot of really good DMOZ editors disagree with me.
I'm not talking about stuffing a description with keywords, but I am talking about providing useful information... and I do have an an eye open towards search.
I can understand why editors want some variation in listings within a category. But are phrases like, "offers pictures, "description of services," "includes prices," etc, anything but habitual filler to repair bad descriptions, which somehow has become formalized? If the submitted description is unique, literate, accurate, and succinct, why not leave it alone?
Particularly in the local and regional listings, I feel, where a variety of businesses are often lumped together, there's precious little space to define the business, let alone paint a word picture of the site's menu bar.
Here are some quotes from a thread that I thought summed up the disagreements, but I know there are others on the board as well:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Editor...
Normally a description should contain two parts - what the subject or business is, and a list of what is on the site. The latter should contain the things that make it different from other sites when using the directory.
Webmaster...
I don't even think they looked at my site...they took verbatim links buttons text for samples, FAQ, prices and used that for my description.
Another editor...
And not only is DMOZ a directory...but it is a directory of web sites, not businesses. Our job is to provide a description of the site, not the business.
And from the DMOZ editorial guidelines...
In some cases, the contents of all the sites in your category will be same. For example, sites about businesses or organizations all contain similar information such as an "about" page, a products and services section, etc. In these cases, it's fine to just describe what the company does, focusing on it's products, services and specializations (i.e. the subject).
I'm trying to look at this from every point of view: usefulness to the directory visitor, usefulness to the site visitor, and... yes, indeed... usefulness to the company whose listing it is.
But we should be concerned with helping HUMANS looking at the directory listings.
Suppose a human is looking at a category about widgets. The category has 5 or 50 or however many listings. Ideally, the person reading should be able to distinguish among the sites from the titles and descriptions, and he/she should be able to distinguish on the basis of something interesting to him/her.
Now the editors could write the descriptions about the websites: "features company history, manager biographies, and order form", etc. Or the editors could talk about the widgets themselves: big, small, runs on AC, made from balsa wood, etc. I think most human users are more concerned with the widgets than with the company history, etc.
It's impossible to write the descriptions to serve every need, but if the choice is between talking about the widget or about the website, it serves out users better (in general) to describe the widget.
It's impossible to write the descriptions to serve every need, but if the choice is between talking about the widget or about the website, it serves out users better (in general) to describe the widget.
Having said that, I do think that every large compilation of information should take steps to insure that users of the database can find what they are looking for in an efficient way. To me, at least, that means providing the basis for an effective search function.
Suggesting that individual users of the DMOZ data must be forced to drill down through ten levels of categories to find a widget supplier in Blogville, Wisconsin is silly. An effective search function is a necessity, even at DMOZ's current size.
The challenge, of course, is how to address this need. In a dozen word description, one simply can't address the need to include sufficient information to make any given site findable for any but the crudest searches. Currently, there is no provision in DMOZ for any expanded content, e.g., keywords, long description, etc. Many directories and content management systems do recognize this need, and provide for it with specific database fields.
Adding more information, particularly "hidden" information, to DMOZ is no doubt a non-starter. Site submitters would abuse it, and busy editors wouldn't have the time to deal with it. Nevertheless, I don't think "searchability" of its database should be a non-issue, and the powers-that-be of the ODP should encourage methods to help users find what they want in the fastest way possible.
I think Google has opened a lot of eyes to the power of sophisticated information retrieval. For me, Google has obsoleted much of my use of business directories, telephone books, user manuals, and other traditional forms of information storage. Accessibility of the ODP data has to be a consideration in planning for its future.
To turn this back to the topic of Robert's excellent, thoughtful post - the "what's unique" emphasis is key, IMO, but creating searchability is a losing battle given the current criteria for writing descriptions and structure of the database.
P.S. If nobody has yet welcomed Ambivalenthysteria and CrimsonGirl, welcome to WebmasterWorld!
If it accomplishes its mission, Google et al will come. And the accessibility of the ODP is best served by providing a good directory, that other people will WANT to distribute, index, and publish.
>...creating searchability is a losing battle given the current criteria for writing descriptions and structure of the database.
This is very true. Many of us editors (including me) started out trying to craft descriptions for search purposes: as we come to understand the issues and difficulties, we realize that it's futile, given the structure of the database and the nature of search.
To the best of my knowledge, NO major search engine currently indexes ODP descriptions (except as it spiders the ODP itself). This is perhaps the best possible indication that the search engines, insofar as THEY consider THEMSELVES our end-users, are NOT looking for MORE keyword-stuffing from us.
Even if only a portion of sites in a category have some magic keyword in their title or description, that's enough for the WHOLE CATEGORY to be found! What else could you want of a directory?
Even if only a portion of sites in a category have some magic keyword in their title or description, that's enough for the WHOLE CATEGORY to be found!
Exactly. There is a whole category. If there are going to be descriptions applied to the websites in the category at all, the descriptions should be different for different sites. Otherwise, in many of the business categories, every site will have essentially the same description: "features product catalog, company history, and links to other industry sites" or whatever. You could have 100 sites in a category with almost exactly the same description (I'm exaggerating to make a point.) If all descriptions are the same, what is the point of having a description? Yes, the directory still performs a major service by putting websites in their appropriate categories. And maybe that's all a directory needs to do. But DMOZ also provides descriptions, so we should use them. And it is not a matter of keyword stuffing for search purposes. Editors don't think about that (or they shouldn't think about that).
Descriptions are not meant to be competitive or intended to draw distinctions with other sites.
Sorta-true. A description should highlight the specific features of the SITE (which is not, contrary to general submitter belief, the company's mission statement, size, age, or self-description).
But it's also sorta-true:
"If all descriptions aren't almost the same, what was the point of having the category?"
When you're actually trying to make the thing work, you have to put aside the sorta-truths and focus on what would have made the webmaster most happy ... to see as his competitor's description. When you've got that down pat, you're ready to tackle the unreviewed in Shopping and Business.
People fail to realize that if you had 100 links/listings in a category for say "blue widgets". If every listing had the anchor/link text of "Blue Widgets" and this was repeated in the description as many times as it could be stuffed - how would this help you, the user, or anyone else? I'm sure there would then be webmasters complaining that this listing has one more "widget" in the description than me! Would this really benefit anyone?
Hmm... maybe dmoz should just put one "I'm Feeling Lucky" listing in each category and just rotate which URL/site it takes the visitor to :)
A description should highlight the specific features of the SITE...
Why? Is this in the guidelines? How does this approach make the directory more informative?
Here are the guidelines again (at least the ones I know of), this time including both of the paragraphs about descriptions, and with my emphasis...
The description gives specific information about the content and/or subject matter of the site. It should be informative and concise, usually no longer than one or two lines. The basic formula for a good description is Description = Subject + ContentIn some cases, the contents of all the sites in your category will be same. For example, sites about businesses or organizations all contain similar information such as an "about" page, a products and services section, etc. In these cases, it's fine to just describe what the company does, focusing on it's products, services and specializations (i.e. the subject).
I read "formula" here not as "requirement" or "prescription," but rather as "conventional rule."
I'm having enough difficulty understanding the emphasis on Site from editors I respect that I wonder if some of us might be using the words differently. I can understand an editor using the site as a gauge for the veracity of the Subject description, and I would never expect an editor to permit a description that the site didn't support.
But hutcheson refers to "features," so I don't think he's talking about veracity here.... stever gives Subject such a cursory treatment that a veracity check may not be relevant.... And I've experienced big city hotel categories, eg, where it seems that listing after listing reads "service, amenities, rooms, rates," and the city name has been dutifully dropped to avoid redundancy.
The editors posting here in support of Site are too emphatic about that approach to be lazily formulaic. So I'm thinking there's something about reviewing the site itself that's not stated in the guidelines which is attractive to editors in a way I don't understand.
In my own background in filmmaking and photography, I know I make distinctions between the photograph and its subject, something that a lot of people don't understand. To me as a photographer, the photograph is an object unto itself. Many of my subjects and clients, though, only see the subject matter, and where a photograph is utilitarian, that needs to be taken into account. I don't know how to extend this to directory editing.
There was also a clue for me in stever's very moving sentence about the satisfaction an editor of a category "to do with John Donne's poetry occasionally" might feel at the end of a day....
Immediately, I could envision a description (along the lines that stever suggests) that might read something like, "Includes selected texts, bibliography, and critical commentary on the poetry of John Donne." Here, John Donne is already a known quantity, and, if I were directory visitor looking for websites about John Donne, and I had drilled down to the John Donne category or otherwise found this listing within the category intact, the description would tell me what I needed to know.
This isn't true of all sites, though, particularly not sites about businesses or organizations which are not known quantities. And here's where we're having our debate/discussion.
We all know those endless complaints by webmasters, who indeed want their listing to be in the highest possible cat, and with descriptions saying keyword1 in keyword2, offering keyword1-keyword2 with keyword3. Also keyword4. Visit keyword1-keyword2 now for cheapest rates on keyword1.
So coming from that it's understandable how editors tend to stick to very puristic descriptions, and what prompts comments like this, from Hutcheson:
>NOT looking for MORE keyword-stuffing from us
Now lets look at keywords. Keywords are, contrary to popular believe among odp people, not a devlish invention of serial spammers.
Keywords are what users use to find what they are looking for. Exactly for that reason webmasters use those keywords to describe their sites.
In the John Donne example, "Includes selected texts, bibliography, and critical commentary on the poetry of John Donne." bibliography would be such a keyword. Actually I would prefer it to be further qualified, like in short, or extensive, or complete bibliography.
This is useful information to the user, and it's also a keyword. Hey, you might have a user, who's looking for exactly that: "complete bibliography John Donne"
Is this information describing the site, or describing the services offered? And who cares?
Would this site also contain a guestbook functionality, I most certainly would not want to learn about that in an odp description.
The point is nobody (in this thread) tries to urge the odp editors to do keyword stuffed, hyper promotional descriptions.
It's about considering what kind of description is most useful for all users of ODP data.
"Our users" - that's the core reference given by many editors. The ultimate purpose of guidelines is to help achieve a goal. If achieving that goal means to change the guidelines, or interpret them differently, than that should be done.
It wasn't meant to be a "gold standard" description and I wouldn't be in any position to promote it as such anyway (although personally I don't think there's all that much wrong with it in certain categories).
I wouldn't have any quibble at all with the John Donne description that Robert_Charlton and heini refer to (without the superfluous "on the poetry of John Donne") even including the words "complete bibliography" - in fact, that's close to a lot of descriptions that are written.
I think a certain hesitancy that heini identifies comes from a reluctance to judge in terms of descriptions. "Complete" and "extensive" are relatively neutral.
But let's take it back to hotels, for example, and say I know about a particular area. Would I, or should I, write "cheap" or "expensive" or "luxury" or "affordable" and what would be the possibilities of abuse? Even the words "central" or "family" have connotations.
(If you are going to ask what I actually write at the moment, it would probably be "Located near the cathedral. Etc, etc, etc.".)
And heini, I actually think that a knowledge of search terms makes for a better editor in your terms (despite the horror with which SEM is regarded by some editors). I know from experience that many people are looking for particular items from a hotel site, for example, and if a website has them then I'll normally include those ones.
A "guestbook", which you refer to, normally only appears in a description when it's one of the only other things on the site apart from the whirling flashing FrontPage-designed index.htm.
John Donne did SEM too, btw:
For having purposed change and falsehood, you
Can have no way but falsehood to be true?
Vain lunatic, against these 'scapes I could
Dispute, and conquer, if I would ;
Which I abstain to do,
For by to-morrow I may think so too.
Listings will normally have either a single one-line description or one sentence describing the company and one sentence describing the site. This all depends on the category and/or editor.
Their reasons for doing so are subtle and elusive and, as you point out, also subjective. It's because they are subjective that I want to understand what's behind the practice, not just the practice itself.
Well, since there's been reference to a sample description I made earlier, that one was deliberately spartan to contrast with the one above it which was particularly keyword-laden.It wasn't meant to be a "gold standard" description...
stever - I'm relieved to hear that. Presented as an extreme position, the description makes sense to me. As an example of what I might expect if I were a widget wholesaler in Anytown, it was my worst nightmare. ;)
I can't resist quoting two of the descriptions from the John Donne > Works category, in full...
Text.and...
Full texts.
They are, in context, all that is necessary. I'm glad they're there.
Thanks also for the partial Donne text you posted.
