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.
On the one hand, the mission of the ODP [dmoz.org] is to catalog and present the best information on the web:
...the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. As the Internet grows, so do the number of net-citizens. These citizens can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.
In order to present the best information however, it is important to keep in mind the actual terms that Searchers are using. But where is the line drawn between keeping a title and description "searchable" and creating a spammy listing?
This is very subjective. As a submitter, you have to craft a searchable title and description- that's the whole raison d'etre of the ODP. But there are some who might call it spammy. :(
I like what Zeal has to say about descriptions:
Be search conscious: Think about the kinds of keywords people might use when searching for the site you are describing. Avoid general statements that could be said about any Web site. Use words and phrases that are specific to the content of the page.
This is a superbly straightforward window on Zeal's emphasis: Helping SEARCHERS find what they want.
The ODP's dialogue seems to revolve around organizing the web, somewhat to the exclusion of WHO the web is being organized for in the first place: the SEARCHER.
Make no mistake about this, I am very happy with the editorial quality of all of the editors I have submitted to at the ODP. Please do not construe my comments as being in any way derogatory to the ODP, because it is not in any way meant to be. I feel compelled to say this because I do not want anyone to read into this any more than I put into it. So let's keep that clear.
raison d'etreOkay, thats twice tonight.
raison d'etre
Okay, thats twice tonight.
Reason for existence
Close enough. Has an implication of "fundamental purpose" or "essential mission".
Thus I think it's not used correctly in martinibuster's post - i.e. "craft a searchable title and description" is not the raison d'ĂȘtre of the ODP.
The ODP is a directory and not a search engine. It does have a search function but, like this board, it's fairly primitive and used as an aid to its prime directory function.
That difference (between a search engine and a directory) is a source of bafflement for some people who concentrate on what search engines do and not on what directories do.
Someone who concentrates on search engines might consider "Anytown Widgets - blue widgets, green widgets and pink widgets in Anytown" as a great description for themselves and for users of a search engine (because it hits the relevant keywords that searchers might use). And indeed, it would do what a search engine set out to do - provide relevant search results to its users.
Someone who is involved in directories might disagree because of their drill-down nature. Widgets and Anytown are often implied in the category (e.g. Top/Business/Widgets/Suppliers/Country/Anytown) and thus superfluous to a directory.
And, as Robert_Charlton mentioned above, the objective is not to describe the business in detail but to describe what is available at a website.
Thus a directory title and description might read "Company Name - Wholesale suppliers. Includes product descriptions, company history, local agents and order form." Widgets and Anytown, as in the example above, are a given. And again a directory user would be given what they needed and wanted. They have moved in the following logical directory progression:
Widgets-Suppliers-Area
and now are given a number of websites with short descriptions of what makes those sites different.
Other conflicting differences between search engines and directories are the desire to be more visible (search engines) and to be more precise (directories). Thus the wish by many ODP submitters to be placed in the highest category ("but I work in the construction industry in America") and the conflicting wish by editors to place them in the most appropriate category ("but you are a carpenter in an Anytown suburb").
One can argue that one person's directory can have an effect on another person's search engine - but that's really a matter for the search engine. It's not really the point here (although it's normally raised) and certainly not a criticism that you can aim at any directory if it is not setting out to have an effect on a search engine.
With that, ideally, a surfer passing through will be able to find what they're looking for.
I'd love a submitter who would submit guideline-compliant descriptions that are as you describe, Robert_Charlton. It would certainly make my job a lot easier. Alas, they are few and far between, and rewriting them just becomes part of the job.
- ambivalenthysteria, ODP editor and WebMasterWorld lurker for about six months
Lets say a site has some good tutorials - that is useful info in a directory description to give.
On the other end to say in the description that a site in the widgets shop cat has an order form is rather a waste of space. Instead I'd like to know the special focus of the widget shop, like selling custom made widgets.
Sometimes it's a bit hard to get beyond "Manufacturer of widgets", if there's too broad a focus, but if there's a more specific focus, I'll usually put it in.
[edit] Crimsongirl posted at the same time.
While I agree that the summary of what the company does is more important, we do need both (for the reasons Heini illustrated) - hence the two-sentence format.
If you open any major print catalog items are grouped into categories not much different than a directory. There is no need in a print catalog or online directory to repeat the category in every description etc.
ambivalenthysteria uses the method that I personally adhere to when editing in many(not all) categories. One sentence gives a description of the products/services, and one describes what can be found on the site itself. In some topical categories it is also helpful to add a tag of where the company is located such as "Based in Bozeman, Montana, United States". Some information and shopping sites (among others) need only a one-line description that sums up the entire sites contents and has nothing to do with location etc. It all depends on the category and the editor.
Most editors have their own style, that is a good thing (believe-it-or-not)!
Added:
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.
A two sentence description as described above is within the editing quidelines in most cases. Two sentences describing only products/services etc. is not IMHO ;)
In the thousands of sites I have listed I believe there were less than five that were listed without having to edit. This should tell you something of the differences of perception between submitters and editors......
Write a great description and you'll find that few people will change it before listing a site (assuming that it's listable, of course).
Let me make this thought clearer:
This is very subjective. As a submitter, you have to craft a searchable title and description- (Organizing the internet, so we can find things), that's the whole raison d'etre of the ODP. But there are some who might call it spammy.
So the point I was trying to make is, creating a title that is searchable is in keeping with the mission of the ODP: to organize the internet.
But to make the listing useful, you are taking into account what people are searching for, what keywords they are using. In the realworld, people are not drilling down to find the ODP data. They are using search to access that data.
The ODP is a Directory: So What?
The ODP is a directory and not a search engine.
Yes there is a distinction between a search engine and a directory, but that is a poor excuse for disassociating one from the other. Yes, they are different- So what? There is also a relationship between the the two that cannot be ignored.
It is misguided to edit websites as if they are meant solely as a directory listing without regard to how the data will ultimately be used in the real world- by search.
The ODP is on the back end. The search engine is on the front end. Let's not forget that relationship or dissassociate yourself from it.
Which search engine? One that uses link popularity, or one that uses themes, or one that uses meta tags, or one that uses a yet-to-be-implemented technology? And which should the ODP have regard to?
Or are we referring to the fact that the data the ODP produces is used by some search engines that are currently popular?
And again, the only advantage here is that an ODP listing has given a "double boost" in certain search engines in the past because of their replication of the directory.
The value solely of the ODP link in those particular search rankings is not based on that however, but by the coming-up-to-a-million web pages (according to AllTheWeb) that link to the site because of its content and the way it is currently organised.
A good example of an authoritative site, according to that engine.
How would you have it react to searchers' wants or needs, anyway? Which searchers using which engine? Would you have it increase the time and effort devoted to prescription drug sales by a factor of 1000 and decrease the time devoted to personal home pages by the same amount, because that's what surfers are searching for?
and then from their example of a good description-
"Information from experts, celebrities, and others about gambling, drinking, and debauchery."
which is not a complete sentence. IMO inferring the subject is ok.
e.g. "Find information from experts, celebrities, and others about gambling, drinking, and debauchery."
But inferring both the subject and the verb kills the sentence and leads to way similar listings.
Turning a description into a sentence is one of the hardest parts for me, but it is also the best way to make them unique (as long as each one doesn't start with "Site offers... ").
There's no point showing any disagreement in public.
Which search engine? One that uses link popularity, or one that uses themes, or one that uses meta tags, or one that uses a yet-to-be-implemented technology?
Come on, that's a specious argument and you should know that I won't let you get away with that. ;)
All major search engines that draw upon the odp data use some form of link analysis- viewing the context, link text, theme- all of them. To say that the end user (Search Engines) should not be a consideration when constructing the directory is like a shoemaker designing shoes without considering feet.
Even Zeal is aware of a directory's ultimate end use. The ODP should take a step into the real world as well.
I appreciate the fine work that the editors at the ODP do, so please do not construe my remarks as criticism of the great work that they do. However, I do think there is room for improvement of a system that is functioning fairly well.
If I had to give a quick and dirty rule of thumb for the submitter, follow the example of descriptions of the best-described sites that are already listed in the category.
Typically this means the description should read like a dictionary entry-- third person, concise, and objective to the point of being dry, and without long lists of keywords, marketing copy, personal opinions, or orders (i.e. Zeal style: "Find foo" or "Discuss bar"). The first line is usually a fragment rather than a sentence, as if in apposition to the site title, and frequently summarizes the sponsor, author, or other characteristics of the entity behind the site if any. The second line may be another fragment or a full sentence highlighting the major features of the site itself.
There are a thousand variations on this style. After all, it wouldn't make sense for the site of an international pharmaceutical and healthcare conglomerate to be described in exactly the same manner as a dissertation site on plasma physics, or a personal site featuring poetry about the Boston Red Sox.
And along with the thousand variations which are acceptable in a thousand different types of categories, there are pedants both inside and outside the project who will fault 999 of them as vile degradations of the English language. Human nature, I suppose.
that's a specious argument and you should know that I won't let you get away with that. ;)
C'mon, everyone's allowed to be specious once on a weekend...
The point there was really that if you start to take regard of people's uses of data, then you are into questions of what and how and who? How long has link popularity been around and what was there beforehand? What do you think will be there in the future? And should a directory change its raison d'ĂȘtre because of shifts in the search engine market?
The characterisation of ODP data as a tool for search engines to use is also more than debatable. I don't know that the thousands of people, who may admittedly have different personal agendas, who edit would characterise it that way.
My own opinion is that many of them may stop working on a category, say, to do with John Donne's poetry occasionally, and look at it with pride, and think "You know, that's the best resource on the web and I helped prepare it." I don't think many of them think "That's great, those sites are going to appear really high on searches for metaphysical poetry now."
Yes, I know most of the discussion here revolves around commercial sites and categories, but really, IMO, the thought processes don't (or shouldn't) change in a commercial category.
The characterisation of ODP data as a tool for search engines to use is also more than debatable.It's not debatable. It absolutely is a tool for search engines, and a very important one. But the reason that it is an important tool for search engines is exactly because search results are not taken into account (or even muted) when creating listings.
It's not debatable
The OPD FAQ clearly states:
The ODP is a Web directory, not a search engine. Although we offer a search query, the purpose of the ODP is to list and categorize web sites. We do not rank, promote or optimize sites for search engines. The ODP is simply a data provider. ODP data users, such as AOL, Netscape and Google, install their own search functionality on their site. The ODP has no influence or knowledge on how these search engines process search queries.
[dmoz.org...]
Debating that is not debatable that their FAQ is wrong is not very productive.
The ODP doesn't exist to help search engines any more than coat-hangers exist to help people who lock themselves out of cars. It's a side-effect, and of use to some people in a crisis.
Expecting coat-hangers to evolve better ways of opening car doors because some people lose car keys is just as sensible as expecting ODP to give priority to SERPS just because some people base their ecommerce strategy on that assumption.
The end user is not the licensed portal. The end user is the surfer. The search engine -- and this is an official position which editors may not change or ignore -- is that we don't care whether or how search engines use the data.
Several different search engines have used the data different ways. Some of them, contrary to a very ignorant assertion made above, have NEVER used link-popularity analysis. NONE of them have EVER used all the data we provided--in fact, I think some of it has never yet been used by any search engine.
We do not design the directory to be used by what we happen to know about any particular search engine's use of our data(which may well be incomplete or wrong, and will certainly be out-of-date soon.)
Last week, I used a shoe to swat a bug. To say that Search engines should be a consideration when constructing the directory is like a shoemaker designing shoes with handles and perfectly flat soles for better bug swatting. It will trip up all the end users, and there are better bug swatters available elsewhere already.
Any figures on how many end user get in contact with ODP data directly vs through licensed partners?
Any figures on how many end user get in contact with ODP data directly vs through licensed partners?You are missing the point. A corn farmer has an interest in building a reputation for nutritious, high-quality corn which is available in quantity. Only a tiny fraction of the public will eat corn on the cob, a large number will be consuming it as corn meal, or creamed corn, or cornstarch, or corn syrup.
Maybe his neighbor wants to optimize the breed and cultivation of his corn for use as canned corn, and that's fine for his neighbor. Farmer Moz, however, remains agnostic and has every right to do so. What he really resents are customers who want him to grow corn optimized for use as cattle feed which they in turn would sell to grocery markets.
Fact is however no man is an island :), and that is also true for organizations.
The times when the ODP was born where very different from now. You don't think any organization active on the ever changing web has to take those changes into consideration?
I think it's obvious that editorial guidelines can't be changed on every occasion to suit the needs of the current search engine hotshot. The ODP has to stick to it's core strengths.
But undoubtedly the vast majority of users see the result of your work through search engines. Those are your users. The ODP allows the engines to use their data, this is voluntary.
Is it really such a bad idea to take that into consideration?
Is it really such a bad idea to take that into consideration?
But how, heini?
To return to Robert_Charlton's original post (and it's been a long strange trip...), let's assume that in an alternate universe the ODP editors have become more search-engine and submitter-friendly.
A hotel is submitted and is given a keyword-friendly description which will help it for "family vacations" in Search Engine A (there being a hypothetical search engine that gives a boost for the description).
Another hotel is submitted and given a description that will help it for "singles parties" in Search Engine A. Hotel A protests, because, as everyone knows, the real money in alternate universe hotels is to be made in "singles parties".
Hotel C, meanwhile, already has a good position for "singles parties" in Search Engine A, so he wants his site title to reflect his interest in "vegan vacations" on Search Engine B (which relies more on site titles).
I understand where you are arguing from. But given the amount of attempted subversion of what is now a pretty black-and-white situation, don't you think a change to #333333 would be even more problematic?
And what kind of changes are you talking about? What would be the search engines' reaction? After all, if they had wanted to give more weight to directory descriptions or category paths, it would be pretty easy for them to do it...
Looks like there's a debate going on in here to meI only meant that search engines DO use it as a tool, regardless of what the ODP says it is or wants to be.
Regardless of how the ODP sees itself, it is not at the "retail" level of disseminating information, but exists at the "wholesale" level. The search engines are the distribution points- the de facto end user.
search at dmoz.org
------------------
* searches titles and descriptions
* returns top-categories and listings
search at directory.google.com
------------------------------
* searches titles and descriptions and category name components
* returns listings
search at www.google.com
------------------------
* searches contents of billions of pages
* returns "relevant text" plus (when available) ODP description and category
-- Rich
[edited by: RFranzen at 6:50 pm (utc) on Sep. 8, 2003]
SN
This is like saying that manufacturers ought to design products so they're easy to fence, because after a delivery truck is hijacked, fencers distribute the stolen product.
The ODP is designed for one mission and has one goal. We still haven't fulfilled that mission. We don't mind that other people can think of clever ways to help their mission as a side effect of our work. But there is no way on earth that could make their mission our mission.
Anyone else can start fulfilling any of the other nine billion praiseworthy missions on planet earth. We're going to concentrate on one.
If you don't need money for food, the local Food Bank isn't serving you. Will you demand that they start doing something to serve you, or will you go find someone else who does what you want? And if you were so stupid as to make the wrong decision, what kind of response do you think the Food Bank would give? "Yes, health care is important, but IT'S NOT OUR MISSION. And no, it's not going to be our mission. Check on "Doctors without borders", or start your own health care establishment. Good day.
Now, this is a mutual process. What would the ODP be without all the engines using it? There are gazillion directories on the web, and something like Joeant is the best of the rest.
Do you really think the ODP would be able to accomplish any mission without Google et al? And even if so, who would even care?
