Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.204.48.199

Forum Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Submitting to multiple categories of DMOZ

     
4:37 pm on Jun 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:June 3, 2004
posts:6
votes: 0


Hello to all,
I have read up on submitting a site to multiple categories and understand that there are unique cases. Here is my situation, we are trying to include a company that offers high speed internet access in 2 provinces (in canada) and offer web hosting (international).

Considering that they offer different products can I submit the high speed access twice (based on their serviced areas) and then web hosting once?

Thank You...

4:58 pm on June 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum

WebmasterWorld Administrator skibum is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2000
posts:4472
votes: 1


I'd go for one regional where the company is actually located and one topical in either hosting or high speed, which ever has more content to back it up on the site.
5:00 pm on June 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 4, 2002
posts:1314
votes: 0


DMOZ guidelines are explicit: submit the suggestion to the ONE best category.

(Only exceptions are to Regional if you have a B&M address; and to other languages if site is genuinely multi-lingual).

The editor in the one best category may elect to offer the sugestion to other relevant categories. Those "multiple submissions" won't be treated as potential spam; thay might be if you do it yourself.

Once listed once, you could use the ODP Public Forum to advance a case for additional listings.

[dmoz.org...]

4:54 pm on June 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


There is no venue (and this includes the ODP's own external forums) for pleading a case for even one listing, let alone multiple ones.

The case has to be made by the website. Our position is, if the website alone doesn't make the case, then there isn't a case to be made. Period.

Sometimes an editor will have to decide whether to list a site twice in lower-level categories, or once in a higher-level category. The ODP policy is the same: the webmaster doesn't have a voice in that decision, and no venue is needed.

8:10 pm on June 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 29, 2003
posts:18
votes: 0


What skibum said is the best advice. :)
9:55 pm on June 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


In general, two submitters a spammer does not make; but don't try any more than that.

One submission is probably enough, because editors will be smart enough to decide if an additional listing might be justified or not, and forward an additional copy to the right place if required.

1:32 pm on June 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2003
posts:536
votes: 0


Here's what bugs me:

Let's say I have website which sells wholesale maplewood widgets. The most utterly specific listing would be under--

Business: Consumer Goods and Services: Widgets: Wooden: Maple: Wholesale and Distribution

This is a pretty direct translation to widgetspeak, of how I show up in DMOZ. But there are other categories along that chain for which I'm also perfectly suited, for example:

Business: Consumer Goods and Services: Widgets

Business: Consumer Goods and Services: Widgets: Wooden

Business: Consumer Goods and Services: Widgets: Wooden: Maple

and

Business: Consumer Goods and Services: Widgets: Wholesale and Distribution

Why do I only appear in the most narrowly-defined, lowest-traffic DMOZ classification, why would it not greatly benefit DMOZ surfers to see me under all appropriate categories from broad through narrow, and why am I forbidden from requesting something so logical, and so beneficial to someone searching for wholesale widgets?
Again, thinking purely in terms of the highest utility to searching surfers, if a site so clearly spans multiple (but closely-related, that's the crux of it) categories, why should it not appear in multiple categories?

1:47 pm on June 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2002
posts:1167
votes: 0


> why should it not appear in multiple categories?

Because if a site were to appear all the way down the chain, there'd be no need for the chain and they could lump passles of sites under just widgets, and that's not useful to the end user (nor to you or me as webmasters for that matter)

3:28 pm on June 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


Lots of people really don't understand the concept of a hierarchical taxonomy: that's fine, it's neither a moral flaw nor (in many professions) even a debilitating mental deficiency.

The ODP is much less useful for them. That's also OK -- it is one of many perspectives on the web, and no one perspective can represent all the significant facts.

What you want is a search engine. There are several available: feel free to use them instead. (We won't be offended. Sometimes we use them too.)

5:15 am on June 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum

WebmasterWorld Administrator skibum is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2000
posts:4472
votes: 1


That's what search engines and shopping engines are for. If there are 10 companies that all sell the same set of products and they were all listed in all 10 categories that might be appropriate, it just ads clutter to the directory and creates lots of redundancy. Kinda defeats the purpose of categorizing things.
10:23 am on June 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2003
posts:536
votes: 0


One flaw I've found in ODP, though. Referring to my example above, a search for 'wholesale wooden widgets' returns zero results.
:o)

Regarding clutter, to a certain degree it could be argued there is no such thing as clutter on the Internet. If an item of information can be accessed from 1000 search references rather than only one very narrowly defined reference, I'd call that an improvement, not a flaw.

Further- what if my wholesale wooden widgets are very strongly all of the following: a 'wholesale gift item; 'business opportunity', 'kitchen device', 'dollar store item', 'Bulgarian handicraft'. Anyone searching DMOZ is SOL. At the very least I would consider the search options--strike that--search option more crippled than ideal.

To be truly accurate, you'd have to say the limitation is not technical, but has much more to do with the labor limitations of a human-powered, volunteer editing system. DMOZ has to arbitrarily severely limit the possibilities for its own manageability, not the functional protection of its system. There's really no bandwith/storage/coding limitation standing in the way of a directory listing being accessible by zillions of search references.

12:05 pm on June 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 4, 2002
posts:1314
votes: 0


Again, thinking purely in terms of the highest utility to searching surfers, if a site so clearly spans multiple (but closely-related, that's the crux of it) categories, why should it not appear in multiple categories?

To be truly accurate, you'd have to say the limitation is not technical, but has much more to do with the labor limitations of a human-powered, volunteer editing system.

Strikes me it's more a case of passiveness on the part of non-editors.

Editors are taking on a clearly defined role, and doing it so well that DMOZ is growing to be important -- at least as indicated by the number of threads about it compared to other directories

But the product of that clearly defined role is the RDF. Any one can take that RDF and use it in accordance with the terms of the ODP license.

And that includes presenting the data flattened, inverted, cross-referenced, merged with other licensed or owned data streams, or a dozen other presentational innovations.

If the presentation of DMOZ data in the ways you suggest is important and useful, you really need to be directing your request for it to any of several hundred ODP RDF users.

Or do it yourself. It's not difficult -- so why waste energy being dependent on others to act for you when you could launch this service yourself by the end of next month?

1:29 pm on June 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:618
votes: 0


>Why do I only appear in the most narrowly-defined, lowest-traffic DMOZ classification, why would it not greatly benefit DMOZ surfers to see me under all appropriate categories from broad through narrow, and why am I forbidden from requesting something so logical, and so beneficial to someone searching for wholesale widgets?

Let's say Google assigned equal PR to all the sites listed in DMOZ, and DMOZ allowed only one listing, which category would you select? Also say, PR assigned was a nominal 1, would you really care about getting listed in DMOZ, in first place.

Talking about traffic and DMOZ surfers, number of visitors to DMOZ is reasonable high but it is likely caused by its active editors visiting it often. I don't think anybody has got any real traffic from a DMOZ listing.

On the other hand, I have heard that Yahoo directory (or similar services) are quite popular and you can get listed in multiple categories there almost immediately, provided you pay them their fees for each category.

7:40 pm on June 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


>> There's really no bandwith/storage/coding limitation standing in the way of a directory listing being accessible by zillions of search references. <<

Search references? Ah, I see what you mean, and you really don't need the ODP for that. You need a search engine, for that is exactly what they do. Try Google, perhaps. I think they have already done something like that.

10:43 pm on June 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 31, 2003
posts:536
votes: 0


Pardon me, just trying to understand here...
What is the purpose of a directory?
Please don't think I'm trying to be sarcastic, but does the ideal directory function as the perfect geek fantasy: a ****in' tool with a totally lame user interface, ie: lots of great data stored away, but nobody can conveniently, reasonably access it?
12:36 am on June 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 28, 2003
posts:560
votes: 0


In my opinion (as a frequent directory user) the perfect directory would include only high-content sites none of which are duplicates of each other or merely point to other sites; there would be very many sites; they would be arranged into logical categories with easily noticed links from each categories to all the related ones up, down, and across the tree; it would be easy to find the category you are looking for via direct search; and it would be easy to do a search-engine search of only sites included in the directory.

The ODP is not the perfect directory, but it's the closest one I've yet found. Google used to provide my last criterion for it by way of its Google Directory, an option I used frequently, but these days it's more of a pain to get it to function what with the way they moved their Google Directory material off the search page; you basically have to redo the search each time. :/

1:34 am on June 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:618
votes: 0


>What is the purpose of a directory?

I can feel your frustration at not being listed muliple times. Think of how much frustrated big companies like Microsoft and GE must be who are listed just a few times each. It may be argued that both of them deserve at least tens of thousands of listings if not millions. And so goes for other big companies too. Then, of course each category will have tens of thousands of links and no one will be able to find your link. Do you really want that?

7:32 pm on June 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


>One flaw I've found in ODP, though. Referring to my example above, a search for 'wholesale wooden widgets' returns zero results.

Not a flaw. Those words don't occur on the dmoz.org site: and you should think of ODP search as simply a
"site search of dmoz.org" or as a search of category and website names and descriptions. That's all. It is not meant to be more, and it ... isn't. It (in that respect) works exactly as coded, and exactly as editors need for it to work in order for them to be able to do their work.

It happens that for some searches -- informational queries on topics at a high school level -- the ODP site search blows away any search engine I've ever seen. So if you need that, you're welcome to use our editing tool. No thanks are necessary. If that is not what you need, you can use some other tool, like a real search engine. No apologies are necessary.

>Regarding clutter, to a certain degree it could be argued there is no such thing as clutter on the Internet.
Not by anyone with a clue. Have you ever searched for "Orlando Hotels" at a real search engine? That, sir, is clutter.

>Further- what if my wholesale wooden widgets are very strongly all of the following: a 'wholesale gift item; 'business opportunity', 'kitchen device', 'dollar store item', 'Bulgarian handicraft'. Anyone searching DMOZ is SOL.

You seem to be confusing dmoz.org with the borg. Anyone who doesn't find what they want with ODP search is free to use any other search tool.

As for imagining that someone would search DMOZ for "dollar store item" and go away feeling paddle-deprived in the headwaters ... no, sorry, I'd have to take psychotropic drugs to imagine that. I'll give you points for imagination, but you really need to work on recognizing reality.

>To be truly accurate, you'd have to say the limitation is not technical, but has much more to do with the labor limitations of a human-powered, volunteer editing system. DMOZ has to arbitrarily severely limit the possibilities for its own manageability, not the functional protection of its system.

You are both wrong and inaccurate.

The reasons are in fact "technical" in that they involve natural (not "arbitrary" as you say) limits of "information technology." It is true that the particular technology involves coordination of carbon-based lifeforms, not design of silicon or magnetite devices, and you no doubt misunderstood the engineer's meaning of the word "technical".

The "technical" reason involved is that topics like, say, "Music" have tens of thousands of sites listed. But it doesn't take an engineer to realize putting every one of those sites in the "Music" category would make a category that was absolutely unusable for our USERS; and that fact alone would tell anyone that we wouldn't ever consider doing it. (We cannot even take such a proposal seriously. You wouldn't make that kind of moronic suggestion to a librarian about the card catalog -- and the ODP have roughly as many categories and listings as the Library of Congress! I bet you've never even told your phone company how to redesign their Yellow Pages. Why is it only the ODP that is granted the benefit of your wisdom -- why do you have to hide your light under our basket?)

Intelligent internet users have to learn to eliminate the "clutter" that the clueless may not have noticed. With a directory, you keep going to more and more specific categories -- and sometimes you'll have to look in multiple orthogonally-subdivided category structures. With a search engine, you keep adding search terms -- and sometimes you'll have to use several different specific search results to find what you want. All web navigation aids have inherent limitations like these, and they really are "technical" in that they involve some understanding of the "techniques" of human-computer interaction.

As for why some of us work on the ODP: it is not the solution to all web navigation problems; it is not even the best solution to most problems. But it provides a unique perspective on the web. And it provides that perspective in a format that encourages other projects to incorporate its information to improve the results of their own perspectives.