Forum Moderators: open
Ask the editor, if he can't investigate, to pass your message on to the appropriate senior editor.
This year-old article about DMoz and deeplinking [dmoz.org] is quite likely no longer "official" policy, but I'm sure that it hasn't changed that much.
The basis for that article was sent down directly from a staff member, so I know it is at least skeletally what they want.
[dmoz.org...]
This policy is an exquisite example of an instruction which would organize the world in an absolutely impeccable fashion. If you were the boss of an army of government servants....
However, you may not be a boss of an army of government servants and as a result the world is not nearly as organized as it should be...
One way to "handle" deeplinking is of course to attribute each deep link with a charge. Maybe the rule "one page per domain" is a feasible way...
It amazes me how so many charge their competition with their problems simply because that same competitor is more visible.
One way to "handle" deeplinking is of course to attribute each deep link with a charge. Maybe the rule "one page per domain" is a feasible way...
This suggestion will not happen... regardless of how unintentional it may be it takes OPD and turns it into LookSmart.
What you are saying is... as long as you got the cash you've got deeplinking. How do you suppose a non profit org will distribute its new earnings maybe "pay 50,000 volunteers" as employees now.
How does this help to visitors to OPD?
bartleby.com is similar to the IMDB (Internet Movie Database). If a movie/book/celebrity/etc. doesn't have many resources and sites on the net, sometimes the ODP is forced to list the only resources you can find for them
hmmm... OPD is "FORCED TO LIST"!
Who enforces these listings? Who do we see to get a forced listing? I want a listing on a top topical category and since I don't have many resources and sites on the net and I want to FORCE OPD TO LIST ME.
Somethings wromg with this perspective, or maybe I've mis-read your statement.
Bottom line - "CONTENT" - if the content of a specific (URL and page) fits a category and it provides value to OPD for OPD visitors then it should be listed.
Regardless of how many other listings there are from this URL in other or even the same category as long as it adds visitor value.
It may seem to many that this is the "evils of corporate exposure" and an unfair competitive advantage but in fact it is only good marketing sense.
SPAM for all it's worth... is spam, and visitors will soon recognize this as well. If they don't... and there is actually value for them at the other end then it's just good marketing.
Competition isn't the problem... competition is the standard and raising the bar of that standard is the challenge.
If you have an added value product or service that exceeds the standard then visitors will come.
Focusing your attention only on the competition and forgetting about the visitor and the shortcomings of your own marketing strategies isn't going to provide the visitor value.
By default, we assist our competition to succeed.
Who enforces these listings?
Our working goal of leading the end users to useful content even for categories of niche interest may force us to accept deeplinks offering such, if there are not enough sites with a domain of their own about the topic.
Bottom line - "CONTENT"
Precisely. Content is the strongest force in this context by a huge margin.
Bartleby is an outstanding example of a reference site, specializing in full texts of hundreds of classic works. It is deeplinked multiple times in ODP because it's a stable, reliable source for numerous reference works.
To emphasize an often-missed point: the Open Directory Project is not a form of advertising. It is a reference project for people doing research.
This is the rule but with exceptions, Bartleby.com being a good example.
I allow in a relevant deep link than a mirror under a 2nd domain.
And don't we get them. I have seen 10 domains: same site submitted within 24 hours to hundreds of cats.
Be mindful though that you too can easily be scrutinize simply because you are a competitor and your competition views you as the threat that needs to be deminimized at every opportunity.
:-)
I recently got a complaint, from an editor whose site I wrote a rather more accurate description than he had. He also complained about a rival's entry ... result: yes, I tightened up a little on his rival, removed 5 deeplinks, a couple of mirrors - and *both* sites belonging to the complainant, which turned out to be affiliates, with surface dressing.
He complained again, and I passed *all* the details on ... he's gone, and so have his sites.
Not that I'm suggesting anything about you, soapy ;)
thats fine cause i have just one genuine listing,and nobody knows which i mine anyway
Personally I use the my own name in conjunction with client's domains.
12 clients and 232 listings in DMOZ (45 outstanding) and all genuine listings.
Some clients compete directly with each other which is excellent since there are alot of spammers out there that compete with quality sites.
More to the point - "you really can't get rid of all competition, so it's far better to work directly with a few and share the rewards than to go it alone and have one geniune listing.
Each to their own though.
Congradulations again soapystar!
