Forum Moderators: open
Extra info: Site has seven pages listed in dmoz, and several internal pages have a PR6.
But this isse of multiple submissions from one site was a very hot potato amongst ODP editors a couple of years back... may still be a hot potato if the results being paraded here are anything to go by.
I remember asking if a complete USA destination guide was submitted, could each of the states also be submitted into the regional cats. if they were designed as full content, stand-alone resources.
The answer, from senior editors, was "absolutely not, that would infringe the submission guidelines". Yet here we are with multiple submissions left, right and centre because sites include different topics!
Sorry... this is becoming an ODP thread. I'm out of here. I want to beat the rush to submit my 14,877 pages about different topics to ODP which will build my PR at Google and thus convince Yahoo! that I am the best thing since sliced bread and artificially flavoured bratworst. I hear the sound of running and the clack of keypads already!
Isn't SEO fun?
If I got dmoz PR7 links to a couple of my inner pages, off-topic pages, that would easily vault me over my competition.
Off-topic pages are unlikely to be listed -- consider making these pages into highly relevant on-topic pages/sections.
fathom, you are saying dmoz editors sit around and decide to add a site submitted to one category to twenty more categories because they think it's a good idea... and that anyone who only gets one listing wasn't added to multiple categories by this group? I'm certainly not buying that.
Not at all. I choose to focus my attention on DMOZ rules as a "guide" and not an absolute.
I do not believe that: as examples: authority sites; Google (92 listings), Microsoft (978 listings), Macromedia (49 listings) and others, are abusing DMOZ rules by having multiple listings nor do I believe their listings are irrelevant or considered SPAM because they have more than 1.
I personally strive to manage authority sites and consider this to be a primary online goal. I spend a great deal of time developing content that has superb research and/or educational value and offer it free to users (in exchange for creditability in the topics I have chosen).
Authority web sites were not always authority sites, nor accomplished this by accident, they strived for this distinction.
You are obviously missing the point. The off-topic pages on my site are on topic for a different topic than my site as a whole, which is exactly what people are saying is the way to get more dmoz listings. I have plenty of highly relevent on-topic pages but I can't submit those to the same category as I am already in.
Giving different dmoz listings to the aircraft examples above is preposterous. I could plausibly fit my site or some of its pages into two dozen categories, but to do that I would have to flatly ignore the submission guidelines and then risk the possibility of perhaps losing my site from its main category because some editor decides I (but not others) are violating the submission guidelines.
but the first step is go to the Google directory page you are listed on and send emails to all the sites with highpage rank asking to exchange links. If you don't exchange links, the VERY first thing to do is change that policy. :)
I could plausibly fit my site or some of its pages into two dozen categories, but to do that I would have to flatly ignore the submission guidelines and then risk the possibility of perhaps losing my site from its main category because some editor decides I (but not others) are violating the submission guidelines.
I understand your argument. However, as you have correctly stated, "guidelines" are quidelines...
Should Microsoft not be listed in "Windows XP" category because they are in a "Windows 98" category or,
Macromedia not listed in "Flash and Shockwave" category because they are in "Director" category.
In my experience -- What is good for DMOZ users is good for DMOZ, and this is the same with Google, what is good for Google Users is good for Google. Forget about PR, ranking and SERP's and concentrate on the user, what they want/need -- and I guarantee you can't go wrong, not in DMOZ, not in Google.
[edited by: fathom at 9:58 am (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]
The page rank of sites linking to you is the biggest factor I find.
Obviously they shouldn't if the guidelines say "best category"... but "microsoft" also obviously isn't a "site". It's not a good example.
What's good for users is:
1) a level playing field
2) to get good, accurate listings
Now some people get many listings, for zero reason, while others who deserve exactly as many listings as people who get multiple ones only get one. It's not just absurd, it's rotten.
Obviously they shouldn't if the guidelines say "best category"... but "microsoft" also obviously isn't a "site". It's not a good example.What's good for users is:
1) a level playing field
2) to get good, accurate listingsNow some people get many listings, for zero reason, while others who deserve exactly as many listings as people who get multiple ones only get one. It's not just absurd, it's rotten.
Rubbish!
It is the only site linking to the second site and it WAS also a pr 6 until the last update. Now it’s a pr 5. - Powdork
I’ve noticed the same drop occur and then I’ve noticed a flip-flop the next round where the sites then reverse their PR. It takes a bit for PR to stabilize on a new site or when two sites partner up and interlink with each other.
Internal structure, internal linking and navigation all play a role in building the PR of a site. I’ve found that the stronger I build a site internally, supported by the theme and supporting the theme, the quicker I can build a site up to a PR7. That may mean spreading the content around, sticking to a 2-3 level directory structure and then finding ‘on context links’ from supporting sites within my industry and linking up with them. I’ve also found that canonicals help a great deal if those canonicals each are able to support their niche with content, (but let’s just keep that to ourselves, right?).
With 1 site 294 created the jump to PR7, on another 514. - fathom
142 links = PR6 to 148 links PR7
There are a few ODP links in that, no Yahoo. That as fathom points out tells us nothing except to support the suggestion that PR doesn’t come down to the number of links a site has coming in. In fact fathom, I have a similar site as you’ve mentioned and it’s worked out quite well.
I might as well forget about getting a link from an 8 - I don't even know of one – wingslevel
That may very well be true but that doesn’t mean your site doesn’t have a chance of boosting its PR. One tip I can throw in that may help is to dominate your industry. Even the most spammy affiliate stuff can do that if you truly research and understand both your industry and the peripheral industries that you can draw from to support that dominance. (ah, the old web warrior days…)
Seriously folks, first clean house. Look at your own site first. When thinking of linking you want to present your best. It’s like dating. What impression do you make? How attractive of a potential partner are you? Are you just a flash and a whistle or do you have a bit of depth and content to back it up? Are you in for the quick thrill, the chase or are you planning for a future? What more do you have to offer, if not $ then what?
That’s why FFA’s are frowned upon, (it’s not that they don’t continue to have a viable impact either) and those ugly long lists of unrelated links in website’s link directories, ugh. It’s awful so I suggest if you want to work on building your PR then start at home. Clean up your own reciprocal link directories. In some cases that means first you need to build one and make it partner friendly. [I’m working on a post for later that better describes what that means to me.]
This is a commercial area, so none of the competition is going to be linking to us, for sure. mat
I’ve seen more than one commercial niche where they’ve caught on and started linking to each other. If that isn’t happening yet in your niche or industry mat then it just may mean your niche is ripe for a good hub or two.
Well it looks like my site now has eight pages listed in dmoz, I expect 10 by the end of the week. The dmoz and Google category pages have few (if any) inbound link and the Google toolbar does not appear to give them a true PR. - espeed
Welcome to Webmaster World espeed. It may take weeks for your dmoz listings to be acknowledged by Google. Once that happens you will begin to see the impact.
I would worry about being in the appropriate directory more than being in the higher directory. - Sasquatch
For a few reasons including you’ll most likely get in faster if you select a category that is best suited, you’ll do better in the SERP’s as context and themes take on more importance. I also believe it adds to the authority.
I have a site with a PR7 that has 122 backward links to it - Sebastian
ah….you beat me! Good job Sebastian, and Quinn <added - and ecomagic - Welcome>. So what do you attribute your success? How’s your internal linking, how large of a site, how much interlinking, crosslinking, how are your internal pages PR? I’m nosy but seriously, if we’re discussing this to actually learn then we need to throw out ideas about what it is about a site, an industry, partnerships, and links that sets one PR7 site apart from another.
Google's next tweak really has to be to deal with blatant unlevel playing field of dmoz. - steveb
That may well be true steveb but not for multiple listing received for relevant content. Too many really good and interesting bits of information would be lost if it wasn’t for the freedom editors are given to deep link content from a site. If by 'tricking' the ODP a website does it by developing unique and relevant content and getting more listings from it then more power to them.
Am I to conclude that it is correct to submit each of my individual webpages to to plausible dmoz directory pages? I've got a few pages on my site off-topic from the rest of it. When dmoz says "site" I apparently dumbly believed that they actually meant "site" - steveb
Look at the depth of material a university carries for instance, or even all the technical facts an industrial engineer may have to offer or even a sales coach. It comes down to content, how that content is presented, how unique the information is and how much or how little a category has to offer on the topic. So no steveb, unless you have the meat to back it up I wouldn’t go off and submit every page you have to ODP. You might get tagged as a spammer.
fathom, you are saying dmoz editors sit around and decide to add a site submitted to one category to twenty more categories because they think it's a good idea - steveb
I hope so, although if they do so it better be for a legitimate reason because that’s a good way to get yourself booted out as editor. Seriously and again it comes down to content, and it should. Again, it’s not about numbers it’s about content.
This is a commercial area, so none of the competition is going to be linking to us, for sure. matI’ve seen more than one commercial niche where they’ve caught on and started linking to each other. If that isn’t happening yet in your niche or industry mat then it just may mean your niche is ripe for a good hub or two.
I know of a couple of industries where this is also what they do in the real world. They do not even worry about things like recprical links, they truely do want their customers to get what they want or need.
They will even send you to the company that doesn't play nice (with a warning) if they are the only ones with the equipment you are looking for.
I even know of a couple that put instructions on their sites for how to make your own version of their product if you want!
For this they are rewared by incredible trust and loyalty from their customers and they are rewarded for it in the long run. If you really want to get a huge following, try working on your trust, loyalty and authority.
What's the point in being obtuse about it? Content doesn't matter in this discussion at all. Several messages go off on a tangent. So some sites that merit multiple listings get them. That isn't relevant. Literally thousands of quality sites in many categories only get one listing because they are TOLD to only get one listing.
fathom says it's rubbish that it would be good for users for a level playing field to exist with good, accurate listings. I doubt many users would agree.
If anyone can show me what their new algo looks for, and its definitely not incoming links with perfect link text, let me know. I will be very greatful. As a matter of fact, sticky mail me and I may even link to you from my pr7 site. You might be able to make more out of the PR than I.
Content doesn't matter in this discussion at all. – steveb
It does if you want to attract high quality links, which certainly becomes important if you are seeking to raise your PR, as espeed started this discussion asking about. At least in my opinion and how I apply strategies it’s important.
The assumption is high quality, equal content.
And I said "rubbish!" -- in the context of your argument you are saying that the user matters not and hiding that statement within equality (1 Site, 1 link, no exceptions).
You believe that DMOZ is primarily a resource for webmasters (good bad and/or indifferent) and all regardless of how good or how bad a site is this equality is in the best interest of DMOZ users (an equal playing field where not all content is equal). A DMOZ user would disagree with you saying "the best listing is the one the matches perfectly to my query".
You care not about the value to the user -- but the value to you. You care not about DMOZ users finding quality content that best represents their query and more about the unfair disadvantage on you. It is better for them to seek and find inferior content in the name of equality.
IMHO your equality is misguided and the reason DMOZ, Yahoo and Google exercises their rights as a web site owners to accept or decline any and all web site submissions.
There are many DMOZ multi-listing users here in this forum and they all indicate that DMOZ allows 1 listing as a rule and muliple listings and deeplinking are exception to that rule simply because all web sites are not created equal.
I choose to be one of those exceptions, and do not hind the fact that I submit and get "accepted" to muliple categories, and have many deep links (that are "accepted") and will continue to do so.
I opening allow others here at these forums to "pick my brain" on how they might do the same and openly demonstrating the merits of being one of DMOZ's exceptions.
If you wish to read DMOZ's guidelines "Verbatim" that is your right. If you choose to not list "more" because you fear the risk of loss (current listing) yours fears are unfounded. DMOZ will not remove (or move) your listing if you indeed have the content to support your listing in that category. The only reason they would remove (or move) your listing is if you in fact do not support the quality requirements of that category.
Each listing I have submitted (and been accepted) has been through months of DMOZ searching, tracking, planning and development. And I doubt DMOZ will ever hold my submissions to the same standard as a webmaster that just randomly submits for the sake of PR.
Content is king and in DMOZ also makes the equality difference.
When you apply to be listed additional times, do you somehow note that in your application?
I think that DMOZ ahould accept _limited_ multiple applications, as there are certainly cases that warrant it. There should be a section on the app where you list the areas that you have already applied to.
If you do not let them know that you already have a listing, I would definitely have to agree with steveb that it is the wrong way to go.
When you apply to be listed additional times, do you somehow note that in your application?
Good point Sasquatch, in all fairness I do not (although the dialogue boxes are fairly specific URL, title, description, and email -- and I do use my real e-mail address).
In the interest of webmaster "science" I will put my submission philosophy to the test and email. I will let you know of the outcome.
Unlike you, I can only think for about 3 or 4 pages that my site might fit on. And the editors for the page that makes most sense seem to have died a while ago. Of course they might have decided we weren't good enough, but since we are getting links from manufacturers who do not have any other outbound links, and some of them are putting the links on their home page, I don't really need to worry about DMOZ anyway. It would just be nice to be listed in the directory so people looking in the directory can find us.
I think a much better way of handling it would be to limit a site to one application a month.
I think the greatest issue that has been lost in the overall discussion is the fact the DMOZ Open Directory Project is a resource of research, providing a collection of unique and varying perspectives but with a (usually) commonality of quality, "the best the web can offer".
"The Best" and "quality" means different things to different people, but I tried to always view submissions not from the chair of webmastering (concerned with ranks, PR and traffic) but that of the searcher attempting to make meaning out of their query.
I spend 2 - 3 hours a day, 5 - 6 days a week analysing the paths that site visitors take through our site content. When a specific trend becomes very apparent, we advance plan and develop content so that a more direct route is available and much more content and a submission acceptance in also possibly.
The goal is not to amass thousands of DMOZ links -- the goal is to move up the directory hierarchy becoming an aurthority on a very broad topical -- but unless you develop broadening content this status will never be achieved on limited content on but a few topics.
You appear to be not have a clue at all here, or just being deliberately obtuse. I couldn't care less about me. I care about fairness, good content on the internet, and I care about the user, the very person the bizarre policy in place seems to have contempt for.
Irrational policies that are absurd on their face, that tell content providers to do something they apparently should not do, that keep good content from users (unless someone is a part of the "in crowd"), that is all rubbish.
Google should either just lop three points off of the current dmoz pageranks or stop paying any attention to something so blatantly anti-user and unfair to the mass of content providers.
