old_crone

Did you loose your glasses or get tired of scrolling down the page? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> There are literally hundreds of links to a concert ticketing site.

dfy I wasn't suggesting that either be deleted. I was more curious as to how many there are listed and how many Geoffs Cape thinks should be listed. There could be more for all I know. The two I asked about were on the first page of a google search. Didn't look any further, other than to check if they were actually listed on dmoz.

What about these other two that are already listed in dmoz? http://www.mobile-phone-rental.co.uk/ http://www.mobalrental.com/ How many unique sites do you have?

The problem isn't the affiliate links, it's that the actual content doesn't stand out, leaving the user to weed through all the spammy stuff. A good content site will focus on the content rather than the affiliate spammy, flashing, blinking ads. When your user/viewer isn't sure what content belongs to the site and what is someone else's, then the designer/webmaster/owner has done something wrong. Affiliates should support the content, not the other way around. Just my 2 cents.

It's redundant to send the end user to the same source when they can get the same info on the main company website. It may be good marketing to setup pages for a targeted market but it's not good for a web directory. Directories strive to index a variety of unique content. The products offered on the targeted sites are not unique since they can be purchased from the main site.

Since http://www.mobell.com/ (which is listed in dmoz) redirects the US user to http://www.mobalrental.com/ which one should be listed?

If you'd point to these other manufacturers with multiple listings for the same range of products in the directory, I'm sure the editors will be interested.

To simplify the issue - http://www.classy-business-cards.com/ is an affiliate of http://www.printingautomation.com/ Didn't look real close at the other site but this one is obvious.

Wow! That's one heck of a list! It might take some time to go through it, as I'm sure it took you a while to look at all those sites. Thanks, it might prove useful to my future efforts elsewhere on the Web. <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

This link will help to explain googles PR methods, if you all are really interested. I think you will find it more complex than it appears and what you see in the google bar is not necessarily the same PR number as google actually uses. Often internal page ranking is only an estimate based on the main page ranking, which may or may not be accurate. google page rank

Yes

I think what Brodo is trying to explain is that most blog specific pages are a deep link and that he changed his front page so that anyone expecting to see a blog on the main page would be able to get to his blog. He changed his main page because of the way it was listed in the ODP. Maybe he has other plans for the main URL that doesn't have anything to do with a journal type page, like his blog. Would that make a difference in how his blog page is listed?

Has anyone really looked at the YRA site? Half of it is under construction and has been since Feb. 2001.

Re: www.roulette-online-casino-guide.com & 2 mores I must be going cyber nuts. I could have sworn I saw casino/gambling content that's offered to anyone who wants to setup a gambling protal - even has "Your Name Goes Here" or something like that at the top of the template. Go figure.

Re: www.roulette-online-casino-guide.com & 2 mores Maybe nothing, I'm just curious, since I do not see any unique content. What I do see is a lot of link referrals which is typical of any type of gambling site/portal. Maybe you can answer another question? I'm sure an ODP editor will get around to asking it eventually. What is your affiliation with www.searchking.com and/or www.searchkingportal.com ? Any of your unique content from one of these? Oh, feel free not to answer, I'm not an editor here. The info is really for the editors that do work here, so they know where to look and what questions need to be asked when reviewing your submissions.

Re: www.roulette-online-casino-guide.com & 2 mores from them? Are you saying that the resistered owner of www.mygamblingdirectory.com is different than the registered owner of sites you have submitted?

Re: www.roulette-online-casino-guide.com & 2 mores Is the info for these sites taken from www.mygamblingdirectory.com ?

Datavision-Prologix, Inc. is listed in the ODP under a different url http://www.mysaprf.com/sapconsole/ - http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/ERP/SAP/R3/ <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

The main company is Datavision-Prologix, Inc. http://www.datavision.com/home/

Contact information is at the bottom of the page - http://www.buybarcode.com/home/contact/

If they only copied your directory links, there isn't much you can do about it. If they copied your descriptions word for word, then you might have a case for copyright infringement in the courts, not on the ODP.

Re: Humble Suggestions: Improving DMOZ productivity & gr I actually agree with a lot of what you have expressed. But, you underestimate determined spammers. They will do the long and tiring commitment to get their spam listed, not all, but enough to make more work for the editors who care. But for the most part your advice is sound and well presented. How well any of it will actually work if implemented? Who knows, but I have no doubt it will not solve the fact that there will still be people complaining about something that doesn't work.

I just realized that this was a comment to one of my posts and felt I should clarify that I never said that I, or any other editor, only adds the good submissions from the unreviewed queue. I said that I look for good submissions first. I think that dstanovic gave clear, precise explanations for why it takes so long for some sites to get reviewed. Even with a large dedicated work force it would take huge amounts of time to weed through the unreviewed, not to mention there are other tasks the editors need to do. All-n-all, the ODP editors do a good job. (Not counting the bad editors, they know who they are).

oh, my, talk about spam sites, these are good examples. Perhaps this should be discussed in a different forum?

Yes, this is a problem but that's what happens when you have a project geared toward a volunteer work force. If a guide takes money for listing a site they will be removed if it's discovered. There are rules against taking gifts/money for favors. I don't think editors use their volunteer status as an excuse for what they do or don't do. Not the good editors anyway. They merely choose how to spend their time on the ODP.