Attn: DMOZ Editors... Request for further explanation

Hi,

As I wait for DMOZ submissions to get back on track, I was reviewing your submission criteria again and one point in particular seemed a bit vague and subjective.

Here it is:
"Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory."

I have not submitted a site yet but I understand the point (above) to mean that new sites should cover NEW and 100% UNIQUE content. Otherwise they are not "helpful' to the users of the directory. Is this correct?

Well, I absolutely expect that there are going to be NEW sites that cover much/some/all of the same material/info/concepts/etc. that OLDER sites currently cover.

However, I believe that some of these NEW sites can be/will be MUCH BETTER sources of some of this same information. Why? Because these new sites might have a laser-sharp focus on a smaller and much more targeted area of content that a segment of users are interested in accessing on a regular basis.

In other words, a user segment might only be interested in 10% of a "DMOZ-listed" website's information. If this user segment can find another website that focuses on that same 10% of content that they're most interested in - but it does a better job of covering it - then the user would most likely migrate over and frequent this "new" site (even if this new site uses some of the same sources to get a part of their information).
- This new site might also have a better "look and feel", layout, ease of navigation, functionality, (etc.)... Or all of the above.

I find that many older sites are simply not as good as they once were when compared with today's available options. Yet, some of these "dinosaur" sites are still in the DMOZ directory (probably based on "we were here first" thinking?) while some newer/better sites are not in the directory.

Yes, these new sites may cover some of the same content but they are also better sources to this smaller user group based on their laser-sharp focus on content category or categories and better overall site design, layout and functionality.

So how do you review these NEW sites? Is it "must be 100% new stuff or bust"?

1. Specifically, what constitutes NEW and UNIQUE website content?
2. Has an older site ever been replaced in the directory by a newer site? Are old sites grandfathered in - forever?
3. If a website includes a news wire as part of its offering, approximately what percentage of the site's overall content should be from "100% original" content (staff writers, blogs, etc.) in order to be included in the directory?
4. What other factors help or hurt a site as it relates to helpful vs. redundant info in the minds of the editors? Any tips?
5. Is there any way of knowing whether or not "my competition" is actually the DMOZ editor of my category (I obviously prefer that this is not the case)?
6. Is there a list of all editors posted (with background/employment/etc.)?
7. Will I be able to determine which editor reviewed my website? Etc.

Any suggestion and insight is appreciated.

Thanks

I think you're reading too much into that short bit of the guidelines you've quoted. We're aiming to build a directory of useful sites, and that is the guiding concern. There are some 'rules' added that might be slight generalisations, but experience has shown them to be lead to better results than if we didn't have them.

Generally, if a site offers value to a category, as seen by our users, then we will want to add it. Informational sites don't have to be 100% unique. It's even possible that all the information content they offer can be found in other listed sites, but that the presentation of the information it's what's useful. However if this is the case, you'll need to make sure that you're site is the best (or one of the best) at presenting the information.

Note that duplicating information content doesn't necessarily mean duplicating the exact same words / articles. If you are just taking someone else's articles and re-packaging them, then the bar is likely to be significantly higher. Is you're site really the best place for users to go to get the information? For example if you're doing news aggregation, what does your site offer that say Google news doesn't?

I find that many older sites are simply not as good as they once were when compared with today's available options. Yet, some of these "dinosaur" sites are still in the DMOZ directory (probably based on "we were here first" thinking?) while some newer/better sites are not in the directory.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't read too much into that. The most likely explanation is that editors haven't been working in that category recently. We get a lot of site suggestions, and there are a lot of currently-listed sites. There are only a finite number of volunteer editors, and a finite amount of time they're willing/able to donate to the project.

The answers to your questions 5-7 are all "no" (and you won't even know if/when your site is reviewed if it doesn't get listed). And for 4, the best plan is probably honesty -- make it clear on your site who you are, what you do, and where your content comes from.

Just to add what chaos127 has said, I think questions 5 to 7 reflect a concern that editors personal interests may affect their editing. Abuse of the directory in this way is anathema to the editing community.

One of the reasons for the application process is to try to weed out people who may do so. As part of the process, all applicants are required to list their affiliations so that they can be checked up on. A few do slip by, but when discovered are removed. Mostly editors list their competitors listable sites as a point of honour because they see their role as a privilige and would not want to be seen to abuse it in any way whatsoever.

The main reason for a listable site not being listed in merely that no editor has reviewed it yet and this is especially true of commercial categories. There are more suggestions than editors.

regards

Mostly editors list their competitors listable sites as a point of honour because they see their role as a privilige and would not want to be seen to abuse it in any way whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Well said, Eric. If anything, I want to write descriptions for other sites a little nicer than I'd write for my own site in the same category, just as a matter of principle.

It's a matter of appreciating the privledge of being an editor, and going beyond what's expected.

I would rather delete both of my sites from the Directory, than have anyone think I was showing favoritism, it's that important to me.