better or original content?

I'm starting this as a new thread as I'd like to keep it distinct from the mutiple site/deep link issue which is its own ball of wax.

On the FAQ, in response to why one site might be listed and others on a subject might not, the FAQ includes the following:

<<If you wish your site to be listed in a particular category, it should be better than the best site already listed and offer content not offered by any other site already in the category. Don't aim to be second worst, aim to be best.>>

This is an interesting issue, and one that needs to be clarified...perhaps at the very introduction to what is the DMOZ.

Is the DMOZ's purpose to be a research tool for deeper research, or is the idea to have something more of an encylopedia?

An encylopedia wouldn't want 30 similar articles on any subject.

But of the thirty articles(papers, or whatever you call an encylopedia entry) some might deal much more effectively with the agricultural base of a country, some might present demographics better, some might be strong in political history while others might be strong in economic history.

And what if a fine and more detailed entry were made upon a very specific element of a countries history. Say (making this up) "Nicaraqua during the Dole pinaple years of influence?"

That artcicle (web page, site, whathave you) would not necessarily be "better" than the others. In fact it would be worse, if judged upon its coverage of "nicaragua" as a subject. But the site, would be a useful source for research and perhaps give rise to interaction between the author and others with knowledge on the subject, but who were hobbyists, not members of official faculties.

And it would be nice somehow, for someone somehow looking for "banana republic" history to have a way to come across such a few page site using some sort of directory.

Is this sort of thing outside the scope of DMOZ? It would be nice to have the scope better explained.

There's only one acceptable way to aim for the ODP: by aiming to be the best. (And if we figure out you're doing that, we'll stand still in the light for you!) We call any other kind of aiming is "low-balling", and it is not a good reputation to have.

But if you have another target in mind (as you probably should), aim for it however you want. It will be the editors' judgment how and where to deeplink.

But there are different ways to be "best", and we generally look for a reason to include content. If editorial judgment is involved, a site is rejected because there was no reason to include it, not because it "triggered one of the reasons to reject."

And what if a fine and more detailed entry were made upon a very specific element of a countries history. Say (making this up) "Nicaraqua during the Dole pinaple years of influence?" ... it would be worse [than existing category contents], if judged upon its coverage of "nicaragua" as a subject.

Click to expand...

But Nicaragua isn't its subject. Its subject is "Nicaragua during the Dole pineapple years of influence". If it is filled with unique, quality content on that subject, compared to what other sites in the category offer, sure, it would be listed.

To make your hypothetical example real, the Nicaragua history category at this time happens to only contain general sites. But you can look at neighboring Panama and see that it has general sites as well as sites covering specific topics (transcontinental railroad, Jewish and indigenous communities). They're still Panama history sites, so they're all in the Panama History category, but they're not considered on their coverage of that entire topic, just of the topic(s) they address.

(I'm not claiming that either of those categories is all they could be. Interested in applying to edit?)

lisahinely said:

Interested in applying to edit?)

Click to expand...

Where do you need the most help? (I'm sort of pretty good at lots of stuff...most qualified in california, real estate, and contruction, but not that bad on economics, stock trading, geography, architecture)

Not to beat a dead horse, because I think I am understanding limitations.

But on that page you mentioned on jewish communities in panama.

Now that person may have done some work and got the site linked on other sites that cover the jewish diaspora. And those links may be enough for google to take the time to index their site. And that might mean than somebody researching the armenian diaspora in central and south america, might be able to come accorss that article/page. It might be link number 4532 under jewish diaspora, but they might find it.

However seems to me that the editor that chose to put the thing in the odp might have also given the exta ODP annointment that the site might also qualify under general Diaspora subject, and Jewish Diaspora subjec, and Central america.

I guess my issue is more with the short comings of computer search and the benefits a human board of approval could give towards giving the search engimes more information which researchers could make them accentuate.

Knowing that a page past human muster on a number of subjects would make a person more likely to take a look at that search result out of thousands they might get.

I know the search engines aren't offering these choices yet...but they should and will. If I want to toggle up emphasis on ODP data, and deemphasis googles own internal link data, I might get a very different and more useful search.

Come to think of it, the ODP data alread has keywords in it doesn't it?

So to the extent the data is searchable in itself, one does have a back door into mutiple categories!

HMMM....maybe I finally answerd my own question!

>the site might also qualify under general Diaspora subject, and Jewish Diaspora subjec, and Central america.

Yes and no. The way directories work, EVERYTHING under Jewish Diaspora is by definition also to be considered under Diaspora. It would nearly always be inappropriate to list the same site in both categories. Likewise, anybody who uses a directory must be able to figure out that "Central America" includes "Panama" -- and therefore sites under Panama might also be of interest to students of Central America.

On the other hand, "Diaspora" and "Central America" are different subjects, and a cross-listing would be considered. And the book "Archaeology of Beekeeping" (I am not making this up) would be listed under Archaeology as well as Agriculture.

There are many kinds of metadata. Website navigation links are one kind; the ODP is another; CCEL's "worldwide encyclopedia of christianity" is still another. Google's "directory search" shows a way in which yet another kind of metadata can be automatically derived from these. But these don't at all exhaust the possibilities.

My approach, rather than trying to make one size fit all, is to work on different scales and types of metadata using the tools best suited for each. For websites and major topics, the ODP is the best tool. For articles, the Online Indexes to Journals (accessible through your local library) can't be beat. For hymn tunes, the Oxford Index is the standard. Froogle, the Worldwide Study Bible, ... the list goes on. Some are more valuable, more authoritative: some, like simple web hyperlinks or HTML META tags, may have very little intrinsic value (but Google stills make something of them.) No one of these can completely represent the data; All of them together don't exhaust the possibilities of useful forms.

So it is not adequate, nor even relevant, to say that there are things the ODP doesn't do well. Of course there are! What we ask is, "What can we do with this tool that no other approach can match? And how can we do it best?"

And if editors want to do something else for which the ODP isn't the best tool ... they use some other tool. MusicMoz, ChefMoz, wikipedia, project gutenberg, CCEL -- all have multiple ODP editors active helping them do what they do best.

To come back to your site: the best way to start is to think like this: suppose someone is at one page -- any page -- of my content. "How can I make it easy for them to comprehend the comprehensiveness of the site, and to find anything it contains?"

(I have one subsite with 5000 files. Every single page can be reached from every other page in at most four clicks in at least four different ways. And I have spent hours trying to figure out if I could reduce the former number, or raise the latter one. And if you stumble over almost any one of my contributions to a website -- other than the ODP -- you'll be able to find all the others easily.)

If you asked this question, that idea that you should NOT link between the various pages would have been quickly rejected. And once you get used to answering that question, then some of the ODP's approach will become clearer. And ... there's a reason every single ODP category has links to multiple search engines; there's a reason every major portal offers both a directory and a search engine. Metadata consumption, just like metadata generation, requires multiple tools.

thanks for your time

thanks for your time and sorry to make you take it.

I'll let it digest a bit...I'm certainly more ablet to understand things now.

Its such a war this search thing! And I don't want a war. Everytime I go to look for somthing I'm interested in its a new challenge.

I get better at wording the queries and the engines I use. I guess we are all looking for silver bullets.

As for my own "web-publishing" and if I start on it in earnest its not my only issue. But what I start on, I'd like to be able to buid upon. And even if stuff is only informational and there is never any profit involved or anything, I'd like people who might be interested in it to be able to stumble on it. The Odp is only one small part. The links from people in the know about subjects and willingness to include them...and stuff you mentioned about wikpedia etc. That makes sense.

I guess one thing you are telling me is that the OPD is not meant to have enough information on a stand alone basis to be the basis on its own for a websearch.

imortance of understanding the criteria

The wierd thing (I'm really trying to move on though) is that in the example of jewish diaspora in panama, I would need to keep in mind, that if I wanted to be sure to check all entries that I'd need to check each general and each specific. The explanation that my hypothetical example should not be considered about the general topic helped me (because it didn't cover the general topic)

I guess that is where much of my mental block comes from and something that I must keep in mind when I am looking for things.

Its a bit against how we've been trained to think that the general categorie will not include the things below it.

Generally thinking of data searchs, I think of sets and sub sets.

Toys might condtain everything in Balls, which would include everything in rubber balls, and certainly specific color balls. (well there are quirks like cannon balls so hmmm)...but Toys, would include all toy balls.

Anyway, I need to remember that if I'm looking around the ODP for something, that I must check both the specific and the general category.

While this is fairly clear in retrospect, I think it takes a bit more of an intuitive leap than it seems clear to you.

So many people in many fields are accustomed to seeing things sorted into sets, subsets and overlaping sets. (hes a member of this team these commitiees etc, she is on that committe with him but works in finance not maketting groupt etc).

Perhpas thats a fine example you might include in the FAQ...(something that raises the issue yet is hard to pin on a specific web search).

Counter-intuitive as it may be, each employee will be identified only once. If he is a senior vp of marketing, you will not also list him on the "intellectual dispostions comittee". If the ODP had catalogued people, and he'd need to be either/or not both.

Only a seperate person would get a seperate listing. " Now when are sites seperate and when are they a large site. Something cross branded, interlinked that, shares similar touch and feel, that bears on related subjects and are created by the same person or associates perhaps sharing equimpent subcriptions etc, these are possible examples of what will be deemed to be one site. (and if you have the cooperation of some large players...you might say Yahoo has 30,000 unique pages yet it with the excpetion of thier clients personal sites, Yahoo only has 12 distinct ODP listings (one for fianance, one for maps one for weather...etc....I'm making this up, I have no idea). In good faith, we can't list your 12 pages 4 times....after applying rules to them otherwise?"

After all the questions I've asked I do better understand the why and how you do things, but if other people have been similarly befuddled, perhaps conveying this notion a bit more upfront? I know its hard.

oh dear one more post

Still toying with this "directory" notion.

I started thinking about a phone list you'd distribute in a few hundred person buisness. (gee I guess they don't xeorox them anymore, and they're all on computer)

Would the vp be listed 5 times? once under the various categories he belonged? probably not.

But then I thought of the phone directory for my kids school.

The names and numbers were organized by class by student, and again alphabetically at the end.

If you were thus looking for a phone number of a parent, you might not know the kids last name (or the child might have a different last name than their parent which is not that uncommon...a number in each class).

If you had two kids in the school, you'd be listed three times, once in each childs class room and once alphabetically.

Sometimes you are volunteering for stuff with parents from other grades that don't know your kids names.

So even though that phone book is a simple directory, it makes it easy to find parents. However, ease of finding a site on given subject I guess isn't the goal entirely for the OPD. The goal, I guess is to take sites and put em on the right shelf if they belong in the libary at all, and upon discretion and given special cirmcumstances, a given site might sometimes appear a few place.

However, another look at the school phone directory a person might be thought of as three people(sites?). I might be Joe's Dad, Joanna's Dad, and myself John Doe of Jane and John Doe, or perhaps my ex is listed under S as her third person Jane Stag.

Still having a hard time with an analogy that seems appropiate. "We're a liabary that doesn't try to catalog information mutiple ways, we only put good stuff on the shelves that are the most appropiate shelf for them, and if they are a really important book, we'll take the expense and effort to buy a second copy and put it on another shelf which would be appropiate."

The issue I think with the analogy is that the OPD is not a libary that safekeeps the books.

It is and organization that reads the books and attempts to classify them. What is the purpose for the classification? I would presume the purpose woule be to assure validity of information.

I still feel like some of the excerise is being submitted a leave of a fern and putting it in the correct phylum or genus (gee I forget my biology). The person in charge wants to put in in the correct place, yet no effort is made to convey that it had pink spots on it, and there were a class for pink spotted plants, it wouldn't go there anyway because it was a fern.

I'd hate to do a web search for pink spotted plants. And perhaps the point is that the Opd is NOT about subjects it is about distinct sites.

Yes, again, that makes sense now that hucheson explained the idea of going to a site on hyms to find a hymn a subject I wanted. If I wanted a hymn about floweres in the field, I shouldn't expect the Opd to know that alyric site also had burryied inside of it a perfect hymn with flowers.

Yes the goal of the Odp, cannot at this time to catlog the content of the sites.

The point is to perhaps point you to, or at least register a site in as broad a category as possible for which the site adequately covers...OOps, thats not exacly it...for a fdo it yourself web site might adequately cover fixing two or three subjects. Its sort of odd though that you might not qualify for a broader category....if you wrote two pretty decent multi page sites, one on coaching kids soccer, and one on coaching kids lacross, you site might not be very good on the subject of "coaching kids sports" for it left out things related to baseball and basketball...two of the more important sports. People interested in either of the specific categories might be more intersted in what you had to say, but ou wouldn't apear in either of the directories on those sports. Well you might depending upon editorial discretion and how your subsites might be split.

I'm not being argumentitive here, just thinking outloud for the benefit of establishing protocol, and perhaps people so reading brainstorming up solutions.

Hey...thats why I wanted to start on web sites instead of spending my mental energy giving my thoughts on disparate subjects on chat rooms. Might be more productive to focus on issues that people might be interested and apply myself to them and let people build upon my brainstorming there!

Where do you need the most help?

Click to expand...

Me personally? Society/History/By_Region/Central_America/

Not really the best starter category, but if you've already spent this much time thinking about ODP, shoot, go for it. (It's a little slidy in between "archaeology" and modern "issues".)

Science/Agriculture/Horticulture/Fruits/Bananas/ looks like it could be built up, too. Home/Cooking/Fruits_and_Vegetables/Bananas_and_Plantains/ I think is in pretty good shape.

Pues

Habian tratato tres veces para responder de su invatation.

Pues, no me parece que tengo bastane comprjetion del la lequaje, ni habiea estudiado sufiecnte de las histora del la reion, qual quier yo pudiera applicare' para la puesto de editator en los subjectos que usted habieran mentionar.

In other words, I guess I'm just an american dump truck?

Actuall, I think it might be fun shoule I try to help, to help someone who wants help in a field where have enough backround to start to place3 things.

Whats more, I'd like to have some-one walk me thruought the protocal so I wouldn't need to make mistakes for lack of underatngins. A remark or to upon whats a hot issue, and whats reached a near term working agrreement ,

Es mi impression que haciera mejo si yo entendiera mas de la historidad qual quiera estan si yo tratare' questionar porque reglas existan y inqirare' del laa origan y intention de los principale que todos usan como un guida.

Heck, I can't speak spanish. but might be fun