Catagory heirarchy

How is the catagory heirarchy determined? It seems to make very little sense.

The catagory of Christianity contians 61,000 sites and does not appear until the third tier of the heirarchy.

Of the top tier catagories only 8 of 14 (not including World and Regional) have more sites listed than Christianity. And of those 8 Sports is also included under Recreation, as well as being a top tier catagory, otherwise Recreation would be below Christianity as well.

Of 42 second tier catagories (again not including World and Regional) only Music and Industries have more sites than Christianity. A number have less than 1000 sites listed.

When comparing Christianity to the rest of the third tier catagories it is included with, it becomes a joke. The category before Christianity is Cao Dai with 15 sites! And the following listing is Deism with 9!

By the numbers, a very good case can be made that Christianity should be a first tier catagory, but failing that, at the very least, a second tier catagory.

This is a troll, right?

You can't be using a keyboard without having grasped the concept of alphabetical order.

Christianity is at the same level as the other major religion categories. And nobody in their right mind would propose sorting the categories by how large they are....lessee, United States, Business, Arts, Business, California, Texas (the order of these two swapping frequently due to ODP editor rivalry), Music... right. Quick, find Shakespeare, is it before or after Richmond, Virginia (this week)?

If you click Society there are 37 second tier catagories, the largest by far being Religion and Spirituality. Christianity makes up the bulk of Religion and Spirituality and is much larger than all of the other second tier categories under Society.

I would suggest a hierarchy like: First tier = Society, Second tier = all existing second tier catagories + Christianity + changing Religion and Spirituality to Non-Christian Religion and Spirituality. Christianity would be listed on the Home Page as a second tier category of Society, because it would be the largest second tier category.

What's being said here is that "all" categories are listed alphabetically. They certainly cannot start changing the whole structure of DMOZ/ODP by size/number of listings or popularity /images/icons/wink.gif

Why don't we just make an "Important Countries" category while we're at it? It will include the US first, followed by Japan and Taiwan, in that order. Nobody will get upset, especially not the PRC, which we'll put in the "Undeveloped Countries" category along with Rwanda.

DMOZ doesn't build their heirarchy of information based upon the volume of information available. They sort information logically. Size is more a result of editor interest and effort. The sheer size of the Christianity section should tell you that there are some editors working their bums off adding sites in there. That should make you happy.

Be happy.

>What's being said here is that "all" categories are listed alphabetically. They certainly cannot start changing the whole structure of DMOZ/ODP by size/number of listings or popularity<

What I am suggesting does not affect the alphabetical structure. I am not refering to lists *within* a category, but what should *head* a particular tier.

Take the first tier as an example. It consists of 16 categories. I am sure there are any number of reasons that the chosen categories were selected, and if "Cats" had been one of the selections, it could just as easily be placed between Business and Computers. And then Cat Toys, Tabbies, and Veternarians could have been placed on the next tier, and so on.

Certainly the catagories of the first tier were *chosen* for some reasons other than alphabetical order. Surely the size and their popularity would have to be taken into account, otherwise the first category would be A-bomb, the second Aboriginal, the third Abortion, etc.

>The sheer size of the Christianity section should tell you that there are some editors working their bums off adding sites in there.<

And believe me, I appreciate those editors, but the reason that they must work so hard is because of the shear size and demand for the volume of sites within the Christianity category. For this reason I would think that it ranks a high tier placing.

The top-level categories were chosen as very broad subjects, to sort out the other categories by subject. Where a category falls within the hierarchy has nothing to do with the number of sites it contains, and is not a judgement about its importance.

The setup is rather like a library - all the books on one topic are shelved together. The only goal is to make it easy for people to find the categories that they are looking for. All the categories in a subject are of equal importance.

Sooo..
You're suggesting that Christianity isn't a religion and shouldn't be listed as a 'third tier' category?

And also that Religion is not something related to human society or culture?

Maybe I live on a different planet, but the layout seems logical to me . Are you trying to say that Christianity is more important than other Religions, and should be moved out of 'Religion"? I suspect that on your 'numbers' theory if China was more technologically advanced we might have rather more sites for a different religion, possibly overcoming the number bias currently held by the western world.

I'm confused, why don't you give us an example of what you think is a better, more logical structure.

>Maybe I live on a different planet< >I'm confused, why don't you give us an example of what you think is a better, more logical structure.<

Maybe you are on another planet - I already gave an example.

>The only goal is to make it easy for people to find the categories that they are looking for.<

That is also my goal, and the whole purpose of this discourse.

>All the categories in a subject are of equal importance.<

Again, I am talking about the hierarchical structure, not the list of categories within a tier.

I am sorry. I will have to return tomorrow. Maybe by then I will find a better way to explain myself. Thanks for everyone's input.

Can we please try to ratchet down the tone here. There's no reason why we can't address each other in a constructive manner.

One more go at it before bedtime...

In the first tier Health category Alternative Medicine is considered important enough to be included in the second tier, and is also listed on the Home Page. If you click on Alternative you are taken to the second tier Alternative categories. If you click Medicine instead of Alternative you are of course taken to the second tier of Medicine. Here you will also find Alternative Medicine, but now it is listed as a third tier. However, if you click it you are taken *back* to Alternative Medicine in the second tier.

So what can we conclude. Well, for one thing the hierarchies are not implemented as straight forward as one might initially think. If Alternative Medicine can be listed under Medicine as a third tier, but actually resides as a second tier, and is listed as a second tier on the Home Page, this suggests that it was selected on some criteria to be important enough for this treatment. I would suggest that it was selected because of its relative size (and probably popularity) compared with the other third tier listings.

Why then could the category of Christianity not be treated the same way?

>Maybe you are on another planet - I already gave an example.<

True, my brain probably was, as I'm sorry but I didn't interpret that correctly.

Your suggestion though would mean removing Christianity from Religion, which, in my view is just plain wrong. As I said one of the reasons there is such a huge bias to Christianity sites in pure numerical terms, is that the other large religions are in technologically challenged countries. If we had 80,000 sites for Buddhism, would that make it a higher tier cat as well? The current structure is fair to all as it treats all religions equally.

>The only goal is to make it easy for people to find the categories that they are looking for.<

I think this is what we're all working towards.
As a directory I think the information is easy to find, I can see religion on the main page, and I think most people know that Christianity is a Religion. Probably one thing here is most people use search, rather than step into the directory, which really makes the whole point moot for those people.

>Again, I am talking about the hierarchical structure, not the list of categories within a tier. <

I just don't get what you are saying here, sorry. The only way I can see for it to move up a tier is to remove it from where it is. Would you remove Religion from Society and Culture, or Christianity from Religion? You seem to suggest the latter, but surely thats suggesting Christianity is the one Religion, and the others aren't. I don't think that's providing as unbiased a directory as possible.

I'm sure a similar argument could be mounted for other subjects, and then the Top level would have 20 or 40 or even 100 cats at first tier, just making it unworkable in my view.

Although it might appear to be listed as a third tier, it is actually just a link to the other listing (look at the @ sign on the end of the name which indicates a link). This is done so as not to duplicate entries.

To use your example if there was a Religion and an Alternative Religion second tier cat it would be handled in the same way.

It would however be wrong, not to mention offensive to many, to have Christianity and Alternative Religions as second tier cats.

Ciao

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, for one thing the hierarchies are not implemented as straight forward as one might initially think.<p><hr></blockquote>That's correct. /images/icons/smile.gif We use these kind of links (called @links) mainly when a category belongs in several different places. We put the cat somewhere, and link to it from other relevant places. A couple of examples: Zimbabwean literature is placed in Arts/Literature/World_Literature/Zimbabwean, and is @linked from Regional/Africa/Zimbabwe/Arts_and_Entertainment. Dalai Lama is placed in Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Buddhism/Tibetan/Dalai_Lama, and @linked from Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Spiritual_Personalities/Buddhism and Society/Issues/Secession/China/Tibet/Government_in_Exile. The Alternative Medicine example you cited is probably one of those - the category logically "belongs" in more than one place, and is therefore @linked.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>If Alternative Medicine can be listed under Medicine as a third tier, but actually resides as a second tier, and is listed as a second tier on the Home Page, this suggests that it was selected on some criteria to be important enough for this treatment. I would suggest that it was selected because of its relative size (and probably popularity) compared with the other third tier listings.<p><hr></blockquote>In a very few cases, we use @links because of (presumed) popularity. (We never do this based on size.) To take one example: World/Deutsch/Regional is the category for regional sites in German language. Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Deutschland, Österreich, and Schweiz) are @linked directly under W/D/Regional to make these categories more accessible, while their actual placement is in W/D/Regional/Europa (since they obviously belong in Europe). In this case, the reason for special treatment is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial. It makes sense to assume that to people who read German, the categories for countries where German is spoken might be more interesting and/or relevant than cats for other countries. (And before you ask: No, we don't do this for the English version of Regional/. English is pretty much a de facto global language on the web these days.)

However, in most cases it's far from uncontroversial to single out specific categories based on presumed popularity. ODP is a global directory, for a global audience. We do our best to be impartial, to base our category structure on logical placement, and to list sites without taking sides. (We're far from perfect, of course. I'm sure you can find many instances of bias in our category structure and listings. We try to correct problems when we find them.)

To give a specific religion more visibility than other religions would be to imply that ODP sees this religion as more important than the others. For a global directory, which aims to serve people of all beliefs, this would be highly improper.

&gt;Your suggestion though would mean removing Christianity from Religion&lt;

gimmster, you were probably composing when I made my last post, which you now see answers this question.

&gt;If we had 80,000 sites for Buddhism, would that make it a higher tier cat as well?&lt;

This reminds of an old joke: A man asks a beautiful woman, would you go to bed with me for a million dollars? The woman responds, "For a million dollars I would." So he says, "Now that we have established what you are, we can establish a reasonable price." Well, what if Christianity was 6,000,000 instead of 60,000? It would be heads and tails larger than any other category in ODP. It would obviously mean that the vast majority of the people coming to ODP would be looking for the Christianity category (theoretical extrapolation). Can you honestly tell me you would not put the category Christianity on the Home Page in the first tier? I think anybody with a sense for success would do it. So, the principle is established. It is now just a matter of determining appropriate numbers. That is all I am suggesting. And I think that if Alternate Medicine warrants the treatment it received, then Christianity is much more qualified than that.

&gt;I'm sure a similar argument could be mounted for other subjects, and then the Top level would have 20 or 40 or even 100 cats at first tier, just making it unworkable in my view.&lt;

I have already shown you with the numbers that this is not the case. Christianity is the exception to the rule. Only Music and Industries in the second tier are larger than Christianity. Because of the pyramid structure no lesser tiered categories can be larger than the upper tiers that they belong to. But even if there were other cases, let someone else argue them - my concern is the category of Christianity.

&gt;It would however be wrong, not to mention offensive to many, to have Christianity and Alternative Religions as second tier cats.&lt; &gt;To give a specific religion more visibility than other religions would be to imply that ODP sees this religion as more important than the others.&lt;

That would only be true if the obvious reason for doing it was based on some sort of prejudice, but I make my proposal strictly based on objective numbers, in the same way (presumably) Alternative Medicine was treated based on its numbers.

&gt;The Alternative Medicine example you cited is probably one of those - the category logically "belongs" in more than one place, and is therefore @linked.&lt;

I am simply making case that Christianity is as deserving (indeed more, based on the numbers) as Alternative Medicine is. As far as these @linked are concerned I do not see that they have any bearing on my case. I am discussing the "appearance" of the directory structure, not the mechanics of how it is executed.

&gt;We're far from perfect, of course. I'm sure you can find many instances of bias in our category structure and listings.&lt;

I would not go so far as to accuse ODP of being deliberately biased in the case of Christianity. At first glance it seems entirely logical to position Christianity in the third tier - that is until one observes the obvious discrepancies of the numbers. When one looks at the numbers for second tier categories like Gifts, RPGs and Physics one can easily surmise that Christianity is a much more important category in terms of those numbers and satisfying your customers.

&gt;the category [Alternative Medicine] logically "belongs" in more than one place&lt;

The same is true for Christianity, and more so.

&gt;However, in most cases it's far from uncontroversial to single out specific categories based on presumed popularity. ODP is a global directory, for a global audience. We do our best to be impartial, to base our category structure on logical placement, and to list sites without taking sides.&lt;

And I am not suggesting otherwise - just to apply the numbers "based on presumed popularity." I am only suggesting a "logical placement" based on the numbers, "without taking sides."

&gt;We try to correct problems when we find them.&lt;

That is all that I am suggesting. I have pointed out the problem, so now you can go fix it.

One last thing. If anyone wishes to further add to this discussion I ask that you first address this situation with Alternative Medicine. It seems to me that, "What's good for the goose is also good for the gander." As a matter of fact, I still prefer my very first solution - giving Christianity a first tier placement of its own, based strictly on the numbers - but I would settle for the Alternative Medicine compromise.

Really - if you cannot logically resolve why special attention should (and is) be given Alternative Medicine, and not to Christianity, where the evidence is magnified in comparison, I do not see that you have a leg to stand on. The only resolution is to do as I have suggested. Not doing so, now that the discrepancies have been pointed out to you, would now be "bias" and "taking sides."

This is a circular arguement, not a constructive discussion. Axacta, you will find the answers you are looking for by taking several hours and reading through the guidelines. The guidelines explain the heirarchical structure of the directory. You can read them here: http://dmoz.org/guidelines.html

The simplest way to explain this that I have come up with is this: Christianity is a Religion. Religions go in the category Religion. The category Religion is in the category Society and Culture. It makes sense. There is no "judgement" going on here.

Also, I have to reinforce my earlier comment - the sheer volume of sites listed in Christianity means that there are a number of dedicated ODP editors seeking out sites and adding them at a furious rate.

If anyone wishes to further add to this discussion I ask that you first address this situation with Alternative Medicine.

I'm not sure why you think that the listing of "Alternative" as a direct access link on the home page under "Health" has anything to do with the non-listing of "Christianity" under "Society". The structurally aequivalent subcat to "Alternative" is "Religion", which happens to be listed under "Society" already.

You could see "Medicine" (aka: "scholarly medicine") and "Alternative" (aka: "alternative medicine") as categories that stand next to each other with equal topical justification. Since they are only two, it is possible to bring them to the front together without anyone being done any injustice. However, ther's no way to make a fair selection of which religions to single out. Just the fact that we know about more sites covering christianity than we know about sites covering taoism is not a measure of fairness (there might well be more taoists living in this world than there are christians).

If you look closely, then you'll find that the size of the subcategories is not given a very high importance in the decision about which of them get a direct pointer on the front page. In fact, it's rather a coincidence that the three direct links into "Society" just happen to be the three largest second level subcategories there. This isn't the case for most other branches of the directory, and it really shouldn't be.

Not doing so, now that the discrepancies have been pointed out to you, would now be "bias" and "taking sides."

I'm not going to further qualify this statement, but just because you said something doesn't necessarily make it right.

To answer your million dollar question /images/icons/smile.gif , Axacta, size doesn't matter when we decide where to place categories. Compare, if you like, the placement of:
- New York City (6,938 links) and Newark (4 links)
- general board game resources (47) and chess (974)
- Jesus Christ (105) and Catholicism (22171)

&gt;&gt;It would obviously mean that the vast majority of the people coming to ODP would be looking for the Christianity category&lt;&lt;

Incorrect. The number of sites in a category has nothing to do with popularity in regards to the visitors to ODP. It is the enthusiasm of the editors adding sites to a category. Sites are added in two ways via submissions from site owners and editors actively seeking out sites to add.

&gt;&gt;Because of the pyramid structure no lesser tiered categories can be larger than the upper tiers that they belong to.&lt;&lt;

ODP is not a pyramid structure, if anything it is more of an umbrella. Sub-categories fit "under" a more general category.

There are numerous examples where sub-categories out number the parent category, but it does not justify making them independent of the parent.

Music with over 100,000 sites still fits "under" Arts.
Bands and Artists with over 46,000 sites still fits under Music. So Christianity fits "under" Religion regardless of how many sites it has.

Medicine and Alternative Medicine co-exist on an equal tier just as Christianity co-exists with Agnosticism. Each are different means to the same end. One is finding Health, the other is finding Spirituality. Putting Christianity on a tier with Religion would be the same as putting Alternative Medicine on a tier with Health.

What you are suggesting, to follow it out logically, means we would also move Catholicism out from Denominations. Since Denominations has 42,000+ sites and Catholicism contains 22,000+ sites which far out numbers all the other "types" of Christianity. Doing this in no ways follows the entire directory layout.

I hope this helps in understanding how ODP currently organizes its categories.

Jeff