Changing Directory

I have a site in a directory that is suddenly being broken down into numerous subcategories (by State). There does not appear, at least on the surface, to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to the placement of existing sites into the sub-categories.

I understand that it might make sense to break down by State, but I do not understand the criteria being used. It is obvious that not all those listed in the higher levels of this category are being moved into State sub-categories, while some of those being moved into State subcategories offer information that would appear appropriate to higher levels. (It is hard to explain this without using examples from the specific category in question.)

The site in question has specific instructional material applicable to all owners and breeders of a particular livestock, material that is demonstrably unavailable anywhere else in the net. Yet, this site has been left in a local listing of businesses 5 levels lower than where it would, in my limited view, best fit, with 5 similar businesses, while above it are dozens of similar business in the same state with little or no non-business related content.

Emails to the editor have gone unanswered. (I know they are busy)

Who oversees the creation of new subcategories and the movement of existing listings into those categories? Is their a method for "appealing" such a move?

Thanks

You haven't given me enough information. Category name, please?

Top: Business: Agriculture and Forestry: Livestock: Camelids: Alpacas: Breeders: United States

And now : States and huacaya

At the alpacas level are at least 4 farms, 2 in the US. None at the breeders level, but many farms/breeders at the United States level, and then 10 States broken out with a limited number of breeders in each of those states. Huacaya alpacas are broken down by state, but it appears that suri alpacas are not. Under United States Breeders are listed a large number of breeders that would appear to fit into the State subcategories.

A project under development?

Weird. I was just poking around the alpaca categories. One of us must be psychic. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Let me see if I can address some of your questions:
-- Breeders/Suris doesn't have enough sites to subcategorize by country, let alone state so all the sites are lumped together in the main cat;
-- Breeders/Huacayas has enough sites to subcategorize by country so it is; the US cat is also large enough to subcategorize by state (looks like that's not finished, though -- that seems to be the case for Breeders/United_States as well).

That help?

I follow the logic to some degree. However, if all huacaya listings are moved to one category, doesn't that by default put all suri in their own category?

So, if the title remains "alpacas-breeders" it is misleading, since huacaya breeders are now in a totally different category.

Not to mention that any suri breeder can tell you that the distinction between the two breeds is not that clear. Suri alpacas regularly throw huacaya alpacas. But a discussion of alpaca breeding is WAY off topic.

Also, in my original post I mentioned a site with demonstrably unique educational material that is now pushed into a rather small subcategory. This material is applicable to all alpaca owners and breeders, and perhaps even llama owners. How does one go about moving such a site up a level or two where its content will be more accurately reflected? It is a "breeders" site, but the content is far more than a description of a breeders business like so many of the other sites in the category.

However, if all huacaya listings are moved to one category, doesn't that by default put all suri in their own category?

Click to expand...

They are (or should be) -- the Alpaca Breeders category contains both huacaya and suri subcategories. Note: I know nothing about alpacas so I can't really comment on your other statements.

It is a "breeders" site, but ...

Click to expand...

If it's a breeder's site, then in all fairness to other breeder sites, it should be placed according to the same rules as the others (i.e. it should be placed by the breeder's location).

I will watch as the revamping of this category proceeds. As of this morning there are subcategories for alpacas&gt;breeders&gt;states (10) and alpacas&gt;breeders&gt;huacaya (3). There are huacaya breeders throughout the different categories at different levels.

In fairness I will assume that this will all be sorted out in time.

As far as, "then in all fairness to other breeder sites, it should be placed according to the same rules as the others..." I guess I would ask whether the directory is based on type or content? There is a vast difference between a brochure site and an informational/educational site. The latter, it would seem, would be of interest to a larger audience and therefore placed at a higher level.

But, perhaps this points to the need for an altogether new category?

Best regards

Three quick notes:

- Sites in lower, smaller categories aren't "less important". They are "better classified".

- Note the use of @links for categories that could logically be in more than one place. They provide more than one method to get to the information.

For example:
Alpacas/Breeders/Huacayas/United_States/California/ has the sites
Alpacas/Breeders/United_States/Huacayas@ is a link pointing to the US level and
Alpacas/Breeders/United_States/California/Huacayas@ is a link pointing to the state level

- The descriptions in this category seem to primarily describe the business, but they should also describe the information to be found on the website. It would be resonable to request an update to your sites' description (via the update URL button) in order to highlight the extra information present.

For example, a two sentence structure is commonly used:
Alpacas R Us - Breeder of Huacaya Alpacas. Offers description of facilities, animal pedigrees, care and feeding instructions, and educational materials.

If you do so, be clear and succinct and don't try to pack on keywords.

Hope this helps!

-Lissa

- Sites in lower, smaller categories aren't "less important". They are "better classified".

Instructional information that is applicable to ALL alpaca owners and breeders that is hidden in a deeper classification is NOT better classified.

Detailed information about how to tune a car would not belong in the Ford dealership category, even if such information was sponsored and maintained by Ford, especially if it was the only such information available on the net or in print.

Information on controlling hoof rot in horses would not belong hidden in some Horses&gt;US&gt;Breeders&gt;Texas&gt;Arabian category, even it was sponsored and maintained by a Texas Arabian horse breeder.

If the Directory is organized by content, then logic would dictate placing general information in general categories.

- The descriptions in this category seem to primarily describe the business, but they should also describe the information to be found on the website. It would be resonable to request an update to your sites' description (via the update URL button) in order to highlight the extra information present.

This would appear to be a problem with many of the current listings in this category. I believe that the current description of the site in question is accurate. This is not necessarily true of other listings that I see. For example, the first listing under Breeders&gt;US&gt;Suris (note, the "Suris" has been added since this thread began) has a description that reads, "Information on the care and breeding of Alpacas for shearing or as pets. Contact information for childrens groups to visit the farm in Gray Court, South Carolina," yet it is devoid of any general information about alpacas (it is a breeder's brochure site), and it has nearly invisible text stuffed with key words filling the bottom quarter of the page, an obvious attempt to spam the search engines.

The next three listings in the same category are all huacaya alpaca breeders, and they are brochure sites.

We then have a site that should probably be under Associations (if the description is correct) followed by 43 more breeder sites (all brochure sites and mostly huacaya breeders). At the next level Alpacas&gt;Breeders&gt;Huacayas&gt;United States there are 101 listings, almost all brochure sites, and three individual States listed as subcategories California (10) New Hampshire (5) Oregon (6).

-If you do so, be clear and succinct and don't try to pack on keywords.

This implies an attempt to change the category based on motives of SE listings. This also suggests that the editors know the importance of DMOZ in relationship to such listings, and that in fact the statement, "Sites in lower, smaller categories aren't 'less important'. They are 'better classified'," is only partially true. Thus, the creation of "better" classifications is penalizing huacaya alpaca breeders at the expense of suri alpaca breeders since anyone drilling down through the categories will be presented with suri breeders first.

But, that is another whole topic, and I understand that it is not the interest of DMOZ volunteers to worry about the SE rankings of sites listed in the directory.

Perhaps the creation of a new category dealing with alpaca herd management, or something along those lines would be appropriate. This would leave the brochure sites where they are, and let those sites offering true informational content rise to the surface. This is the real intent of a human organized directory, is it not?

Better yet, reorganizing the entire Camelid&gt;Alpaca category differently might be more logical. Something like:

Alpacas
------------Associations
-----------------National
---------------------Regional
------------Breeders
-----------------Australia
-----------------Canada
---------------------Province
-----------------New Zealand
-----------------UK
-----------------US
---------------------States (or Region, e.g. Northwest, etc)
-----------------Directories
------------Education and General Information
------------Publications
------------Suppliers and Equipment

Under this scheme there would be few, if any, listings under the category &gt;Alpacas, as they would all fall into the other categories more readily. Also, note the lack of a "Suri" specific category. As was pointed out before, there are not enough Suri breeders to break out by State, and as I have pointed out, all Suri breeders also end up with Huacaya. (We don't need to go into the specifics of alpaca breeding and genetics).

Another attribute of the above structure, or one similar, is that it would allow users to get at relevant "information" without wading through endless brochure sites whose main purpose is marketing. This would encourage breeders who wanted to be listed at a higher level to include unique informational material about alpacas, thus expanding the knowledge base of the directory itself. (In that sense, DMOZ has the ability to not only list sites, but influence content to increase the value of the directory itself.)

Email me privately and I will be more than happy to give you details about the nature of the content I am talking about. You can then see for yourself if it is relevant to all owners/breeders, and you can try to find similar information anywhere else in order to better judge the best category in which to place it.

Regards

I like the structure that you suggest but that doesn't change the fact that your client's breeder site, while it might contain loads of alpaca information, would likely still be listed under the appropriate country/state in the breeders category.

&gt;Detailed information about how to tune a car would not belong in the Ford dealership category, even if such information was sponsored and maintained by Ford, especially if it was the only such information available on the net or in print.

True. The Ford site would be listed in Business, but the detailed information on car tuning could also be listed in another category if it were really unique content and not something available in many places.

Likewise, if the alpaca site contains unique content of particular interest it is possible that that section of the site could be submitted to another part of the directory.

If it contains much information on breeding then possibly that section could be submitted to http://dmoz.org/Science/Agriculture/Animals/Mammals/Breeding_and_Biotechnology for consideration.

I say possibly. I don't know the site in question. I am merely agreeing with what you say about Ford and controlling hoof rot in horses. These pages could be submitted to other categories and the editors there would decide whether or not it was unique content which would add value to that part of the directory.

Choosing the correct category to submit to is very important here, for if a site is not listed at all we will try and forward the site to the right category for listing when we find it submitted in the wrong place. However, if it is already listed, the additional pages are not as likely to be forwarded to another category.

Likewise submitting to multiple categories, can get a site labeled as spam, so it pays to choose wisely and not get greedy.