Contradictions in Inclusion Requirements

I'm not associated in anyway with PriceShark, but I read with some interest the thread in his request for submission status since I run some small price comparison sites as well:

http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29676

In the thread, kokopeli, an ODP moderator, stated:
"I just viewed the site, by ODP standards it is not listable, I have to agree with hutcheson:"

hutcheson (another moderator) had said:
"What our reviewers would be looking for is not search and filtering features, but unique information."

Ultimately, PriceShark was denied a listing and the thread was locked.

It is with interest that I noted PriceGrabber, PriceWatch, and MySimon, all price comparison sites WITH NO UNIQUE CONTENT are all listed.

It's also interesting that there's a specific category for price comparison sites:
Home: Consumer Information: Price Comparisons

I was hoping someone at ODP could explain why these sites are included, while PriceShark (and presumably other shopping comparison sites, including the ones I run) wouldn't be.

Thanks

iShopHQ

Part of what you're seeing is probably surviving grandfathers. Several years ago, when we began to get good at spotting affiliate spam, the affiliate spammers started to disguise themselves as other things: first "shopping directories", then many other things, including especially "consumer information sites." Our guidelines are naturally shaped by that experience. Bear in mind that if we revisited these grandfathered sites today, we might decide not to list them -- or might even decide to remove them. Because we've learned by bitter experience that "comparison shopping site" is nearly always semantically equivalent to "affiliate banner-spam farm."

Another aspect of the problem is that if we have three shopping comparison sites, what more does the next site offer? It has to offer something...and the more sites we have, the less is left for the next one to offer. (The same challeng occurs for any kind of site based on aggregated content without a core of unique content. The 1999 version of the ODP, good as it was compared to the competition, might not even merit a listing as a directory today!)

A final aspect, and this is something that you might be able to address if you've passed the other two hurdles is: not only does a website have to have unique content, if it is competing with lots of spammy faux-competitors, its unique content had better be VISIBLE. You submit, say, a hotel directory: you think we're going to spend 61 seconds looking for unique content on it, with all those HotelNow doorways out there? No, the unique content better be pervasive, or it better be clearly and explicitly marked. Otherwise, we'll see 59 seconds' worth of non-unique content, spike the in the dustbin, and take our NEXT minute reviewing something that's more likely to contain content worth listing!

Thanks hutcheson-

That's was a very well-reasoned response.

I agree that as the ease of workig with datafeed inventory has increased, the number of sites offering the same products from the same merchants has multiplied.

I looked at PriceShark's site and he's pulling Linkshare feeds at the moment, probably with the ultimate goal of generating enough clout to form direct merchant relationships. That's sort of my own plan as well.

Price comparison sites, however, do provide a potentially valuable service. Based in the inclusion of what might be terms Uper-Comparison sites, is there a standard of size you might apply to determine inclusion eligibility?

Personally, I'd rather comparison shop at a site like the ones I run, with a few hundred thousand items, but all from well known merchants, rather than a huge sites that give me more results on my 'whie down comforter' search than I can wade through in a day.

Thanks again

iShopHQ

No, as you point out, size basically means drawing from a large feed. It's the unique content we'll be looking for, and more size just means more dross to slog through.

Editors prefer to focus on shops themselves. I would expect that the number of directories/comparison/guide/etc sites listed will shrink in the future: new sites will typically get in not at all, and in the rare cases of getting in, will get in only by bumping two or more old sites. Sites that are listed will need something unique in concepts, and a substantial amount of unique content given meaning by their unique structure.

Do I know how to do something like that? No. That's where innovation comes in. I just make Kazoos...um, e-texts.