Deeplink - to do or not to do?

This has been asked and answered 100s of times. I am none the wiser!

I have a personal web site. Part of it is to do with my business activities. There are just a few pages there, unsuitable for a DMOZ listing:

My personal web site.

The rest of the web site is about my photography. It is (I claim!) comparable with other listings in the "solo exhibitions" section:

My photography.

Solo Exhibitions.

The photography section has URL:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/

Is it better to deeplink or not? Photographers won't want to see my home page. But I don't want to reduce my chances.

Thanks.

OK, the general rule is (and this will be the answer every time) submit once to the single most appropriate category.

This is a completely different situation from, say, a directory that submits each one of its categories -- which we would go after with a spiked club. It's also different from, say, an e-text repository with unique books from several different authors, each one of whom had their own category -- which we would deeplink on our own account even if it were only submitted once.

For a site like this, which represents a smorsgabord of topics related only by your interest in all of them, "Personal Pages" is the appropriate site. There isn't QUITE enough material in each of the various subtopics for separate listings, In My Very Tentative Opinion).

Photography _might_ be the exception: I don't generally like reviewing photography sites, but that one was quick and easy to review. If I were reviewing photography sites (which I'm not, so some Other Editor's Firm Opinion will rule) I wouldn't resent reviewing this, even though it is a deep link, and I might even consider listing it. So go ahead and submit. [I don't think the site can warrant a _third_ listing at this point, though.]

The factors I've taken into account:

1) This is certainly _original_ content -- not just links, copies, advertisements, etc., of someone else's content. And it is an Arts category, with no blatant ulterior motive, just nice content.
2) There is _significant_ non-photography-related personal stuff (otherwise we'd just list the page under "Photography.")
3) There is NOT significant business-related stuff (otherwise we might just list in a Business category), although in a way the whole site is an excellent showcase for your kind of business.
4) On a borderline case (contentwise), presentation is a consideration. And the presentation is very clean. (A lot of webmasters think an oppressive, garish, graphics-heavy bell-and-whistle-laden bandwidth-hog is enough to compensate for lack of content. From our point of view, that merely adds insult to injury.)

Caveat, in case you missed it: this is my opinion. The category editor will make the decision.

Thank you, Stephen Hutcheson. I think I made a mistake when I mixed my photography with my other stuff on a web site. It would have been easier if they had been separate web sites, wouldn't it? Too late.

I'm going to request a listing in the "Solo Exhibition" section with the deeplink. On 3rd August I requested a listing, but in totally the wrong section. (And I can't even remember what it was - something to do with Cheshire). I decided to wait a month before re-submitting, hence this dialogue.

One thing puzzled me about your response. You said "I don't think the site can warrant a _third_ listing at this point, though." I didn't think it had any listing! Does it?

All I'm seeking is one appropriate listing for the whole web site. The "search" suggests I haven't got one yet. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting now.

Thank you for saying "the presentation is very clean"! Quite. A photography site, more than any other sort of site, should be able to stand without the need for bells & whistles. (Heresy - I think that most web sites would be better if they managed with 1990s technology!)

No, the site doesn't have any other listings that I know of. But it does have a sort-of resume which (in the absence of any other content) might have been considered in some Resumes category, and several articles that might have been considered separately for listing in some advocacy category, again if there had been no other content on the site ... But I think "personal pages" covers everything adequately (except maybe the photography).

No, it's not better to break sites up into itty bitty pieces. Both directories and search engines favor large sites with stable, in-depth, focussed content.

Thank you, Stephen. I now understand.

You saw "several articles that might have been considered separately for listing in some advocacy category", plus my photography.

In fact, the advocacy material is on another web site. What you saw were the links to it. That is really why I said that my business activity material on this web site was unsuitable for a DMOZ listing. There are only a few pages on this web site. The substance is elsewhere.

As it happens, all the advocacy substance is on a web site ("Child Support Analysis for the 21st Century") that already has a DMOZ listing:

DMOZ search for "Child Support Analysis"

So, having already got a DMOZ listing for the web site with much of my published business analysis material on it, I am now trying to get a listing for my photography, which is totally independent material on a separate web site. With about 400 HTML pages in the photography section, I believe (but the editors may disagree!) that it is suitable for a listing.

It still doesn't answer my original question: "should I submit the deeplink?" But I now intend to anyway.

I realise the issues of the scams that people can use to get multiple listings by submitting lots of deeplinks and subsets. I can only hope that DMOZ can distinguish people trying to make things more convenient for their users from those trying these scams.

>In fact, the advocacy material is on another web site. What you saw were the links to it....As it happens, all the advocacy substance is on a web site ("Child Support Analysis for the 21st Century") that already has a DMOZ listing:

OK, good. That's probably the best way of presenting it. (I did have a lingering qualm about banishing it to personal pages.)

So long as it's all your stuff, we don't care how many domains it's spread over. When editors see "your stuff" on foo.com with links to "your stuff" on bar.com, we just think of it as one site spread over two domains, which means we write up the content of both domains in one listing. So a description of that site under "personal pages" might say "links to original articles on xxx advocacy" or simply "original articles on xxx advocacy."

The line between "spam" and "legitimately scatter-brained sites" is sometimes faint and fuzzy. If you're in a heavily spammed area, we'll probably start with the assumption that you're spamming, and look for evidence. If in a commonly deeplinked area with a track record of decent deeplinks, we'll assume otherwise until proven wrong -- then we'll assume spam. (Some sites change their nature over time! Rolling Stone, mentioned in another context, was not always as spammy as they got near the end.)

As one of the editors in Arts/Photography (but not necessarily the one who will review your site) I'd accept this deeplink in Solo_Exhibitions/P. There's definately enough photography related content on your site, and the quality is OK as well.

It may happen that your main URL will be listed instead of the deeplink, but submitting a deeplink should not penalize your site in this case.

And before I forget it, we're always looking for people willing to help out. Solo Exhibitions/P could be a nice category for a new editor to start with (provided you give no preferential treatment to your site).

Thanks, senox.

I'll consider editing. I already spend time looking at people's photographic web sites that I come across in newsgroups and commenting on them. Perhaps editing would make sense.

I'm a bit puzzled about your reference to not giving preference to my own site if I did so. It had never occurred to me that editors could deal with their own sites. Do you really mean "not deal adversely with competing sites?"

I don't see this section as really competing in that sense. Except at the highly commercial end, which I'm not and most photographers are not, photographers enjoy looking at other people's work as much as producing their own work. When I comment on other people's web sites, my aim isn't to censor them, it is to help raise the quality of photography, especially the presentation of photography, on the web.

Sorry, senox, I forgot to ask - is there a specific description of editing for Solo Exhibitions? (I've read general guidelines, but can't see the "for editors only" section).

Yes, editors can edit their own sites. They must treat them fairly -- that is, like they treat other sites that should be listed in the same category.

Some editors avoid dealing with their own sites, to avoid the appearance of impropriety--they just submit their own sites and wait for an independent editor. Some editors feel (sometimes correctly) that they can edit their own sites without appearing unfair. That's a personal choice. Depending on the category involved, I've done both.

"competititive" sites are often "in the eye of the beholder" Yes, a religious, cultural, artistic, or even personal site could be treated competitively by a sufficiently "A-typed" personality; or a businessman might work hard to promote a local chamber of commerce. And some of our worst abuses have been in non-commercial categories.

As potential editors, we look for the "chamber of commerce" type personalities, not the "Napoleons of online crime." Often we're successful.

>>is there a specific description of editing for Solo Exhibitions? (I've read general guidelines, but can't see the "for editors only" section).<<

The 'for editors only' section is of interest once you are an editor, but not if you want to apply to be one. All you need to know is written in the general guidelines. In this case the category description gives additional information to submitters and editors alike on how to format the title, and it's helpful when it comes to site placement (what goes where).