Directory Doubts

Despite the bad publicity DMOZ gets, I have always admired the integrity and professionalism of its dedicated editors. With the mushrooming of 1000's of so called 'directories', I've realised over a period of time that directories today are perceived only as a means of SEO - either a 'relevant' link or a 'factor' in Google's or Yahoo's search algorithm (as in the case of ODP).

I wish to create a more 'usable' directory that isn't perceived solely as such.

The problem is, I do not know anything 'technical' about a web directory. I am hoping some of the experienced editors can advice me -

1) How do you create the directory structure? The directory idea I have places certain implementation hurdles in creating new categories for every country. Is it really important to classify a website according to regions too? (Can't a site description specifying this enough? eg. 'Australian firm ... ')

2) How do you create the editorial team hierarchy or 'pecking order' ? What should be the responsibilities of editors in their respective hierarchal position?

3) What factors should be taken into consideration while hiring an editor?
4) Any other factor that you think are important and I might miss focussing on due to my inexperience in this field.

While I am studying DMOZ, Yahoo and ZEAL directory too, I seek your advice to make sure that I don't assume some misconceived ideas and work on from that perception.

Your time and help is really appreciated. Thank you.

P.S: Apologise if my language lacks enough clarity. I am currently learning Tamil and my English has gone a bit rusty due to lack of use.

If it were me, study ZEAL structure as a method of how NOT to construct a website. Their navigation is horridly confusing for a new user, and they've got pages and pages of junk you're supposed to read before submitting a site. It's ridiculous. I commented about how hard it was to navigate the site once on the ZEAL boards, only to have their editors and regulars get super defensive and flame me a bunch.

I love dmoz, everything is where you expect it to be, and there's no useless information floating around.

Best of luck to ya.

Submitters and Guidelines

Hi harleyx, thanks for your suggestions.
The one point that really caught my attention was :

... and they've got pages and pages of junk you're supposed to read before submitting a site. It's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Though I don't share your feeling, I've come to accept the fact that the majority of web masters or web site owners just do not want to read 'guidelines', which they consider a waste of time.

Hence my idea is to make the submitter aware of the guidelines for submitting a site to the directory, but to let the editors do the majority of the work (deciding which category it goes, the site title, the site description etc.).

(The idea being - No use banging your head complaining about how people are lazy or ignorant. Just accept it

Ofcourse, in my directory model, this would apply only to the paid (business) directory part. The free or non-commercial part of the directory will NOT accept submissions from the general public. The editors will choose the site for listing in the non-commercial directory using their judgement, quality over quantity being the ultimate aim.

Naturally, this model wouldn't work on DMOZ.

i agree

I can understand having guidelines, every directory does. It's a necessity. However pages and pages of intricate details about how a site must be submitted? I don't have time for that, I've got better things to do and a business to run.

Most of the unacceptable things, such as promotional language or bad language in a description can be filtered out via code. That simplifies the guidelines immensely. Instead of specifying exactly what promotional language is, you can say "Here's a couple examples of promotional language. Either write something objective or you won't stand a chance of getting it approved." People aren't stupid, and if they are, too bad - try again.

I like dmoz because it's no hassle to submit a site, and the guidelines are summarized brilliantly. Zeal's website is far more complex and legalistic than it needs to be. You have to sign up and become a member, and you're supposed to read through 20 or so pages of guidelines before you submit a website.

I'm not applying for citizenship here, I'm just requesting inclusion of a website in a directory. That's my feeling towards a directory.

On Guidelines and Communication

... However pages and pages of intricate details about how a site must be submitted? I don't have time for that, I've got better things to do and a business to run...

Click to expand...

Guidelines are a necessity both for the editor, and for the convenience of the submitter. After all, you wouldn't like to hear an editor tell you that the site was rejected because 'his girlfriend dumped him that day', would you? The guidelines helps to provide a more 'reasonable' explanation.

I am rambling ... coming back, the point you made about the time it takes to read the pages and pages of guidelines before submitting a site is quite valid. Well, if you really belive that directory listings will bring good returns for your business, hire someone else to do it for you. You can than concentrate on what YOU do best, running your business. (SEO's, by the way, are one of the worst people to hire to do this job because of the often conflicting interests between them and the directories.)

Of course, the above is with regard to volunteer based directories only. Paid directories on the other hand should not make you do all the work.

... Instead of specifying exactly what promotional language is, you can say "Here's a couple examples of promotional language. Either write something objective or you won't stand a chance of getting it approved."...

Click to expand...

Unbelievable as it sounds, that doesn't work. You can ask the editors around here - they've handled a million spam submissions. (Comes back to what I said earlier - No use banging your head complaining about how people are lazy or ignorant or plain stupid. Just accept it, and plan something about it.)

Zeal's website is far more complex and legalistic than it needs to be. You have to sign up and become a member, and you're supposed to read through 20 or so pages of guidelines before you submit a website.

Click to expand...

Actually, I like the ZEAL model a little better than DMOZ's. Simple because registration provides a means of communication - if your site is accepted or rejected you learn of it immediately. If your site is still in the wait list, you can ask the editors when (if) it will be reviewed. And so on.

Ofcourse, ZEAL handles a lot less spam than DMOZ and have a different 'directory philosophy', so that model works for them.