DMOZ and other Forums
- Thread starter ctabuk
- Start date
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
Sure.
As you already know, what we look for is adequate unique and useful content. It would be unusual for a very young forum with few posts or few members to be accepted.
As you already know, what we look for is adequate unique and useful content. It would be unusual for a very young forum with few posts or few members to be accepted.
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
There isn't a hard and fast general rule. As with most editing decisions, it all depends on the specifics of content and relevence.
I'll say this though; it's more likely to be listed than something with 6 threads, all started by the owner, and 3 members, one of whom is called test and the other is called foo
.
I'll say this though; it's more likely to be listed than something with 6 threads, all started by the owner, and 3 members, one of whom is called test and the other is called foo
.I would assume if it has unique content at all--it should be posted. There are NEW things added every day to the internet.
Websites based on major news Events are a perfect example since Dmoz often waits by the time they look at a website it often is out of date and just included for HISTORICAL/ARCHIVAL reasons.
Another example is Movies there are hundreds of movies released every year and with many movie release a subculture revolves around it. From War of the worlds/remake, charlie and the chocolate factory/retold, rent the musical/movie. But good luck finding info on these movies here on dmoz.
So the Amount of Unique content should not be a factor at all NEW means it is fresh the amount of content will come. But what they have included currently is unique when no other sites include it.
Websites based on major news Events are a perfect example since Dmoz often waits by the time they look at a website it often is out of date and just included for HISTORICAL/ARCHIVAL reasons.
Another example is Movies there are hundreds of movies released every year and with many movie release a subculture revolves around it. From War of the worlds/remake, charlie and the chocolate factory/retold, rent the musical/movie. But good luck finding info on these movies here on dmoz.
So the Amount of Unique content should not be a factor at all NEW means it is fresh the amount of content will come. But what they have included currently is unique when no other sites include it.
>NEW means it is fresh the amount of content will come.
Sorry, there may be editors that just fell off the turnip truck, but some of us washed the hayseeds off several years ago. And in this reality, "new" means no such thing.
I wish it were otherwise: I have a list of sites that were new and small -- and more than that, promising: but are now old and small. Or old and dead. But reality is ... real.
Experience (and good sense) alike say: to deserve an ODP listing -- to earn an editors' recommendation -- a site should have demonstrated its ability to survive and thrive without either one.
Not for the ODP, the personal sites that get put up to attract a listing, and taken down if the listing doesn't come quickly enough. Not the affiliates' and drop-shippers' endless round of ephemeral doorways aimed at Google's latest algorithm, and abandoned as Google's spam-spotters get better. Not the me-too classified ads sites aping well-established sites' facade without their content. And are fad flick fan sites free of the problem?
No. The ODP, like other directories, inherently favors stable sites, because that's what we can do well. What we can't do, we leave to other indexing schemes. We know perfectly well that no single hammer drives all kinds of nails well.
Sorry, there may be editors that just fell off the turnip truck, but some of us washed the hayseeds off several years ago. And in this reality, "new" means no such thing.
I wish it were otherwise: I have a list of sites that were new and small -- and more than that, promising: but are now old and small. Or old and dead. But reality is ... real.
Experience (and good sense) alike say: to deserve an ODP listing -- to earn an editors' recommendation -- a site should have demonstrated its ability to survive and thrive without either one.
Not for the ODP, the personal sites that get put up to attract a listing, and taken down if the listing doesn't come quickly enough. Not the affiliates' and drop-shippers' endless round of ephemeral doorways aimed at Google's latest algorithm, and abandoned as Google's spam-spotters get better. Not the me-too classified ads sites aping well-established sites' facade without their content. And are fad flick fan sites free of the problem?
No. The ODP, like other directories, inherently favors stable sites, because that's what we can do well. What we can't do, we leave to other indexing schemes. We know perfectly well that no single hammer drives all kinds of nails well.
shritwod
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2002
- Messages
- 210
The forums (fora?) issue comes up quite often, and as has been said before there must be sufficient content on the forum to merit a listing in the category you submit to.
However, many forums never get off the ground at all.. in fact, I'd say the majority of forums that I've seen as an ODP editor fall into that category.
So, you FIRST need to build a community and have some relevant topics to discuss. THEN you might get a listing. Be in no doubt that forums are incredibly difficult to promote and make popular, but I'm afraid that's the way it has to be.
However, many forums never get off the ground at all.. in fact, I'd say the majority of forums that I've seen as an ODP editor fall into that category.
So, you FIRST need to build a community and have some relevant topics to discuss. THEN you might get a listing. Be in no doubt that forums are incredibly difficult to promote and make popular, but I'm afraid that's the way it has to be.
I have to disagree with this mentality of Expecting huge amount of content. If That is the ONLY(not listed in dmoz) content of its kind. Then obviously it is unique content and should be listed. If another forum comes along later and becomes larger than the first Forum it would be up to the editor to add the BETTER website. It would then be up to him/her wether he wishes to remove the old forum from the listings.
You PREACH unique content - then when many sites come thru with just that you say it is not enough. That is wrong Unique content is that plain and simple.
If the website dies --most time sensative websites do-- then obviously you should archive the content in an OLD NEWS section or something. Because wether the site is alive and thriving many people, years later, will look up just that info.
You PREACH unique content - then when many sites come thru with just that you say it is not enough. That is wrong Unique content is that plain and simple.
If the website dies --most time sensative websites do-- then obviously you should archive the content in an OLD NEWS section or something. Because wether the site is alive and thriving many people, years later, will look up just that info.
>If That is the ONLY(not listed in dmoz) content of its kind. Then obviously it is unique content and should be listed. If another forum comes along later and becomes larger than the first Forum it would be up to the editor to add the BETTER website. It would then be up to him/her wether he wishes to remove the old forum from the listings.
Yes, that's what we're trying to say happens. Apparently we haven't gotten that message across yet.
>If the website dies --most time sensative websites do-- then obviously you should archive the content in an OLD NEWS section or something.
No, we should not. The ODP has neither the human skills or the technological support to do that. And someone else (Google) does it better than we ever could, already. What the ODP can uniquely provide (through its historical sequence of RDF's) is the INDEX to that archive. It's left up to licensees to figure out how to use it.
>Unique content is that plain and simple.
That's simply wrong, in several ways.
Did I mention the granularity issue? Google indexes pages. The Yellow Pages indexes companies. The ODP indexes websites. There's a difference. How do we avoid getting spammed by lowballers who put every factoid in their possession on a different domain name?
There is the difference between advertising (which a TV executive considers content and information (which we consider content). Which is which? Some people try to make it very hard to tell. How do we avoid being spammed by the free-lance marketroids with keyboards?
There is the problem of aggregate-content sites and meta-content. How and when does the aggregation itself become content? And how do we avoid being spammed by the excreta of off-the-shelf automatic web-scrapers?
All of this is probably opaque to someone who hasn't tried building a large-scale index. But there's nothing whatsoever new in the problem -- libraries have been facing it for millenia now. And it's hardly even the minor arcana: it will be second-nature to someone who's actually reviewed ten thousand websites to pick out what's worth recommending.
Yes, that's what we're trying to say happens. Apparently we haven't gotten that message across yet.
>If the website dies --most time sensative websites do-- then obviously you should archive the content in an OLD NEWS section or something.
No, we should not. The ODP has neither the human skills or the technological support to do that. And someone else (Google) does it better than we ever could, already. What the ODP can uniquely provide (through its historical sequence of RDF's) is the INDEX to that archive. It's left up to licensees to figure out how to use it.
>Unique content is that plain and simple.
That's simply wrong, in several ways.
Did I mention the granularity issue? Google indexes pages. The Yellow Pages indexes companies. The ODP indexes websites. There's a difference. How do we avoid getting spammed by lowballers who put every factoid in their possession on a different domain name?
There is the difference between advertising (which a TV executive considers content and information (which we consider content). Which is which? Some people try to make it very hard to tell. How do we avoid being spammed by the free-lance marketroids with keyboards?
There is the problem of aggregate-content sites and meta-content. How and when does the aggregation itself become content? And how do we avoid being spammed by the excreta of off-the-shelf automatic web-scrapers?
All of this is probably opaque to someone who hasn't tried building a large-scale index. But there's nothing whatsoever new in the problem -- libraries have been facing it for millenia now. And it's hardly even the minor arcana: it will be second-nature to someone who's actually reviewed ten thousand websites to pick out what's worth recommending.
shritwod
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2002
- Messages
- 210
gayboi said:
Any site has to add value to the category it is submitted to - that's down to the editor's judgement. It might well be that a low-volume forum would add value to a sparsely populated category, but usually this isn't the case.
Really, there's no special consideration given to forums over any other type of site. If there's sufficient content, then it may get listed. If it has just started, then there's unlikely to be enough content to merit a listing, but that can change, so even if a forum was originally rejected it may, at a later date, be listable.
I have to activate my email notifications, has no idea this thread was going on.
Here is the forum CTABUK was referring to and yes, me and my partners run it.
Thought I give the url for you guys to look at so if you guys could, please comment on it specifically - good or bad
Here is the forum CTABUK was referring to and yes, me and my partners run it.
Thought I give the url for you guys to look at so if you guys could, please comment on it specifically - good or bad
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
I think it's a great forum - I especially like your comments on this page
http://www.national-real-estate-directory.com/real-estate-forum/index.php?showtopic=113
http://www.national-real-estate-directory.com/real-estate-forum/index.php?showtopic=113
You posted a link "this is probably the best info I have found so far on getting listed in DMOZ http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-E...tion/DMOZ-Tips/ "
That article is pure nonsense from start to finish. Some following the advice will get their site moved to the correct category, at worse an editor might suspect a spammer and reject the site. Either way a review is delayed.
I put this up once before but it is the only legitimate way to possibly expedite a review and listing:
Follow the guidelines to the letter. I mean:
a) select the right category, the one the site belongs in not the one that would be best for marketing purposes. For real estate that is the locality where the base office is situated.
b) Write a title exactly according to the guidelines - there are specific real estate guidelines that explain precisely the format.
c) Write a description that is exactly compliant with the guidelines - no hype, no keyword stuffing, no unnecessary repetition, no advertising copy.
d) Submit one site only, no mirrors, no fraternal mirrors, no doorways, no nothing but the original principal site.
e) If you restrict areas of the site to registered users provide a guest login and password for the editor within the description in [square brackets]
f) Do not resubmit the site unless an editor says it is OK to do so.
When editors go to review a list of possible suggestions, those that are easy to list because they require minimal work and it is clear the submitter has taken great care to read, understand, and obey the guidelines, might, just might, gain the attention of the editor. If they find it a pleasure to add your site, if they enjoy the experience of editing in that category, who knows what productivity increases that might prompt.
Spread the word, tell the NAR to tell their members, experiment, try following the guidelines, see if it works, there is nothing to lose. Frankly I don't care why anyone wants a listing, it isn't my role to make judgements on the motivations of the submitter if they provide a good addition to our project, help us with our objectives at the same time as helping themselves with their objectives. Matching people with new homes and enabling people to move by selling their homes is not an evil profession though the activities of some are bent on proving otherwise. Play fair with us and we'll play fair with you, simple.
By all means quote that and push it in your forum. It works and everyone is happy. Except those who try and break the system and get multiple related sites listed, affiliate sites listed, mirrors listed, or sites with no real content listed. They are never happy - we don't serve their requirements and provide free marketing of their spam in a category that best serves their wallets. So when the vitriol is heaped it is water off a ducks back to editors. Sadly, many of the spammers don't actually accept or realise they are spamming, to them it is simply Internet marketing the only way they know how. It's a shame, they might otherwise produce sites we are interested in listing.
That article is pure nonsense from start to finish. Some following the advice will get their site moved to the correct category, at worse an editor might suspect a spammer and reject the site. Either way a review is delayed.
I put this up once before but it is the only legitimate way to possibly expedite a review and listing:
Follow the guidelines to the letter. I mean:
a) select the right category, the one the site belongs in not the one that would be best for marketing purposes. For real estate that is the locality where the base office is situated.
b) Write a title exactly according to the guidelines - there are specific real estate guidelines that explain precisely the format.
c) Write a description that is exactly compliant with the guidelines - no hype, no keyword stuffing, no unnecessary repetition, no advertising copy.
d) Submit one site only, no mirrors, no fraternal mirrors, no doorways, no nothing but the original principal site.
e) If you restrict areas of the site to registered users provide a guest login and password for the editor within the description in [square brackets]
f) Do not resubmit the site unless an editor says it is OK to do so.
When editors go to review a list of possible suggestions, those that are easy to list because they require minimal work and it is clear the submitter has taken great care to read, understand, and obey the guidelines, might, just might, gain the attention of the editor. If they find it a pleasure to add your site, if they enjoy the experience of editing in that category, who knows what productivity increases that might prompt.
Spread the word, tell the NAR to tell their members, experiment, try following the guidelines, see if it works, there is nothing to lose. Frankly I don't care why anyone wants a listing, it isn't my role to make judgements on the motivations of the submitter if they provide a good addition to our project, help us with our objectives at the same time as helping themselves with their objectives. Matching people with new homes and enabling people to move by selling their homes is not an evil profession though the activities of some are bent on proving otherwise. Play fair with us and we'll play fair with you, simple.
By all means quote that and push it in your forum. It works and everyone is happy. Except those who try and break the system and get multiple related sites listed, affiliate sites listed, mirrors listed, or sites with no real content listed. They are never happy - we don't serve their requirements and provide free marketing of their spam in a category that best serves their wallets. So when the vitriol is heaped it is water off a ducks back to editors. Sadly, many of the spammers don't actually accept or realise they are spamming, to them it is simply Internet marketing the only way they know how. It's a shame, they might otherwise produce sites we are interested in listing.
Hi OneEye,
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
The SeoChat article is well written and straight to the point.
Looking at your response as well as the DMOZ faq however I completely agree that the information is not the best source out there.
From now on I will ask you guys when I come across something to verify it's accuracy and then link to the thread where one of you explains.
Thanks,
Mike
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
The SeoChat article is well written and straight to the point.
Looking at your response as well as the DMOZ faq however I completely agree that the information is not the best source out there.
From now on I will ask you guys when I come across something to verify it's accuracy and then link to the thread where one of you explains.
Thanks,
Mike
No, the point is that it is completely wrong. It couldn't be more wrong if it tried. Therefore it cannot be well written, unless you are commenting on grammar and spelling!
Try to identify a category with a category name that includes the singular of plural form of your targeted search term.
For a real estate site it can only be listed in the locality (town) category where the base office is located, either at top level, in the Business and Economy (B&E) sub-category, or Real Estate sub-category of a B&E sub-cat, depending on whether the sub-categories exist. Anywhere else, anywhere, is unacceptable, the site will be moved, or worst case rejected if it looks like it has been spammed. Editors have no discretion in this and when it comes to real estate the situation is monitored so closely it is more or less impossible to make a mistake that isn't picked up and corrected.
A second thing to look for is the list of sites that are enlisted in the potential category you’re looking at.
No, look at the branch and category descriptions and submission notices, other sites are irrelevant for all sorts of reasons not least that the difference between one category and another may be very subtle and only the description will indicate that. This is real estate, sites can only ever be listed in the locality as indicated above. Nowhere, nowhere, else.
A third aspect to be aware of is the PageRank of the category page and the number of listings on that page.
Never, ever, take this into account. This counts zero towards a decision by an editor but will have 2 effects. First the site will be moved, to the locality as indicated above, eventually (see next point). Secondly, because a lot of idiots follow this kind of very stupid advice those categories that get targetted for page rank position end up with unreviewed heaps numbering in the thousands and editors with less than a super-fast broadband link can't even open the heap of unreviewed sites let alone process them effectively. If the heap moves it is either very slowly or sometimes in one big hit as a team of editors pound the thing removing all the crap, including badly misplaced sites which normally might be moved to the proper category.
Last, submitting a site to a category that is manned by a dedicated editor is better to one that isn’t.
The worst possible thing you can do. The site will be moved. Always. To the category that has no named editor. As the article says "an unmanned category may actually be under the responsibility of an editor of a higher category", well add editors with directory-wide rights too. In the process of wrongly submitting, then the site being moved, it is highly likely the site will miss at least one window for a review.
Once upon a time, very briefly, as an editor with directory-wide rights, I would move and list a misplaced site in one move. But you learn very quickly that it is a route to misery as people catch on to that. So, like more or less all in the same position, I now move the site and deliberately don't review or list it. And if the webmaster is persistently doing the same thing, I will guarantee to make their site my very last priority - they are a pain and I won't encourage anyone think that by being a pain they will get reviewed quicker. Since you must realise how many competing priorities editors have, I'll leave it to you to guess what that actually means in practice.
You and the others on your forum are interested in real estate. That being the case there are highly specific guidelines for such sites and it is a class where the guidelines are very strictly adhered to, and monitored. No attempt to manipulate by doing anything but rigidly following guidelines can succeed. People do make the attempt and are frustrated and the vitriol follows. We see it time and time again and are immune frankly.
Lets go further into that article (page 2)
You also want your primary targeted keyword to appear in the description of your site ... it is better to have that keyword more towards the beginning of your description
No, no, no! Editors will strip descriptions of keywords. The more keywords are in the description the less likely an editor is to even look at the site - it looks like spam and takes a lower priority. 99% of descriptions are rewritten by editors because they don't fit guidelines - because people listen to idiots who don't have a clue. Follow guidelines, our guidelines. For real estate the format of the description is fairly fixed. "Residential and commercial sales and rentals, agricultural land auctions, and vacation rentals. Includes listings, agent profile, and local information." would be typical. Pepper it with keywords and I for one will skip it and move onto the agent who did read and follow the guidelines.
(page 3)
if you choose more than one category, that may picked up by the editors and flagged as spam
Hurray! Something sensible at last. For real estate sites the rest of that section is complete nonsense. For other submitters it is breaching guidelines but for real estate, nonsense is the term. One listing in one category, the right category. End of story.
Follow the submission guidelines and don’t exaggerate
More sense, pity it is at the end and the rest of the article encourages people to breach the guidelines at every turn.
It really is asking for trouble to encourage others and promote through praise articles such as this one, and it is far from unique, which basically tell people to breach the guidelines and try and manipulate DMOZ for SEO purposes. Particularly when it comes to real estate, where the guidelines are so well defined and applied, with no grey areas left. The only thing that can possibly result is people follow the crap written, it fails completely, they get fed up and start whining, start throwing insults at editors who sometimes respond in kind, and no-one is happy. Of course there are factions who would like to encourage that, lead people down the wrong path, blame DMOZ, and build up anti-DMOZ sentiment - it suits their personal and commercial objectives. If they can't manipulate DMOZ for their own purposes, make sure no-one else gets listed either by telling them to break all the rules.
As someone in a position to influence that, either you are responsible and want others in your profession to get it right, or you are in it for personal commercial reasons and wrecking your fellow professionals' chances by pointing them in the wrong direction fits in with your strategy. You choose. But when people come here they will get the correct line and they can make their own minds up whether they are being misdirected elsewhere and the reasons why someone might do that to them.
Are you sure? You don't want to end up as a DMOZ Defender and lose your street cred do you?
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html - for your market this is the number one source of information after the general guidelines covering all sites. Whilst there are some "coulds" in there about where a site might be listed, real examples of sites that fall into a "could" scenario are so rare as to be not worthwhile even thinking about - about 1 in 500 in my experience.