Google search question...

Alright,
Example, I get alot of hits with

Main images
Main wallpapers

, my site would show up under a few of those two phrase keywords, why doesn't my site show under Main, thats it, just the first phrase, which is the main keyword.

the keywords are all set up properly. help me out, editors

I'm sorry, but this is a forum about the Open Directory Project, and not Google.

Questions on how Google works are off topic here.

Ther are a number of forums that do discuss the ins and outs of Google, this just does not happen to be one.

Okay heres a question about odp

I've been tryin to get into the Naruto Directory for some time now and people here say that editors choose good sites only and thats based on the subject of the category, well look at this....

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Animation/Anime/Titles/N/Naruto/

Look at the site Naruto OST 2, and some other links their, that site has nothing, completely nothing usefull, and then you have my site <url removed> which seem to never get listed there.

Looks like editors sometime have pitty for the bad sites and give them a chance but when they get the chance users or fans dont visit the site because nothing usefull there.

the link below it is a forum!! come on people.

I appreciate the information. But for the record, the secret that the ODP does list forums, leaked out some time ago.

I'm not sure what sites you consider "bad" or why you consider them "bad." The one you name is a fine example of spartan design -- it's easy enough to see what it offers, and it's simply irrelevant whether you or I think its offering is useful. In either case, this is really not the place to discuss website design.

It is worthwhile, perhaps, to repeat a fact of life that seems to escape a lot of submitters, even though it should be painfully obvious to anyone who stops and thinks a bit.

We do not EVER list the best sites first! It would be nice if we did, it would be nice if we could, it would be insane to try to.

Why? How could we do it? There's only one way. We'd have to look at every site on the web, pick the best one, list it, look at every other site on the web, pick the next best one, list it .... doesn't this strike you as a trifle unproductive? However, I are certainly willing to make an exception in your site -- I can add an editor's note to tell everyone not to list it UNTIL we're sure all the other sites on the web have been reviewed, and all the sites that are better are confirmed listed. Is that what you want?

We don't really do that, of course. So what we list are the sites that some editor has decided to review, that are "good enough to list." We do that without worrying about whether some other as-yet-unreviewed site might be better.

Now, we can get pretty good at guessing what sites might have nothing worth looking at -- after a few thousand sites, uninformed marketroid promo-blather jumps out at you pretty quickly; and it's usually pretty clear when a site has been set up primarily as a billboard for Adsense advertisements and regurgitated press releases.. But still, every time we pick a site to review, it's still a guess that THAT site will be what we're looking for. There's always a large random factor regardless.

So YOU may have looked at 100 sites and picked what you think are the ten "best" -- the ODP editor would have, perhaps, looked at two or three dozen sites and listed ten that are "good enough". Eventually, we'll get the whole hundred reviewed -- but not ranked, not ranked at all. Just categorized and described.

This doesn't even get into the whole issue of what the ODP considers "good": it is obviously not what you think, but you're welcome to browse our forums and documentation to get a better idea of what it is.

Because there's only one definition of "best website" that really matters. It's not yours, it's not mine. It's the website that contains the information a surfer is looking for, the instant he wants it. Suppose a surfer wants the second OST? (Don't ask me why: I'm sure I'll live all my life without knowing. But it doesn't matter why.) A dinky little one-page-and-two-download-files site containing just that and nothing else, is the best site to recommend to that surfer.

Oh I understand your point, well explained.

Its just that bigger sites that Offer the same subject as well as everything else, all original is not on there. Like mine, thats what got me, thats all. I seen this site and im like come on!

I understand tho, an editor reviews like about 12 sites, who know if its every week to every month, but he/she determines if the site is good enough. choose out that 12 sites and bam, happily listed.

I understand your point tho. Of course not, why would I want that bad note to the editors? Just would be very nice to know I have been reviewed, cuz its driving me up the wall wondering if someone in the odp even step foot in the site.

BUT of course, you can't do status checks....

well have a nice day.

Just would be very nice to know I have been reviewed, cuz its driving me up the wall wondering if someone in the odp even step foot in the site.

Click to expand...

You will know if and when your site is actually listed, that is the only status report that ever meant anything of value and it is the one you can do for yourself. Forget it and move on, you have done all you can, the rest will happen when it happens.

>Just would be very nice to know I have been reviewed, cuz its driving me up the wall wondering if someone in the odp even step foot in the site.

I know the feeling...every time I contribute an e-text to someone, I still want to see it appear immediately. And not long after I first started to edit at ODP, I wanted to see all my edits appear on Lycos immediately. I'm still wishing someone at Project Gutenberg would get to work finishing proofreading on a couple of books I plan to post-process.

But, you know, e-books sometimes sit in my hands for months, and I feel no urgency then. Whether or not e-book #10 (or ODP edit #100) would be posted tomorrow, I still knew what could be done for e-book #12, or ODP edit #200 -- so I knew what I should do next. I can be doing that. And it's really not rational to expect someone else to have a higher sense of my priorities than I do!

The only rational attitude is gratitude to the people whose personal passion and drive make these community projects possible: If not for them, I'd be maintaining my own tiny link list on a free server, half-duplicating a few other people's links; I'd be wondering how to format, and where to post, my third or fourth e-book; if not for them, my e-books would not be in any standard format and would be less useful today and much less likely to be useful tomorrow.

We're all on "volunteer time," just like you are. We all have areas of special interest and importance, just like you do. (The possible difference is that your interests might be financial.) We're all working on what we think is most important. We're all spending the time we can afford (or can stand!) As in all volunteer work, the way to find friends is to appreciate the work that is done: not make lists of things that we won't do, but expect someone else to.

Of course, volunteer communities are not the only ones: if you want business services, you can find many people to do business with. They would consider you their customer (rather than a fellow volunteer), and treat you like a customer (rather than a volunteer whom they might not yet trust). That's obviously what some people want, and that's OK too. It's a good thing the whole world doesn't do mass calisthenics to the dulcet tones of the "Beloved Leader": there's room for people who walk the less travelled path, even if only because it's the less travelled path.

<added> While you're waiting, there's obviously a GREAT deal of work you can do on your site to make the home page look less than a type explosion in a font factory -- look at the site in a real internet-standards-compliant browser at several different font and window sizes. You'll realize what happens when you forget you're doing web design and get too ambitious with page-layout design tricks that don't work on the web.

And there might even be a bit of work you could do with the site to showcase whatever original content you have, to give a visitor the impression you wanted visitors more than AdSense page views. And if you run a forum, it's important to spend time moderating it, to keep drive-by-spamming jerks from turning IT into a free-for-all ad-banner-farm. (Sure, the forum would look less active, but it'll also look far more attractive and valuable to surfers who are interested in your favorite subject.)

That's part of the difference between looking at a site thinking, "wow, what a cool layout for both of the other people on earth who use the exact same version of browser and screen driver I do, and the exact same window size, and the exact same monitor and resolution", and looking at the same site saying, "ugh! overlapping plagiarized marketroid-babble! is there any reason to suppose there IS any original content here, and if so, how could anyone find it? and how could anyone stand to look?"

And that may be part of the difference between the ODP definition of a "good site", and yours.

Now, will brain-damaged over-specified non-standards-conformant HTML keep a site from getting listed? Hopefully not -- that's not our mission. We do list sites with pretty lame designs, as you've noticed. You may lose visitors, but that's not our problem.

We're all about "unique content." And featuring plagiarized press releases as if they were your most important contribution to the sum of human knowledge -- now THAT'S the way to convince any casual visitor that you're all about NON-unique content. And that is one of the things that will convince an ODP editor the best place to look for unique content to list is ... somewhere else.

I wouldn't list this site: I wouldn't waste any more time reviewing it, although I might well have listed the "download OST site" whose virtues ought to be obvious by now.

I wouldn't even discuss it, except as a way to encourage people to think about what matters to the kind of visitors the ODP serves: modest but functional website design based around unique content.

So, what does all that matter? Does the site do what you want? Does it look like it looks because it is what it is? If so, that's an end of it: it's your site, not mine. I design to _my_ own ideals (insofar as they are tolerated by my publishers). So do you (and you even have your own publisher). And the busy-busy explosion-in-a-collage-factory look is much favored by the cognoscenti among marketing-layout folk. So my own impression of your layout is, in the end, as worthless as your own impression of anyone else's layout. Between you and the ODP editor, all that matters is: "can he force his way past your ads and PRs and SERP perp optimization to any actual unique content you have, and have you given him any reason to want to?"

Thanks, Interesting advice, few months ago I checked with the other browsers and they show up pretty good as I can remember.

Mozilla
- Firefox displays: okay

Netscape communicator displayed it the worse, but this browser is such an old software it doesn't support alot of scripts and newer html tags.

Netscape 8 displays it okay.

Internet Explorer displays it okay

Opera displays it perfect ! surprisingly the browser that have been out for years and have been long forgotten. I would think Firefox would display and run the best since it's now popular in parts of the internet.

The rest of the browsers would probably considered perfect for a regular user that isn't analyzing the design. Their not considered perfect because im the webmaster and I know what the design should look like.

My Site monitor shows the percentage of users using certain browsers.

FireFox: 19%
Internet Explorer 6.x 75%
Internet Explorer 5.x 2%
Netscape 8.x 1%
Netscape 7.x 1%
Netscape 4.x 1%
Opera 0.x 1%
Opera 8.x 1%

I remember I checked this before,
I decided not the support communicator (4.x) since barely anyone uses it anymore.

I'm not going to support Netscape softwares, even tho the newer versions work fine.

Opera only has 1% of the audience that are using it and their 8.x version displays the site perfect. No need to support this browser.

Firefox and Internet explorer behalf, I will have to support it due to the large percentage. These two aren't perfect but thats not important, the content is what visitors come for. They won't notice the things I see. Example is when you think something on your face is not right and you ask your friend and they tell you they didnt even notice until you emphasized it.

What did you mean by different Font Factory?

is that what it seemed like I wanted my visitors for when u entered the site? the adsense?

yeah the forums, should always be monitored, I use to do that few months ago but got tired and stopped. I'll get some people to do that job for me.

Most unique section on my site is the depiction, image gallery section. I try to scan in many rare pictures as possible, I already have several Naruto Cels imports on its way here for me to scan.

The site was designed to feel comfortable to the eyes, easy navigation. Popular websites in my subject don't layout the Content menu like I did. Did that so it's easy to get what you want when you want it and at a reasonable time. Want info?, click information, find the information your looking for. Easy compared to sites that put 100 links on the content menu that runs down the page in small tiny fonts.

Starting this fall new visitors will be arriving, younger kids, kids like appealing colorfull designs. But the design is worthless, the content is whats important.

Your totally right, its not about the design. I agree 100%.

its not about adsense, its about the demand, knowing that I have thousands of people visiting MY site. Viewing the content I wrote and prepared for them. My old website use to get 10,000 unique hits a day, the feeling of fam, when I write news or express my opinion, its nice to know around half or more of the 10,000 visitors are actually reading and acknowledging what I posted. Had no ads back then either. I love the competition game that goes on between sites riding in your site level. I feel that I have to give my visitors the best content you can find.

I hope <added> is what I think it means relating to demoz. :icon_ques

Thanks alot man, for all the advice you gave me, I'm already picturing my Next layout for the site, which I'll make sure it works on most browsers perfectly.
I had plans for cellphone browsers, example is yahoo.com, if u visit on ur cell it has a page set up for cellphones. Forgot the name of the script but its seems to not be considered html, or is that just the file extension.

Is it me, or did the ODP

Just update two of its Naruto categories? both which im not in, but I'll be patient, try to be. While I wait, I'll work on the points you pointed out to me.

Thanks again.

It looks like someone thought the points you made were worth considering -- at least the bit about the category needing help.

I'd say some sites needed to be moved down into the "characters" subcategory, and it is very likely that the listed sites could use a re-review also.

update

Can someone like update the Naruto sections, haha, sorry but I knoe if a person is added it takes 2 to several months to actually show up, but I was wonder if there was a update data base button in the editors section?

Not quite right.

If a site is suggested, it takes anywhere from a day to a couple of years to be reviewed.

Once reviewed and accepted - a newly accepted site will take only a few days to appear iin the public view.

Solidx, you don't have to do cost-benefit analysis on browsers. In any case Microsoft is soon to try foisting another differently broken browser on the majority of the surfer population that don't have a clue about system safety -- and the versions and numbers are always changing.

What you do is write html to the W3C standards, and not worry about it.

bobrat said:

Not quite right.

If a site is suggested, it takes anywhere from a day to a couple of years to be reviewed.

Once reviewed and accepted - a newly accepted site will take only a few days to appear iin the public view.

Click to expand...

Couple of YEARS!!!!

This is why people argue over the fact that theres no more Status checks.
I just had to say a response. The "couple of years" got to me.

It's funny, My Company website got listed with in the same month I submitted it. I was happy to see it posted there, but sad at the same time knowing I've been checking my personal site listing for the longest and it's still not there.

Ah well

Yeah, couple of days, month, couple of years, never, ... or even before the site was ever submitted.

Editor activity isn't centered around or driven by submittals, so ... there really isn't any connection between submittal date and review date.

That's what your sample set of two cases is telling you, and a sample set of two million would say the same.

Editors grow the directory by more than ten thousand sites per week. That's a fact.

The "best" site on the web might never get listed - if it never catches an editors eye. That's also a fact.

However, we can't worry about that, because to do so, would mean that we would have to review every single page of the web before making a decision to list even one page of it in the directory; and even Google have said that by using automated means that it is going to take 300 years to index just current information.

So instead, reality forces an entirely different set of priorities on editors: not to try to view every site on the web, not to process every suggestion that arrives in every category, but to find categories that look like they may be a bit "thin" then go out and find useful sites to add.

If the "best" site is missed again, then so be it; one day it may be found, but we'll never know for sure if that really is the best site, until one day we find one that is better - and then we will know that it wasn't.

Think of the web as all the grains of sand on a beach. Editors are out there looking for grains of a certain shape, size and colour. Your site represents one grain, and you're wanting that one fast tracked into an editors collecting bucket. Next time you're at the beach, try flicking a single particular grain of sand into a bucket from 100 yards away...

giz said:

Editors grow the directory by more than ten thousand sites per week. That's a fact.

The "best" site on the web might never get listed - if it never catches an editors eye. That's also a fact.

However, we can't worry about that, because to do so, would mean that we would have to review every single page of the web before making a decision to list even one page of it in the directory; and even Google have said that by using automated means that it is going to take 300 years to index just current information.

So instead, reality forces an entirely different set of priorities on editors: not to try to view every site on the web, not to process every suggestion that arrives in every category, but to find categories that look like they may be a bit "thin" then go out and find useful sites to add.

If the "best" site is missed again, then so be it; one day it may be found, but we'll never know for sure if that really is the best site, until one day we find one that is better - and then we will know that it wasn't.

Think of the web as all the grains of sand on a beach. Editors are out there looking for grains of a certain shape, size and colour. Your site represents one grain, and you're wanting that one fast tracked into an editors collecting bucket. Next time you're at the beach, try flicking a single particular grain of sand into a bucket from 100 yards away...

Click to expand...

Umm, I understand, nice idea of explaining your point. The sand and stuff.

Alright, thanks

have a nice day.