How to politely pursue additional deep links?

Dear Editors:

I have a question about multiple category submission of deep links. Our site, www.ehow.com has 15,000 plus "how to" articles, which provide users with specific and helpful advice across the entire spectrum of how-to issues, and we are growing. Right now we are adding 1,000 new "How To" pages that have already been published in our book, How to Fix Just About Everything (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743234685/) and I want to inquire about the process of listing in additional, highly relevant categories. Our content is all original, professionally written and edited, and unique to our site.

Right now we have 53 listings in the DMOZ, which is excellent. Most of these date to when the site was founded in 1999. In the past few years, eHow went through some hard times, but is now being actively grown and improved. Traffic, which fell to under 5,000 users a day, exceeds a million unique visitors a month, all organically generated as we don’t advertise.

Our home page is listed in http://dmoz.org/Home/Do-It-Yourself/, and then a number of category pages or specific how-to's are linked to, such as How to Buy a Hybrid Bike in "Home: Consumer Information: Sports and Recreation: Cycling: Hybrid" or How to Buy Fly Fishing Line in "Home: Consumer Information: Sports and Recreation: Outdoors: Fishing: Line".

If you have a second to look at the fly fishing line as an example:
http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information/Sports_and_Recreation/Outdoors/Fishing/Line/
there are 3 links in that DMOZ category. Ours takes you directly to a well written page with specific advice for buying fly fishing line. I think if you quickly visit our link, along with MSN's and Epinions’, you'll find that we bring a refreshing and useful complement to the readily available comparison shopping information on the web, and that we really add something to a category such as this.

We would like to add a number of relevant deep links of new content on our site to DMOZ. An example of a link I would propose to add: http://www.ehow.com/how_15397_help-choking-infant.html

To http://dmoz.org/Health/Public_Health_and_Safety/First_Aid/CPR/Choking/

Our content on this topic is very relevant, high quality, and is complementary to the one other good link there (the other two links now end up on irrelevant pages). The fact that our home page is DMOZ listed in home/do-it-yourself (while correct) is unlikely to point a user to our useful information on how to help a choking infant, and if an infant is in the other room choking, it wouldn't do to have them look too long!

What I would argue is this: While having our highest category be home/do-it-yourself is a good classification, we have a site that is an unusual combination of high quality content and an extremely wide breadth of information, which does not fit cleanly into a single top-level category. Should the DMOZ editors agree with this, I’d love to suggest our site for listing in some additional categories where I think we provide better information than any other site listed, and where the information is outside the scope of our current top-level listing. However, I don’t want to suggest new links in a way that offends people or would be perceived as spammy - and I'm afraid if I just submit the links, it might be seen that way, since we are already present in DMOZ. (I’ll append some examples, if anyone has the inclination to read them.)

After all that preamble, my question is this: Is it reasonable for me to request deep links of my site in some of these additional categories? How should I do this in the most appropriate fashion?

I am very grateful for your assistance!

Josh


Additional examples:
http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_a..._Disorders/Vascular_Disorders/Varicose_Veins/
http://www.ehow.com/how_3354_prevent-varicose-veins.html

http://dmoz.org/Science/Environment...nd_Recycling/Recycling_Information/Motor_Oil/
http://www.ehow.com/how_9165_recycle-motor-oil.html



http://dmoz.org/Science/Earth_Sciences/Meteorology/Weather_Phenomena/Drought/
http://www.ehow.com/how_4053_prepare-drought.html

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Programs/Home_and_Garden/Antiques_Roadshow/
http://www.ehow.com/how_108254_antiques-roadshow.html

More potential links available upon request

I'll be honest with you and say that I don't think that most (if not all) of the deeplinks you currently have should be there at all. Most were added back in 2000 when our standards for listing were more relaxed;the ones that I looked at really don't have sufficient content for listing right now.

I would recommend not submitting any additional deeplinks.

Thank you, follow up

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Despite being very proud of the content on our site, I'll try not to be defensive as my goal is to learn.

Could you clarify when you say about our existing DMOZ links:
"the ones that I looked at really don't have sufficient content for listing right now"

Is it that you think the quality of the writing is not up to par, or that there is insufficient quantity of information on the page?

Much more importantly, as the past is the past, if you look at the examples I propose as representative of my desire for new deep linking -- say, the choking infant page or the antiques roadshow page -- do you think those fall under the statement "the ones that I looked at really don't have sufficient content for listing right now", and if so, is it that they are not high enough quality, or poorly written, too short, or is it something else you mean?

I am grateful for your assistance in educating me.

Josh

Without specifically addressing your site, let me address deeplinks in a very generic manner.

Deep links were used a lot in the early days of the directory to help add meat to the bones of the directory. Several years ago they were quite valuable as ODP workrd hard to get add sites to the structure.

Now, with more than 4.5 million listings and a considerable backlog of submissions, deep links are not considered nearly as valuable. A site that may have been worthy of deeplinks in 1999 or 2000 very likely would not be deemed worthy of deeplinks now. Additionally, very few submissted deeplinks are accepted by editors.

Granted, there is no campaign to systematically go back and re-review every deeplink in the directory. Individual editors, as part of their quality contral efforts, do routinely re-examine and re-evaluate the worth of deep links as they come across them. It would be fair to say that many deep links that are in the directory, fail to meet the standard for content when re-evaluated.

Let's see if I can create an example.

There is a fictional cat called: Society/Issues/Left_Handed/ and I edit there. This cat discusses all things dealing with left handedness. At some point I determine that we really need a sub cat on Butter_Knives, because I have a couple of sites that focus on that sub topic. So I create the subcat, add the two sites and decide that I need more content for the cat to stand on its own. I search high and low and find an article on your website on the history of left handed butter knives, so I add it to the directory. Now, two or three years pass, another half dozen websites appear dealing with this very topic, and are added as a matter of course. At some point I may decide to click through every link to make sure that there have been no content hjijacks, and to make sure that every site is still appopraite for the subcat.

So I find one site that is now a porn redirect, and get rid of it. One site has evolved into all things left handed, so I move it up, and then I come to your deep link. At this point I have to ask myself, what does this deep link add to this cat that the remaining seven sites don't add? If there is not clear additional value, then I will probably eliminate the deep link.

That, in very simple terms is how many editors approach deep links. We don't just randomly add them, and when we come across them already in the dirdctory, we reevaluate them in terms of the current content of the entire category.

This is how a page that got added in 2000, would no longer qualify in 2004.

Hope this helps.

Thanks

Spectregunner-

Thanks for your explanation, and that makes it very clear. I understand why we (and other sites) may have some deep links in the database, that, if submitted today, might not be added to the database. Furthermore, I understand that given the robustness of the database, the general approval rate for a deeplink submission (or the likelihood of an editor selecting on their own to deeplink your content) is much lower than it would have been in 2000.

The examples I have listed on my post above -- and the only submissions I would plan to request, I have attempted to pick categories where (a) there are few sites currently linked and (b) as best I can be unbiased, my content is as good or better as the best currently in the category, and provides a unique perspective from what is there now. (and, of course, (c) it is outside the boundaries of our correct top-level categorization in DIY because our site is very broad)

If you like and would indulge me, you may either evaluate that for yourself, or answer my question purely hypothetically assuming what I have said is true.

1) Is the feeling on deeplinks generally so negative that, even assuming ABC above, it's still outside of common practice for an editor to add the new deeplink
2) If not, what process should I follow to submit these to the editors? Should it be anything other than the normal submssion process given that our site is already in the DMOZ?

ehowadmin said:

I have attempted to pick categories where (a) there are few sites currently linked and (b) as best I can be unbiased, my content is as good or better as the best currently in the category, and provides a unique perspective from what is there now. (and, of course, (c) it is outside the boundaries of our correct top-level categorization in DIY because our site is very broad)

Click to expand...

Wise

ehowadmin said:

1) Is the feeling on deeplinks generally so negative that, even assuming ABC above, it's still outside of common practice for an editor to add the new deeplink

Click to expand...

Editors are free, within reason, to make their own minds up on this, but a site would be likely to score some degree of negative 'points' (so to speak) if already listed in some way. Following ABC above, as I said, is wise.

ehowadmin said:

2) If not, what process should I follow to submit these to the editors? Should it be anything other than the normal submssion process given that our site is already in the DMOZ?

Click to expand...

The normal submission process is the only way. If you choose to add a note of some kind to your submission in the description section, that is up to you. And I mean that is up to you, I'm not saying this would be good or bad, just that it is an option.

After all that preamble, my question is this: Is it reasonable for me to request deep links of my site in some of these additional categories? How should I do this in the most appropriate fashion?

Click to expand...

I pulled this from your first post.

It is my personal recommendation that you not submit any deep links. Part of this is because a goodly number of editors equate (rightly or wrongly) deeplink submissions as just another form of spam.

Is the feeling on deeplinks generally so negative that, even assuming ABC above, it's still outside of common practice for an editor to add the new deeplink

Click to expand...

Let me give you an unequivocal yes and no answer.

When I am editing within Regional/ my mindset is that most deep links are spam. Because they are within Regional/

When I am editing in Business/ my mindeset is about the same.

When I am editing in military aviation cats within Society/ I am much more interested in deep links because there are a number of excelent aviation encyclopedia websites that do very thorough dissections of individual aircraft, the type of thing that surfers in those cats want. Even there, though, the deeplinks I accept have to be very good, and there are some sourced that I simply won't deeplink because of quality issues.

Blanket statements are very hard to make within ODP.

1) Is the feeling on deeplinks generally so negative that, even assuming ABC above, it's still outside of common practice for an editor to add the new deeplink

Click to expand...

Well, speaking for myself, I'm intolerant of submitters that seem to want to index their entire site in the directory. In my experience, the harder they try, the less the sites are worth it.

Generally speaking, most active editors know the sites in a topic branch that are considered to be more authoritative. The sites have a history and editors are usually aware of their track records and reputation.

I think people lose touch with the reality of the situation when it comes to deeplinks. Generally speaking, submitted deeplinks don't usually make the cut. Sometimes submissions from a site whose main site topic is far removed from the deeplinked content stands a better chance of being noticed. Indulge me while I explain.

Say I work in Arts/ and I'm really familiar with the more comprehensive Arts sites that have reputation for depth to their content. Assume I come across a category in Arts/ with hardly any sites. I decide to build it out and I go looking for links, I know some really good sites on the more general topic, so I check them first. Then I'll check out the "links" pages from other sites on the topic, followed by a check of some search engines.

At this point I feel, as an editor, I have a pretty good idea about what's floating around on the subject and what sort of content is pretty common. This is the time I dive into the submitted sites.

This progression is personal preference on my part. I've always found the submissions pool is usually not an accurate sampling of what is available. Once I've done some looking around outside the submissions, I feel I have a better understanding of the level of available content on a topic. This helps me give sites accurate reviews.

If I see a URL in the submissions I recognize from a different top-level subject (since I'm working in Arts/ in this example, say it’s a site I'm familiar with from Recreation/ or Reference/), it will catch my eye. If it's a site I wouldn't normally consider for a given branch, it will be filed in my memory as a potential resource next time I'm looking for information.

I have to tell you, my method is a double-edged sword for submitters. If the submitter feels the link is appropriate, and it is, well then they just got points in my book. But... If their judgment is clouded because of their involvement with the site and it's really not all that useful, it loses points. I don't do it intentionally; it's just the way it happens.

I think many editors take a similar approach. It might be an underlying reason we constantly say "submit once". Regardless of what one may hear in other places, editors really do get excited when they find quality sites and want to list as much useful information they can find, regardless if a link is a deep or not (I’m reviewing content, not URLs). OTOH, editors try to protect the integrity of the directory, so someone submitting the daylights out of a sub-par site, can have it negatively affect their reputation. I say "submit once" because it is the path of least frustration for submitters.

/

Wow, thank you all so much for the detailed responses. This has been extremely helpful in understanding the process.

What I takeaway from all of you is this: I probably shouldn't submit any deeplinks. If I have a category where I think my content is truly outstanding, and in a class above anything currently in that category, it might not be crazy to submit it... but I should be sure it's true and not just my biased opinion that the content is really good, because if the editor disagrees, for right or wrong they'll probably store away a negative thought about my site in addition to not approving my submission. Even if it is better than everything currently in the category, it still might not get approved either because a) rightly or wrongly some editors are biased against deeplinks generally or sites already linked in DMOZ or b) some editors will want it to be better than what else than can find on the web, rather than just better than the sites currently listed.

This pretty much answers all my original questions. If you all can indulge me with one more question:

The purpose of our site is to try to teach people how to do something they don't know how to do, in the simplest and most effective way possible. Most of our how-to's are fairly short, and this is no accident -- as you know it's much harder to write something well in a concise fashion than in a long fashion, it would be easier to build our site in a much more verbose fashion.

In your personal opinions, do you think our site will suffer if I submit a link because, upon a quick reading, it seems to have less content than some other sites? While I think our readers actually see this as a feature -- only the info they need -- I'm afraid if I were an ODP editor, I might hold it against a site, being biased that something with pages of info is better than something that's short.

If this is a problem, is there a way for me to mitigate it? In your honest opinion, would it help a submission if I were to tackle this issue head on (kind of as I have tried to do in the paragraph above) or would that be unwise?

Thanks again for your help.

Yes, we're more interested in the longer articles.

We're also more interested in authoritative links (so attribute the sources.)

There's nothing wrong with broad, shallower resources -- but we tend not to deeplink them unless we really need the material. And, as has been mentioned, there is the unfortunate editorial experience that "somre are born with deeplinks, and some demand deeplinks, and some have deeplinks thrust upon them" -- and there isn't much overlap.