Listing Subdomains

I have a question regarding the use of subdomains that I could not find any reference to in the FAQ or guidelines.

My company has two online products, each with completely distinct and unique content. They are in the areas of Online Skill-based Gaming (http://games.beacontender.com) and Fantasy Sports Stats Services (http://mystats.beacontender.com).

My question then is, would submission of these two websites, in entirely different categories relating to their content, be acceptable? Or would it be better to purchase additional domains and host them separately?

This could get a little more complicated, as I have an overall corporate website (http://www.beacontender.com) which right now just contains links to the above two. This is entirely similar to the way in which Yahoo makes use of a single domain to host several distinct services (http://www.yahoo.com, http://sports.yahoo.com, http://mail.yahoo.com, etc). In fact, as it turns out, there are several entries within the ODP for these Yahoo websites.

My corporate site is already listed in the ODP. However, if it will cause problems with your submission guidelines, I would prefer to just remove it altogether and submit each of the above two websites seperately.

Ultimately, since both products are unique, I think they are both useful to the online community.

Thank you in advance,

--
Brad Barkhouse

We prefer to list the single company website.

It doesn't matter whether the subsites are on separate domains, subdomains, or just subdirectories: the should be treated the same way (although the subdirectory and to a lesser extent subdomains would be looked on a little bit more sympathetically. Too many deceptive, malicious spammers use the multiple-vanity-domains trick -- so inevitably, the editor's first strong impression will be "here's another one of THEIR sites.")

I understand the difficulty of figuring out exactly what category a company fits, when its products aren't readily classifiable. I strongly disrecommend submitting the separate product pages without asking first. Well, you've asked first, at least. (And in the case you describe, it's IMO a reasonable question.) So we'll see what the experienced Computers editors say.

Thanks very much for the quick reply.

I still would like to contend that the two services are in sufficiently separate markets to justify two separate entries in different categories. It's quite reasonable to think that someone who wants to play asteroids or tetris online isn't necessarily interested in anything to do with sports or stats services, and vice versa. Not to mention that they would be much easier to categorize than the portal, as you pointed out.

Actually, I have to sheepishly admit that I already suggested my website relating to fantasy sports stats services (http://mystats.beacontender.com) sometime ago. I noticed in the weblogs that an editor appeared to have visited the site, and since the site is not listed, that it must have been rejected. I can only assume that the whole subdomain and multiple-listing issue must have been the root cause.

So I guess I essentially have two options here to get the site listed:
1) Ask for the current corporate site at http://www.beacontender.com to be removed, and make separate suggestions for the two product sites. This time, I'll be sure to include a full description of this issue to the editor(s) so they'll be aware of it.
2) Suggest an update for the corporate site to move it to another, more broad, category.

My preference is definitely option #1. Bottom line though of course, is: are these sites useful resources to the online community? I still think they are, and probably just as important, could someone who was interested in these categories even find these resources?

--
Brad Barkhouse

I still would like to contend that the two services are in sufficiently separate markets to justify two separate entries in different categories.

Click to expand...

We would disagree. There is, in our view, no real difference between any two submarkets. Were the two vastly different -- one with games, the other with agriculture, we would consider a second listing (it would by no means be automatic). But your two are not even close to being sufficiently different.

They are wildly divergent topics. One would potentially be listed somewhere under Games/Video_Games and the other under Sports/Fantasy .

Not so different than a situation where a single site discusses Gustav Mahler and quilting and, as a result of being information-rich on both topics, is listed in two separate categories.

Not how we prefer to do it, but people can put on their sites whatever they like.

However, I suggest not offering the games site to us. We have plenty of sites already listed that offer Tetris/Asteroids/etc. in Flash/Java/whatever. I doubt yours would stand out that much. (I haven't looked.)

Those are my opinions, anyway. I'm just an editor who works a lot in Video Games and has more than a passing interest in Fantasy Sports. (By golly, if you had a site about beer you would have nailed the Trifecta.)

Apologies, I read too fast. sports/games/playing/same

My bad.

Great replies guys, much thanks!

So judging from what you've told me so far: even though it's generally preferable to list a single site, it would probably be okay to suggest separate listings for my two websites in this case, and just exclude the corporate site altogether. If that's the case, I'll be sure to include a full description of this issue, as well as a link to this forum's thread for reference, to help the editor(s) in question make their determination.

Just to clarify one more thing: my corporate site is listed as URL http://www.beacontender.com under /Computers/Internet/On the Web/Free Stuff/Surfer Rewards/Games. (Actually, right at the top! ) I'm hoping to basically replace that listing with a different URL, to become http://games.beacontender.com. Not sure if the editor will be able to do that as an "update", or if they'll have to treat it as a new suggestion, but that would effectively remove the portal from the ODP altogether. Which I'm absolutely fine with, not much there anyway besides the links.

The fantasy sports stats service site will be suggested under /Sports/Fantasy/Resources, where I notice a lot of other similar sites are listed.

Any more comments/suggestions?

--
Brad Barkhouse

P.S. - Don't know what all the fuss is about in all the other threads in these forums, you guys have been VERY responsive and helpful in the mere couple of hours that I've been a member here. Keep up the great work!

What you indeed are looking to do is an Update Request. It is the preferred way of doing URL changes to existing listings.

In the category where the current listing is found, click "Update Listing." In the URL field, enter the URL as it is currently listed in the directory.

On the next page, replace the URL with the new one. You should probably leave the title and description as-is. In the "reasons" area, explain that it is a more accurate URL.

As always, this is just a suggestion. I think it is likely in the reviewing editor's opinion that this may just be a "vanity" request and since the currently listed URL is still valid and works there would be no reason to change.

Based on what wrathchild said, the most plausible scenario (maybe best for everyone) would be to ask for your corporate site to be moved to the category where it has most significance -- that is, the stats category. It would be reasonable for the description to mention that it also has xxx games.

This is making the same assumption -- that is, that the stats are much more significant (unique) than the other. That may not be true.

hutcheson said:

This is making the same assumption -- that is, that the stats are much more significant (unique) than the other. That may not be true.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. The games provided on the games site are completely unique as I created all of them myself. So I don't think moving the corporate site into another category makes much sense in that regard.

As I said, I'd rather get rid of the corporate site's listing altogether as there's not much in the way of actual content on it right now anyways.

I think I've got a reasonable course of action now. Thanks again for your comments!

--
Brad Barkhouse