meta-data and other standards

Some discussions in these forums confuse the distinction between dmoz and search engines. I believe I understand the difference. However, in the last thread, which is now locked, there was a concluding statement by an editor, which was "We are concerned about accurate meta-data: accurate attribution allowing surfers to evaluate the reliability of verbiage."

In my short time associated with dmoz I believe this is the first time I have seen an editor says that dmoz does evaluate meta-data. I had been under the impression from many other posts that editors would not waste their time looking at meta-data. All that was important was the visual information and unique or valuable content, particularly because this is human edited directory and meta-data is principally for machines, and visual is what the surfer sees.

Some examples of other slight inconsistencies I have come across is some editors checking for valid security certificates, some not; some editors checking the payment processes, some not; some checking for addresses and phone numbers and some not and the like, .

I believe I have read all available online data from dmoz, although there may be something I've missed.

My question is: Are there standard guidelines at some detailed level, which all editors follow, and, if there are, are these published and available to the public?

As an outsider, it would seem that standards would be good for consistency within dmoz. If they were then published, it would educate the public to a dmoz view of a "well produced" web site and allow the community to better structure web sites in a manner that benefits the average surfer, whom I believe is your target and for whom the standards would be developed. It could not address content, because that is left to the editor to determine, but if sites are being left off the directory for structural reasons, the more that is known, the more sites could be made available for content evaluation.

slight inconsistencies ... some editors checking the payment processes, some not; some checking for addresses and phone numbers and some not and the like,

Click to expand...

Goodness, sounds like you've been doing an extremely detailed analysis! I think some of the differences you're seeing reflect the nature of different parts of the directory. For example, if the site is for a store where you need to go there to shop, you kinda need to know the address. If it's an online store, you kinda need to know how to send the money. Etc.

Thank you spectregunner. I had read all those items but they didn't seem to address the specific detailed items I had mentioned. Does that imply that these types of items are left to the discretion of the individual editor?

Are we confusing meta data in terms of the content of meta tags with meta data in terms of an ODP listing acting as meta data for our data users (including search engines that spider us.)?

We don't look at meta tags on websites when evaluating them. They aren't relevant to the user experience. The user doesn't see them - so they don't matter to the title or description of that site.*

ODP could be said to provide meta data on the sites it lists though

e.g. You could extract the contents of the directory to get the following sort of metadata information about each listing.
<odp-url>
<odp-category>
<odp-title>
<odp-desc>

And use that for what ever purpose you choose.

* Added - though the contents of title and meta description tags are used to prepopulate the titles and descriptions of sites by the add url script. But these always have to be re-written as they pretty much never result in something that would be guidelines compliant.

Yes, meta-tags are one kind of computer-readable metadata. But any information ABOUT OTHER information -- indexes, categories, descriptions -- is meta-data.

Much of what is valuable about a website is correct attribution. My opinion on real estate, no matter how glibly expressed, is worthless. The value of your opinion on diet pills is ... correlated (inversely) to your desire to sell them immediately. And so on. The relevance of your opinion on Chirac (or Bush or Blair or Saddam) to me depends on other aspects of your politics or religion. The quality of a business service may best be adjudged by looking at the reputation of the entity providing the service. All of this is highly important information to people who want to be informed consumers or citizens, and it is no coincidence that spammers try so hard to conceal it!

CER said:

My question is: Are there standard guidelines at some detailed level, which all editors follow, and, if there are, are these published and available to the public?

Click to expand...

There are branch and category specific guidelines and FAQs that are also publicly available at http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/...t/Policies_and_Procedures/Editing_Guidelines/

Relax.

If you re-read what Hutcheson said, and you quoted is that:

His opinion is worthless.

My opinion as to who is a good realtor and who is a bad one is worthless too. Fortunately as an editor I am not required to make that judgement, I only judge the value of the web site(s) they suggest to us against our listing criteria. Oddly the "best" realtors from a vendor's perspective because they are aggressive marketers of property, are often the "worst" realtors from an editor's perspective for exactly the same reason. At the same time the "best" realtors are the ones that least "need" a DMOZ listing because they have already worked out numerous other strategies to get their Google top ten spot. I would be seriously worried if my agent's marketing strategy for selling my house relied on a DMOZ listing. So the answer has to be that for a good realtor a DMOZ listing is neither here nor there. So why do they bug us so much?

oneeye said:

My opinion as to who is a good realtor and who is a bad one is worthless too. Fortunately as an editor I am not required to make that judgement, I only judge the value of the web site(s) they suggest to us against our listing criteria. Oddly the "best" realtors from a vendor's perspective because they are aggressive marketers of property, are often the "worst" realtors from an editor's perspective for exactly the same reason. At the same time the "best" realtors are the ones that least "need" a DMOZ listing because they have already worked out numerous other strategies to get their Google top ten spot. I would be seriously worried if my agent's marketing strategy for selling my house relied on a DMOZ listing. So the answer has to be that for a good realtor a DMOZ listing is neither here nor there. So why do they bug us so much?

Click to expand...

I agree that they dont need a dmoz listing. However with the criteria that we all believe is needed for a number 1 position in google, I do believe that listing is needed with all other factors being equal between the top 5 sites.

One critical thing (to the ODP) about a real estate site is that it identifies just WHO is talking about real estate -- that is, NOT me, NOT some marketroid who flunked out of Marketing 102 and went into business for himself, but ... a real experienced person with a reputation to risk by ... letting his "I wish you to believe" overpower his "it is so".

Now, I may not even be able to tell whether the webmaster has a clue about marketing, but I have some idea about what it takes for people who DO want to check the source. And all "expert" sites without a source are the same: anonymous rumor. Once we have one, we don't need any more--the first one spoiled the uniqueness for everybody.

On the other hand, a site by a licensed practitioner may still be absolute balderdash, but at least it's attached to a real-life reputation that can be checked.

As for who gets the top Google rating, we list lots of sites, and an editor who acts as if it matters which one of them should be tops in Google -- is abusing. In any case, Google doesn't change its algorithms to suit us, and doesn't even tell us about them afterwards.

Then they must learn to work within the DMOZ guidelines and put their normal search engine / directory marketing techniques to one side when suggesting sites to us. One realtor - one site, no mirrors, doorways, fraternal mirrors, vanities, deeplinks, etc etc. If not then DMOZ will have to start getting heavy and use the ultimate deterrent more frequently - complete exclusion of *all* related sites. But then this seems to be going way off-topic and into a continuation of a thread a moderator has already locked so that's my lot on this subject.

Well this is why I wonder if the sites listed are looked at. Take the number one site listed in google for las vegas real estate. You talk about mirrors, doorways and your other factors which could exclude a site from being listed. I would say you should check that number one site out then. (www )greatlasvegashomes ( dot ) com . (www) greatlasvegascondos (dot) com
(www) lasvegasrealtor (dot) info ---> ( big time doorway )....... (www) greathendersonhomes (dot ) com

plus there are a number of other doorway pages located on the web for them and it is to long to list

If those are factors and IF any of our sites are being exculded for this, then I know you should check that site out. It is the worlds worse for breaking those rules for an ODP listing and has one.

As I stated I dont need a dmoz listing but of course I would like to have one, as anyone most likely would. You have rules, maybe our sites dont meet those rules, but if we dont meet them and if I am understanding you correctly then there are others I know that dont meet them either. What is good for one should be good for all.

I would also like to say this has been the most civil I believe a thread has ever been between the editors and members. I am really referring to myself

Those examples aren't breaking any rules on the ODP, are they? We've listed their one site and unless they become overly agressive about submitting their mirrors to the ODP we have no problem listing their main site as long as it meets our requirements. As for them being indexed by Google, there's not much we can do about that - it's beyond our control, but I guess you could mention it to Google

First let me explain that I have no interest in real estate, my business is quite far away from that field, principally in shopping and printing. I only referenced that thread because of a comment that was made there. I believe most of my misunderstanding was my confustion over how the term meta data was being used. I may have also misunderstood a post by spectregunner, but please be assured I never implied that Hutchesons opinion was worthless, indeed, I was not using any editor names because my thoughts were not editor specific. My thrust is focused on standardization amongst editors within a category. I thank the editors who provided links to me. I had reviewed these before my post but still haven't found what I sought.

I have a concern that a submitted site might be rejected or kept under review for some technical deficiency, not related to content or functioning of the web site. An example would be a site in shopping where one editor indicated that they would not list a site because the security certificate was not valid, while another editor indicated that they would. A similar issue came up with contact information, one wanted phone numbers, another didnt' care. These and other items certainly could be debated as to what constitutes a best practices site and dmoz might then chose to only list sites which meet these type.

I believe such standardization would be beneficial to the surfing public Certainly an idependent guide to webmasters as to what dmoz considers proper site content would then benefit the public as well if that raises the standard of web site design. If the standard of design is raised then perhaps dmoz's interests are also served.

But I stray, the issue to me is the nagging fear that a site might not be listed because of an oversight of something that an editor might feel is important, but had not registered as important to a webmaster, yet would be easily rectified. That different editors might deal with the issues differently then compounds the concern.

Some interesting questions - with lots of possible answers.

Any site that is left than perfect does leave itself open to not being listed for one reason or another.

For example, a site that works in Internet Explorer but works very badly in FireFox. The ideal way to list that site is to review it in IE, and list it with the added text [May not work in all browsers] -- but that is only feasible if the reviewer first reviews it in FireFox - realizes the problem is browser specific and then tries again in IE.

The editor who only reviews in in IE lists it without the warning, the editor who refuses to use IE, and does not realize it's a browser problem my decide the site is under construction and fail to list it at all.

A site that is badly designed, is not in itself a reason not to list, but when the design becomes bad enough to impede it's viewability, an editor may decide not to list it. There are no cut and dried rules for what this is, therfore this becomes a decision ofr the editor that review it. I have refused to list a few sites where the text was close to unviewable through a very bad choice of colours - but those were really bad ones. Others that have a very poor choice of colours, but could be read with great difficulty, I have ended up listing.

A site where part of the site are incomplete may be considered listable by some editors and not by others. Myown view is for a new site to be listed all pages must work. However, if the site has several hundred pages, it is not feasible to read every page, and one must really on spot checking. In this case, there is no rule what that should be, should I check 20 page out of 100, or should I check 40.

Phone numbers and contact information vary in requrements. In Regional, we would in most case want that in order to categorize the site and verify the category was correct. However, some sites coudl be listed without that address information being complete, depending in the category and type of site.

In other areas, it mostly is not required. However certain categories do specify that it is required in their description. I have one category like that and often get sites submitted that are rejected out of hand for failing to supply the location. However, in that particular case, it seems strange to me that a site owner who offers a local service fails to specify where in the world he provides that service, providing no city, no country and no phone, only a email address. The site without that info, is fairly useless to anyone.

Generally a site that complies with all the guidelines in every respect, including branch and category FAQs, descriptions and submission notices will be listable and listed in accordance with standards for titles and descriptions. When is another question entirely.

A site with good quality original content of value is what we are looking for. One that lacks that will be rejected. The measuring stick depends on the category. If your site is as least as original content rich as the best example already listed then it has a reasonable chance, if not it may well fail.

Technicalities such as address requirements, working links etc. may mislead. They are merely factors in a grey area decision and it is virtually impossible to guide someone in broad terms.

If you want to know the best practice then you need to do three things. First switch your mind from webmaster to surfer, what would you expect to find on a site on the topic. If a restaurant would it be the type of food, a menu, location? Second look at all the guidelines, is the site listable, is a lot of the information just a poor rehash of what is already listed? Third check the existing listings and set your aim at a site at least as good as the best example you can find. Follow those three rules of thumb and you won't go far wrong.

Before I was an editor I produced a site I wanted listed. I noticed that all the other sites listed had a lot more information on their sites besides what they were selling. I held back, wrote a long article on the subject from my own knowledge, and published it on the site along with loads of independent resources on the subject. I had a small number of Amazon affiliate book links - instead of just listing them I gave independent reviews of the contents, some good some bad so people didn't buy something unsuitable for their needs.

Then I went for my listing. My article is now plagarised by schoolkids for their assignments, despite the warning that their teachers can find it too. But on the plus side it means I have content of value that is unique within my site and as such it is a good addition for DMOZ.

How deep to go checking a site is up to the editors' judgment. Sometimes, for instance, driving by the putative business address is relevant. And yes, some deceptive spammers HAVE been caught that way. (Anybody have a problem with that?)

So it is extremely important that spammers NEVER be given a list of the items which, if they provide plausible lies about, will enable their sites to get pass the spam guards at the ODP. No, we won't go that way. We'll check what we need to check.

If we're getting hit hard by spammers in a particular area, we'll tighten up the checks. (So, for instance, real estate sites listed several years ago might not be listed now; Avon rep. sites listed several years ago WOULDN'T be listed now.) This is why quite often prior practice doesn't fully accord with current editorial judgment.

This isn't EVER going to be a problem with genuine businesses that consider their reputation an asset. It will be a problem for all the various flavors of marketroiding doorway spam -- affiliates, blind drop shipping order takers, banner farms, etc., that rely on deceptive, false, or missing information to fool people into thinking they're dealing with a real business, not just another one of the eight billion names of VStore (or whomever).

That's what is important.

>But I stray, the issue to me is the nagging fear that a site might not be listed because of an oversight of something that an editor might feel is important, but had not registered as important to a webmaster, yet would be easily rectified.

This is slightly more common than the "competitor submitting my site over and over again" or "getting hit by a meteorite while riding in an airplane" -- but less common than "the editor made a simple mistake." (And note well, the mistakes are far more often listing inappropriate sites than the reverse. That's why the feedback we get from the public is so valuable. You tell us specific mistakes we made; from them we try to detect patterns of deceit, and figure out where we need to check more carefully.)

You can worry about whatever you like. Really. I won't try to talk you out of it. "Don't worry, be happy" has its own tincture of insanity.

But changes, if any, in the ODP procedures will be based on what are, in the community experience, the real problems. And this is absolutely not one of them.

donaldb said:

Those examples aren't breaking any rules on the ODP, are they? We've listed their one site and unless they become overly agressive about submitting their mirrors to the ODP we have no problem listing their main site as long as it meets our requirements. As for them being indexed by Google, there's not much we can do about that - it's beyond our control, but I guess you could mention it to Google

Click to expand...

I assumed the other post means you are not allowed to have a listing in dmoz and have doorway or mirror sites, if I misunderstood, my fault.. however I believe if you will look at their main site you will see doorways and mirrors if this is cause for exclusion from ODP. Also I believe you have this listed as Century 21 which they are no longer with Century 21, so doesnt that need to be changed?

I guess I just find it amazing that those who violate the rules so to speak, get more breaks. I understand ODP is not the internet police but this site benefits greatly from the ODP link and without it we would take number 1 from them. I guess this just means we have to work more honest and harder to take it from them.

I would also like to state for the record, you editors have seem to be a little less uptight over the last several days. My hat is off to you.

>I assumed the other post means you are not allowed to have a listing in dmoz and have doorway or mirror sites.

No: if we can figure out which is the mother ship, we will list it.

But if a site is sneaky about its mirrors (or worse, deceptive), we may not be able to figure out which one is right. ... which spells "inadequate information" in big red glowing letters, no?