Multiple deep links in Consumer Information

I understand the decision that some of the mega-consumer review sites have permission to have multiple listings in DMOZ, and also have deep links. I am interested in the opinions of some of the editors as to whether my site could qualify for that sort of exemption in the field that I cover.

My site, BackpackGearTest.org is listed in Home/Consumer_Information/Sports_and_Recreation/, which is quite obviously the best place for it. We do long term end-user reviews of backpacking and camping gear. Here is a good recent example of the sorts of reviews that we do: Dana Design Menage A Moi Bivy

There are a lot of sub-categories under Sports_and_Recreation where my site exceeds the quality if not the quantity of the reviews on the mega-sites. In the online backpacking world, we are the place to go for indepth long term reviews.

I really do believe that our site would be a useful deep link for the surfer in the areas that we cover. I can also guarantee that our deep links will never break, since I use 301 permanent redirects whenever I move a category.

My questions is, would this be worth pursuing?

I have no desire to waste my time and annoy an editor with perceived spam if my submissions would not be seen in a positive light.

We had a deal with some sites a long time ago where they were called PCP's (Premiere Content Providers). We borrowed the structure of there sites to create the structure for Consumer Information and used there pages as filler. The organizations then had people who were granted editor rights and they were pretty busy after I go back and look at it. I never agreed with that decision or that arrangement but it was one that was done by staff and I don't think I was ever consulted on the decision. If it were up to me I would say no, don't waste your time. Not that your equipment review was not comprehensive, I found it very comprehensive, but your main site is already listed in a category above the tree and I think it would be redundant. However, that is just my personal opinion. You should probably look for some more input on the decision. Please understand that my feelings are not a slight against your site, I am not saying it is bad or not as good as the other sites that have deeplinks. I am just saying I would not deeplink a site that has a listing higher up in a category in the tree.

In Games we deeplink all the time from the same sites, the big ones that do Reviews and Previews, and have content on a bunch of different games. The difference in that is the main site is not listed directly above in the category tree. To me, using games as an example, is like listing a site for Blizzard's Diablo 2 in the main category then listing the forum for the site in Chats and Forums, The cheats section in Cheats and hints, and the rest of the pages links in another category. It is tantamount to recreating the site by deeplinking every section in the directory and I don't think that is what we are supposed to be doing here.

As I said before though, the above is just my opinion. In other words, my 2 cents.

The Helper

I agree with you on most of this, and no offence is taken. As there are no sites that are dedicated to just tent reviews, or just backpack reviews, I think that there really is no point in having those subcategories listed. But as long as those categories do exist, I do think that it is appropriate to have the best sites in those categories, even if they are deep links to sites that are listed above.

For example, since there is a "Tents" sub-category, someone might end up there looking for reviews. In that case, to serve the user, there should be links to all the good sites (which of course should include mine )

If the "Tents" category is removed because there are no unique sites, then I don't have an issue with it.

There are some categories that I think should remain, and all appropriate review sites should be included. For example, there are many different sorts of sites that review GPS units. Any site that reviews them well, no matter what other fields they cover, should be listed.

I agree with you. If we are still listing sites like that I see no reason at all why your deeplinks should be excluded - my reasoning is based upon the content contained in your sample url.

The original hope -- which has only partly been borne out -- was that the PCP's content would define a skeletal category structure, and other sites could be added later.

For your practical information, our policy is that we list sites, not pages, and your site should be submitted at the level that most closely matches most of its content.

There may be other ways that you think would be good, but right now _we_ have decided and agreed to retrench deeplinking in those areas, not increase it. Previous practice is in this case a particularly bad guide to future listings.

hutcheson said:

The original hope -- which has only partly been borne out -- was that the PCP's content would define a skeletal category structure, and other sites could be added later.

Click to expand...

I can understand that. Deciding site structure, and where things go can be a major headache, and copying an existing structure could greatly ease the growing pains.

I think the problem here is that the structure goes deeper than you will ever have any *site* listing. Even if there was a site that reviewed only tents, it should be moved up with the general camping or backpacking sites and the tent category removed.

The current structure does not serve the user. They will work their way down through the structure, and see that "tent" category, and expect that would be the place to look for the information, when in fact the general sites higher up provide better info.

For your practical information, our policy is that we list sites, not pages, and your site should be submitted at the level that most closely matches most of its content.

Click to expand...

That is what I understood the policy was and why I asked.

There may be other ways that you think would be good, but right now _we_ have decided and agreed to retrench deeplinking in those areas, not increase it. Previous practice is in this case a particularly bad guide to future listings.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, I am actually in favor of this approach. Removing categories that should not exist in the first place would resolve my issues.

My goal is to be listed anywhere it is appropriate for the user to find the information on my site. And, to me, it seems like it is a disservice to that user to have those categories in the first place, if you are not going to add the sites with the best content.

So, while I realize that the editors are volunteers and busy enough already, I would hope that some cleanup work could be done in the consumer information area. I would even be willing to help out with a cleanup of that area (with editor oversight of course).

Sasquatch said:

The current structure does not serve the user. They will work their way down through the structure, and see that "tent" category, and expect that would be the place to look for the information, when in fact the general sites higher up provide better info.

Click to expand...

Oh it serves well enough. Your argument serves you very well, of course, but it doesn't change the logic of putting a comprehensive site further up in the category tree.

There is a bit of a movement to remove many of the epinions-type links in favor of more "hub" links that lead to the dinkylinks. It's a huge task. Feel free to apply to edit your area of interest.

cleaner said:

Oh it serves well enough.

Click to expand...

No, in fact it does not. There are literally hundreds of sites that have better tent reviews than epinions, though epinions will always have more reviews. But none of these sites will get listed in that category because they also review other things.

While avoiding webmaster abuse is a very important goal, if you are going to have a category, the primary consideration should be whether that category is useful to the user. As long as that category exists, someone will end up there looking for tent reviews. Are you helping that user by telling them that the only worthwhile tent reviews out there are on the mega-sites?

The best thing would be to just get rid of these categories that are ghost towns that will never grow, some of which only point to epinions pages that no longer exist.

Your argument serves you very well, of course,

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it does. But I'm not sure why you think it does. I'm not trying to collect a couple hundred of the famed precious DMOZ links in all sorts of inappropriate categories. I'm not doing this to try and scam the search engines.

I am doing this because I want anyone looking for the best reviews to find the best reviews. Which I assume would also be the goal of DMOZ in the consumer information area.

but it doesn't change the logic of putting a comprehensive site further up in the category tree.

Click to expand...

Oh, I never suggested otherwise. But the problem is that the user does not know this. There is no notation saying "check the sites a couple levels up". Not even the @ link ever seem to point up to higher levels.

It makes sense to those doing the sorting, but it doesn't necessarily make sense to those looking for the data.

There is a bit of a movement to remove many of the epinions-type links in favor of more "hub" links that lead to the dinkylinks. It's a huge task. Feel free to apply to edit your area of interest.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't have a problem with all the epinion links (I link to them myself) as long as the categories are open for others the same way. They have to be open to be useful.

Even the hub type sites are never going to fit all the way down into the current structure. They will still be up a couple of levels. There are no separate tent hubs or sleeping bag hubs.

Oh, and I did apply to become an editor one time. It was an empty, obscure category. As soon as I posted that I took it over, I found out the reason that it was empty. They had made the qualifications so strict that it was not possible to ever find any sites that would fit. Then the discussion started about whether to delete the category that I just took over. I also found out that I really suck at writing descriptions of other people's sites.

In other words, it was not a fun experience.

I would be glad to help out in other ways, but as far as I can tell, ODP only has one way in, and that way does not match my skillset.

The best thing would be to just get rid of these categories that are ghost towns that will never grow, some of which only point to epinions pages that no longer exist.

Click to expand...

We have gradually been doing that in some areas, and it certainly needs to be done in others. As hutcheson said, the skeletal structure was intended to provide a framework for growth. In some places this worked well, in others it hasn't grown.

I understand that editing isn't for everyone, but if you have knowledge in this area and would like to propose how to improve the category structure (deleting subcats, making new subcats, and/or recombining the ones that exist) we would be interested in hearing your ideas. It would be very helpful if you included a list of hub sites with reviews that might be candidates for deeplinking, as well as any specialty review sites not listed. In other words, if you create a framework with at least 5 quality listings at each level, we will gladly consider it.