Multiple Sites for Blue & Pink Diamonds

We already have a number of websites listed in DMOZ and other directories.
I am puzzled about the failure to get one of our newest sites listed, namely pinkdiamonds.co.uk (hppt://www.pinkdiamonds.co.uk), and by the removal of a previously listed site bluediamonds.co.uk (hppt://www.bluediamonds.co.uk).

We do not know whether pinkdiamonds.co.uk was rejected because:-
bluediamonds.co.uk was already listed,
there is a similar "look and feel" between the sites,
because an editor considered that we were spamming,
because there was considered to be insufficient content,
or some other reason.

We do not know why bluediamonds.co.uk was delisted. Could it have been for any of the above reasons, or because we submitted pinkdiamonds.co.uk also, and the sites were considered too similar in content or style?

We have deliberately kept a similar layout between the sites, and not attempted to conceal their common ownership.

I have read and re-read the ODP submission guidelines many times, and also read many of the forum posts, and still find it difficult to understand the ODP editorial policy.
It appears simple to rule that sites should have unique content. It also seems desirable to stop spamming.

We cannot judge what an editor considers to be "sufficiently high quality, content rich resource", but would hope that both our sites contain sufficient unique material.
We certainly do not consider that we are spammers. We chose not to set up a "Coloured Diamonds" website which could contain all the different colours possible, because some of the colours are sufficiently important enough to warrant differentiation. Pink diamonds and blue diamonds are different animals with different causes.

In the guidelines there is nothing against a company operating more than one website, although we notice the answers to some posting seem rather confused on this point.

We could have included pink and blue diamonds on one of our other websites, but we consider as our original website has grown (over 1,600 pages), it has acquired too many different sections, and become slightly confusing, outgrown its navigation structure, and keeps pushing at its bandwidth limits. For these reasons, we decided back in 1999, to try to split it into logical compartments each with its own website. Also if we start a new area of activity, then we try to give it its own site right from the start.

In the other forum postings we have read there appears to be a common them complaining about lack of feedback, and although we have seem several answers to the effect that feedback would help spammers, it would also help genuine webmasters trying to provide unique content, and wanting their sites listing, to try to understand what may be precluding their listing.

Feedback about reasons for rejection would stop us from resubmitting the same site unless we felt we had made sufficient changes, and make us feel more positive about the ODP project. Not getting replies doesn't help to convince webmasters that ODP is working in the manner suggested by the word "Open" in its title.

We have tried using the DMOZ feedback form but with no reply.

Sorry if this is rather a long posting.
"I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Blaise Pascal

Fortunately, the answer is very short. We generally only list one site per business. We generally do not list deeplinks for specific products (even if the deeplinks have their own domain).

The only site of yours that should be listed is http://www.chards.co.uk/ , not the myriad red, blue, black, pink and other diamond domains you own (not to mention various other jewelry, coin, etc. domains).

Dear Lachenm,
Thanks for the quick answer and explanation.

At least I now know why Pink Diamonds was rejected, and also why Blue Diamonds was delisted. We accept this, and do not intend to resubmit them unless your policies change.
We do not intend to submit chards.co.uk either.

Any comments which follow are not intended to persuade ODP to change its mind about our two sites, we have taken the time and effort to air them out of a desire to see quality internet resources continue to succeed and improve. For some time Alta Vista was the best search engine, sadly it has fallen by the wayside, but fortunately Google has emerged as the only worthwhile search engine. We consider Yahoo to have been the best directory, but it too has had to change its method of operation. We admire the stated aims of ODP, and wish to see it continue to be a valuable resource. Go was also an admirable directory in its time, with amateur volunteer editors, but Disney regrettably killed it.
We make our comments not just as site owners, but also as consumer-users of the web.

Obviously, like many webmasters / site owners we are not completely happy, but it appears that there is little, if anything, we can do about it.
We have only submitted sites which we think offer users sufficient extra new or different content, hence we had not submitted red or black diamonds, or some of our other sites.

It has always been our belief that any sites we submitted met your guidelines, and were not aware that there was a one business one site rule, and cannot find a direct reference to this anywhere. Surely what matters more is the total content of each site. If for example Walmart bought Exxon Mobil, would the two former companies be restricted to one single site listing after merging? Presumably not. Sure we have used the world's two largest companies as an example, but does size matter? Again, we think it should not form an over-riding criterium; content or subject matter should be the determining factor.

If an individual chose to run two or more sites with different content, one say about rock music, and another about fly fishing, presumably this, subject to other considerations, would be acceptable to ODP. To deny this to businesses is therefore unfair to any business which is enterprising enough to operate in more than one specialised area, and particularly to any business which seeks to serve a number of niche markets. This also affects smaller businesses more strongly than bigger ones. If Microsoft decided to deal in pink diamonds, it could afford to set up a separate subsidiary company, use a different address, etc., and ODP may neither know or care, and would presumably be happy to list both sites, rather than exclude the new one. This would be quite fair in our opinion, but it does tend to favour large companies in preference to smaller ones. While we would not argue that small is good and big is bad, we feel uneasy about global domination by a small number of large companies. As consumers we hope that choice of suppliers will remain.

If there is a one company one listing rule, then we believe it should be clearly stated in the guidelines, in the interests of openness and transparency. If not, it would also help to include a statement to this effect.

Our main use of ODP as a consumer, is through Google. As such, whenever we search using Google, we would like to believe that the site/page matches we are shown represents a true reflection of all high quality resources available. Our experience would be diminished if that there were sites and pages which were harder for us to find because of a less than ideal selection policy operated by an information provider to Google.

We appreciate that ODP receives many site submissions, and that it is operated almost entirely by unpaid volunteer editors. Presumably nobody thinks ODP is perfect, and suggestions and changes will continue to be desirable in an effort to attain or maintain excellence. We hope our comments will be received with an open mind.

Would it not help to include one or more extra fields in the submit site form, so that webmasters or others could state what other sites they operate, and allow them to give reasons why they believe their new site deserves consideration. The point of this would be to help discriminate between honest sponsors (good guys), and the dishonest one.

Would it be reasonable to allow a democratic method and allow users to vote on the usefulness of a site or its suitability for inclusion. Obviously this is open to abuse, very few things are perfect, but it could provide helpful feedback, and remove some of the strain from editors. New sites could even go into a "probationary" area until such feedback had been received.

For our part, although the prime purpose of our sites is commerce, we try to include a high proportion of accurate and useful consumer information in all our sites, along with opinion, and consumer feedback. This last part requires time obviously. We feel that by doing so we are ensuring that we contribute in proportion to the benefit we receive from the internet. In many cases consumers have e-mailed us to tell us that our sites have helped them make a purchase elsewhere, and to thank us for our help. We believe the spirit in which we operate our websites is beneficial to the world community. We have noticed that a number of our internal pages have been listed in ODP, yet in many cases we have not suggested them, they have presumably been suggested by others because of the value of their content. Whenever we notice this, we try to ensure that the quality of information we provide is maintained to as high a standard as possible, despite our limited resources. With more resources we could improve our content at a faster rate, consumers / users would therefore benefit.
We notice that many large companies only seem concerned to sell their products, and offer little consumer information.

It seems regrettable that many useful informative and interesting sites may be denied inclusion in ODP because of the activities of totally selfish spammers, is any consideration given to whether the operators or good guys or bad guys?

We noticed a forum reply which told a site owner that inclusion in ODP should be considered a privilege not a right, and while this may be a reasonable statement, it fails to recognise that users are denied access to a resource whenever that resource is denied an appropriate inclusion.

Feedback by editors would also help honest webmasters to know hwy their sites were rejected. We realise this requires extra time and effort, but may ultimately save time by reducing the number of submissions. We saw a reply which said this would alert spammers, but surely this couls help to reduce spamming by letting spammers know their actions are undesirable. Innocent owners of desirable sites may be being penalised for not realising how your editorial policies operate.


Although this, as our previous posting is long, we were in two minds as to whether we should make any comments whatsoever, as we wish to avoid antagonising anybody, and are fearful that any criticism, actual or assumed, may cause any of our existing listings to be reviewed and delisted. We would hope that the ODP and its editors would be above such behaviour, but we cannot at this stage be certain. We can only hope that our comments are taken as constructive and positive, and that they do not precipitate any negative reaction.

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful response.

>> we wish to avoid antagonising anybody, and are fearful that any criticism, actual or assumed, may cause any of our existing listings to be reviewed and delisted.<<

Please be reassured that neither antagonism nor criticism are necessary or sufficient to cause delisting of any site. Nor is praise necessary or sufficient to cause a site to be listed. That's just not how we work.

If a site has unique content, we will list it, regardless of what any editor may think of the owner of that site. If a company has multiple sites for what is essentially one business, we will generally only list one main site, allowing users to navigate the site in the way the company thinks best features their products, as evidenced by their site design efforts. The ODP is neither intended as an index of web pages, nor as a substitute for good web design.

One site, one business is not an absolute rule, but it is a general one, and for a site with multiple domains in essentially the same business (selling pink diamond jewelry, blue diamond jewelry, and platinum jewelry, for example), we would list one site that allowed customers to access all their jewelry content. If a jewelry company bought, say, a coin dealer, we might be persuaded to allow two listings, as these may be considered separate lines of business, even if the company is quite small. If the company bought, for example, a web design firm, I would think that they would have another listing, as these are definitely separate businesses, not just different products (or product lines) in the same business.

Surely you can see the difference between the analogies you suggested and the specific situation concerning your company. A more reasonable analogy would be allowing Exxon/Mobil to have a separate listing for each and every type of fuel or oil product that it sells (Exxon/Mobil Premium, Exxon/Mobil Regular, Exxon/Mobil Diesel...). Or allowing WalMart a different listing for each item they carry. We don't do that, either. As for favoring the big guys, I'll point out that WalMart currently has exactly as many listings in the ODP as your shop does. Yep, that's right -- as far as the ODP is concerned, your businesses are basically equal, though different in focus. Still think the ODP is favoring the big guys?

While I appreciate the thought you have put into your post, you are largely covering ground that has been covered before, both in these forums (I encourage you to check out some of the past discussions in various forums here) and in internal ODP discussions (including many senior editors and ODP staff). In this matter, the ODP guidelines are not likely to change anytime soon.

Now, to answer some of your more general ODP-related suggestions:

>>Would it not help to include one or more extra fields in the submit site form, so that webmasters or others could state what other sites they operate, and allow them to give reasons why they believe their new site deserves consideration. The point of this would be to help discriminate between honest sponsors (good guys), and the dishonest one.<<

I'm not exactly sure how this would help. Spammers wouldn't be likely to tell us what other sites they own, and we'd have to find them ourselves, just like we do now. The "good guys" would tell us, and we'd evaluate each submission on its own merits, just like we do now. Actually, as I said in the other post, we're not really concerned with whether a submitter is "dishonest" (to use your word) or a "good guy". The real question is: does the site offer unique content -- unless, of course, the submitter engages in egregious abuse of the ODP. But we usually find those, too.

>>Would it be reasonable to allow a democratic method and allow users to vote on the usefulness of a site or its suitability for inclusion.<<

I think that your suggestion, while possibly interesting in an ideal world, would open up the possiblity of enormous abuse. I can just imagine the spammers chugging away with auto-voting bots, getting their sites listed in every category. I'm afraid that I'd vote to stick with the current system of having editors who are accountable for their reviews.

>>We noticed a forum reply which told a site owner that inclusion in ODP should be considered a privilege not a right, and while this may be a reasonable statement, it fails to recognise that users are denied access to a resource whenever that resource is denied an appropriate inclusion.<<

Taken out of context, I'm afraid I can't tell you exactly what this editor meant. What I would guess is that "no site is guaranteed a listing" would sum it up. However, if a site has unique content, and if the owner plays reasonably well by the rules (i.e. not horribly abusing the system), we are more than happy to list it. Believe it or not, the main guiding principle at the ODP is to try to determine what is most helpful for the end users (the public). Unfortunately, that's not quite the same as what is "most desired by certain webmasters," which is the source of many of the complaints that you see on this forum.

>>Feedback by editors would also help honest webmasters to know hwy their sites were rejected. We realise this requires extra time and effort,<<

Yes, and we already have a lot of backlogged categories. Unfortuntately, it would also strain the server resources if we were to generate emails to each accepted or rejected site. I'd like to see some sort of notification, too, but it isn't likely anytime soon. For now, you can come to this forum. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt;For our part, although the prime purpose of our sites is commerce, we try to include a high proportion of accurate and useful consumer information in all our sites, along with opinion, and consumer feedback.&lt;&lt;

That's great. Personally, I wish more businesses had these goals. I think that providing accurate, useful information is, in the long run, likely to gain more visitors and customers for a website than any number of ODP listings ever would.

The policy on multiple domain listings was also well explained in this recent thread:
http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=submissions&amp;Number=21826

&gt; inclusion in ODP should be considered a privilege not a right, &lt;

Sounds like something I would say (some editors who know my editing history and old "pet categories" and one of my favourite films will probably be able recognise why I think it's one of my statements <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ).

If I did say it, it would have been in line with the "no site is guaranteed a listing" ODP guidelines - mainly because I know in the past some web masters have complained that "you have got to list my site, it's my right under the 1st amendment and if you don't I'll take you to court" sort of rubbish. ODP is owned and operated by a private company (hence I believe the 1st amendment wouldn't apply anyway, but I know nowt about US law) and a listing is a priviledge.. I've now got into the "thought-mode" that the next person to complain about us not listing their site "because its our right", I'm going to turn round and say "well, then it's my right to insist you link to sites X, Y and Z then" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not saying this post's applicable to your site nor even to this thread, but...

Thanks to all for your further comments, which I have read carefully, and hope to get back to soon, meanwhile another thought occurred to me, although I don't know whether it would be better posted under another thread:-

Does size matter?
By this, I mean the size of a website and its various sectors, and the amount of content in any sector before any sector would warrant an extra listing either as a subsection of the original site, or as a new separate site in its own right. Obviously the answer would partially depend on quality of content, degree of difference, and other factors such as number and quality of images, but does anybody have any thoughts, or are there any guidelines?

Generally speaking, no, size doesn't matter. Let's say I had a web site about widgets that contained (among other things) 150 pages of information about shiny widgets, a 400-page history of polka-dot widgets, a 4,346 item catalog of widgets for sale, and a never-before-seen single page but extensive biography of a lesser-known Russian composer -- the biography would likely be deeplinked to since it offers unique content not found elsewhere, even it is only 1 page. On the other, the enormous number of pages devoted to various aspects of widgets are still just about widgets and, most likely, only the main page would be listed.

Thanks motsa for your answer about size.
Following your example about widgets and a Russian composer, the direction we started to move towards some time ago, would mean we gave the single Russian composer page its own website, and expand it, rather than ask for an extra link to be given, but the general rule we are see quoted is one company - one listing.
Our original site now has over 1,800 individual pages, I haven't time to count them, but they are probably split about 40% coins, 40% jewellery, 5% Blackpool, 5% cars/parking/safety, plus small sections about search engines, spam, scams, and random thoughts.
There are over 2,800 images, with about the same content split.
Our coin pages are not all product catalogue, but perhaps 50% information, and similarly with the jewellery section.
We do have more than one listing, so I am not arguing simply to try to get extra listings, just trying to understand the ODP editorial policy. It seems to be applied slightly quirkily.

Well, let's see. You're listed under Coins, you're listed under Jewelry, and you're listed under Blackpool. By your own count, that's 85% of your content represented by your multiple listings. I think you misread my example -- your sites are most like the multiple widget sections of my example, not the Russian composer page. Therefore, like that hypothetical widget site, the site should be listed once in Topical and once in Regional. You've lucked into being listed twice in Topical since there was no easy way to list you only once and still cover both the coin and jewelry content. And you lucked into being listed twice in Regional, since the UK frequently lists sites in national groupings as well as in their locality. I'd personally quit while I was ahead in the deal.