Multiple sites in one URL

I have a site that I have submitted to ODP. However, there is another, self-contained site under that site (visualize "siteA.com/index.php" then "siteA.com/something/something2/siteB.html"). Is it OK for me to submit the second site in an appropriate category in addition to the first site?

I checked the existing postings and could not find anything relevant. Most posts seem to concern getting one site posted under multiple categories rather than my particular concern.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

That of course depends altogether on what you call a "site."

You often see people in webmaster forums say "I just published 20 sites and ..." -- That's really just 20 fright masks for one blind affiliate. Or when people can't get every one of their product sales pages listed separately, they whine "but Geocities has a bazillion listings." Once you get out of the Narcissist's brain, that's multiple sites.

The presumption is that if the material is all related to your own person (including family, hobby, business) then it's probably one site, and "deeplink" rules apply. (This is, of course, the same regardless of how many domains you spread it over: if it covers multiple topics in extraordinarily outstanding detail, it would be eligible for deeplinks.)

The exception would be, of course, if you maintain a website for your local church/coven/civic club/charity/choir/college/etc. within your personal website. That would not be "your personal" stuff, that would be another organization, and it might be worth considering for a listing.

The usual rule, which works more than 99.9% of the time, is that if you ask for a deeplink, you certainly do not deserve it.

Another attempt to get the right perspective is this. Don't ask whether your site is so wonderful that it deserves multiple links. (Of course you think so!) Ask: "Can this category possibly be valuable to surfers without my deeplink listed?" If the answer is "no", then we'd probably list it.

More Detail

OK, so lets go a little deeper. I could not find a definition for "deeplinks" but assume that it would apply to linking to something below the top level of the site, such as your example of the church group.

In my case, I have a site that is related to a region. There is original content within the site and links to other sites where a person can find extra information or more specialized information relating to something in my site.

Under this site, I have a second, self-contained site of several pages relating to something that is located within the region but entirely different from the top level site. The is no overlap between the content of the top site and the lower level site other than where you would expect overlap because of the regional connection. Again, the lower site contains links to third-party sites that are relevant to the lower level site.

From my brief skimming of the ODR, I would say that it would be regarded as autonomous if it were hosted in a different domain. In this case, both are within the same domain for economic reasons.

I see this as similar to a compilation of books. If I publish "The Complete Works of <fill in a favourite author>", the material of an included book retains the merit and standing that it did when it was originally published as a separate volume. This would be different from a situation where I publish a compilation of several books where there is overlap in the content and the appearance of there being several books is a sham. In your reply to me, I read between the lines that the latter situation is something that the editors frequently have to deal with.

I hope this helps to clarify my question. I look forward to your further advice.

In a case like you describe, pick which of the following would be the more accurate description of the site?

A) Spelunker's guide to the Mississippi floodplains: features map and pictures of 17-mile underhang.

B) Exploring 17-Mile Underhang: with information on other gypsum formations in the Lower Mississippi floodplains.

I've seen sites of both kinds.

Now, having picked the major focus of the site, submit it to the one category. If you can't decide which, submit to the more general category.

Now, if you chose the more general category, then look at the specific category.

If your content there OBVIOUSLY outshines (in authoritativeness, depth, and comprehensiveness) MOST of the sites in that category AND if it OBVIOUSLY contains significant informational content not available at any other sites AND if the specific category is not ontologically the most important feature of its class in the region, then there is a slight possibility that the editor would consider a deeplink.

Directory users have to know that a site on a "general" region will perforce have information on various locales within that region, and may have information on any locale in that region. So the very strong presumption (in a case such as you describe) is that two listings are not necessary; the skilled editor will be able to fully represent it with one listing. And only in "exceptional" cases (adjudged by an IMPARTIAL outside observer) would we even consider alternatives.

Your assumption that spreading the content across multiple domains would make multiple listings more likely -- actually, read the submittal policies. It would make ZERO listings more likely. There are any number of reasons why "Eric the half-a-site" is LESS likely to get listed at all! (We call it "low-balling spam.")

If you detect a lack of sympathy in all this, you may be correctly divining our sentiment. You do not get multiple listings by asking for them! You get multiple listings by creating exceptional sites, with EFFICIENT navigation (not NO NAVIGATION between various parts) and by NOT asking for multiple listings.

A couple of weeks ago I processed a couple of submitted deeplinks from the same site. Both were easy rejects. But one of them led me to build up a category including half-a-dozen deeplinks from OTHER sites. They, you see, were indefagitable in building content, not importunate in promoting it. They generated content because it was worth generating, not because they thought it would give them a place in the ODP. They didn't submit their sites to the ODP at all! It is an editor's duty and delight to list them.

Hutcheson,

I really appreciate the time you are taking to explore my questions. However, I'm a "newbie", interested in doing things "the right way". I really want to understand the process so that I don't waste your time (or that of the relevant editor).

I detect that you spend a lot of time resisting efforts by people who are trying to "game" the system. I'm sensitive to that but I feel you may be getting dragged in that direction too much and as a result are not helping me to clearly understand your points. In the hope this is the case, I'll try again and ask you to please bear with me. I intend to submit several sites in the next few months so getting me "squared away" now will be a good thing for the ODP.

My first web site is designed to promote a self-catering cottage. The site has several pages covering the property, the ameneties of the community where it is located, photographs, recreational activities in the area, places to shop and eat and also how to get there. There are links to specialized websites for attractions in the area and also to local travel sites such as the nearest major airport etc.

This site is similar to several other sites in the region and in other regions that are listed by ODP. Single topic, original content written by me or from my perspective. From what I can see, these sites are correctly placed in the ODP, by category and by geography.

Now, I have another idea. There is a region that I know a lot about. I have an idea for a site relating to this region. Extensive web research shows that there is nothing equivalent to what I have in mind. I think my content will have independent value when complete/mature. I have enough conviction to spend significant effort to produce the material.

Again, this second idea is represented by several sites covering other regions and listed on the ODP.

For the sake of arguement, assume that each of these sites is created with excellent, original and entertaining content.

If each of these sites were submitted by different authors separated in time by (say) a couple of years, my review of ODP suggests that they would have a good chance of being listed after the appropriate review period.

Now, assuming that they are made by the same person around the same time should they not also have an equal chance of being listed?

If the answer to the last question is yes, what does it matter where these two sites are maintained in cyberspace? In my case, I want to maintain them both on the same domain to avoid two sets of hosting charges.

Please "have at" my logic but please do understand that this is a genuine question, not some scheme to artificially split material between sites to try to create more listings for what is essentially the same site.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Let's put it this way, because this is the way WE are GOING to be thinking:

In breaking up the content from one site into multiple sites, you destroy valuable information.

And therefore the result is less deserving of listings than the single original site would be.

If the single original site were worth one listing, then the resulting site shards should receive exactly zero listings. Exactly.

As for your straw-man argument, I've never seen anyone try to implement that, who I wouldn't have called a "malicious sneaky lowballing spammer" to his face. Zero listings is the UPPER bound. That bit in the submittal policy about not submitting "related" sites -- we take that very seriously, and that bit about "can result in removal or rejection of ANY sites related to you" -- that is not a hollow threat.

This is worth repeating. I do not believe it is even possible for you to think like that, and produce ANY material that we would even be willing to give ONE listing to. And if all your material is not on one website, we will assume you're pulling something sneaky because you KNOW you're being malicious. And we will be right 99.99% of the time. Now, being human, we're wrong more often than that on almost every decision we make! So that is as good a rule of thumb as we can conceivably come up with.

That's the way we think. You can create your sites however you want, but if you want to submit to the ODP, just submit an "index" or "doorway" site with links to all the others. Or put yourself in the same category as the devious malicious spammers who are our most bitter adversaries. Your choice.

Stumped!

I find your logic and reasoning impenetrable. You seem to be battling someone other than me. Since I'm new and trying to do the right thing, I'll back off here on the assumption that as the communicator, it is my responsibility to get you to see my point. Clearly I'm not doing that.

You are also the "authority" so I will not make further submissions along this line until I figure out a better way to make my point, or figure out where I am in error.

I will say that your last response to me is a little over-the-top. Since you put time into the ODP project, I assume you want to encourage others to support the project. I have reviewed several threads in the forums and I see a certain agressive attitude in many of your responses to others. Your level of frustration with the legions of spammers and gamers should not spill over to those with serious and innocent intent. "Volunteer" does not cut it. After all, you are the person who set yourself up for this. Please take this comment as constructive feedback and give people a little benefit of the doubt.

On a practical note, you do seem to hit many similar posts regarding problems with the submission process. This suggests improvements in communicating the process might help. I'd volunteer to help with that myself, if I were not too new to be useful.

What you were talking about could be taken to be nothing else but attempts to figure out the ground rules for "gaming the system". Sorry, but that puts you in an adversarial position. So don't go there.

Here is my advice, speaking as a developer.

Develop your site, for all that it is worth (to you.) Do it without any regard to the ODP at all -- remember that no site is guaranteed a listing at all; and in any case a listing may not be immediate (it might be months even after it's submitted.)

Keep your site together: an integrated site with recognized authority (that is, a local sponsor and source of local information) is, as I say, worth MORE than two splinters of the same site (because it contains more information.) It is worth more to EVERYONE: to the sponsor, the surfers, and us. And that greater value will eventually in some way translate into greater visibility.

Focus: provide more depth than anyone else does, on two or three "local attractions," rather than skimming the scum off the pond surface for a score of them. Later on, you can gradually add the deeper content for more topics.

Differentiate: provide content that the other sites on the subject don't.

Navigate: Make sure your content can be found easily. Link to the sites that do provide content, rather than duplicating it.

Be exceptional. (It is not that hard. A digital camera, a day's sightseeing, and you have a unique record. Do it once a season for a year, and you have an exceptional record.) It is the exceptional sites that are deep-linked.

Be detailed. You want to know how many "tourist guides" I've read that assure me their region is chock-full of plants and animals, and people come to see them? Well, duh! Get someone that knows about the local animals. Get PICTURES of the local animals. Tell us what there is about those slimy mudflats that attracts the animals. Tell us what the animals are up to at night on the mudflats. Don't tell us what's a tourist attraction. Tell us what's unique. And we can decide whether we're attracted. (If you want a sample of what editors would fall over themselves to deeplink, look at the little articles on nature walks in Natural History magazine.) The same racket works for historical sites (include an e-text of an old book on the subject -- instant deeplink!) or cultural attractions. Or museums: ask them for permission to do an article-length review of -- any aspect of the museum.)

Network: If there is a small struggling category on "Mud Flats County Recreation Area" -- try to find more content on it. If an editor in Muddy County/Recreation gets half-a-dozen submittals for MFCRA, he's going to consider building a category, using those submittals and some Googling. And the deeplinks come in from the Googling. Rather than focusing on trying to be the top five sites that appear in Google for "Muddy County Recreation", try to raise the visibility of all of Muddy County on the web -- a rising tide floods all mud flats, or something like that.

Yes, this takes research. But I'm persuaded that any time you want to spend 24-40 hours researching a local topic in depth and creating unique informatioal (NOT promotional!) multimedia magazine-article-class spread on it, you can attract incoming links.

Sometimes it doesn't take much. I have some two-page articles that get links because there's nothing else like them on the web (or, so far as I can tell, in one place off the web.) Sometimes, where there's competition, it takes more. But it's worth it.

Because then what happens? the Muddy County editors start creating subcategories for all the local mudholes. Lots of opportunity for deeplinks, and lots of interested editors Googling for them. And you're in the position of providing selective, premier content.

You won't have to target the ODP: you'll be targeting the ODP customers, you'll be generating unique content, and the ODP will target you.

More Advice

Thanks for all of the practical advice. I think I understand the points well but reinforcement does no harm. I think that in my ignorance of the finer details of the ODP, I have probably submitted a site that does not have much chance of catching an editors eye for at least six months or so until the level of content has built up. How do I go about retracting a submission?

TIA