Hi I have a website Table Table apartments Second Hand level is very high and quite a lot of time trying to send it in the category that matches the site however there is no response even though there are other sites that are less than the level of my site and they on damoz, how can such a thing be?
my website ?
- Thread starter smilansky
- Start date
We get this question a lot. It's really very simple. You're making a lot of hidden assumptions, and every one of them is wrong.
You assume that the editor will know what "second hand level" is. And he won't.
You assume that he'd care about it if he knew. And he wouldn't.
You assume that he'd know what the "second hand level" of your site is. And he won't.
You assume that someone has a list of all the sites with higher "second hand level" than a site in the ODP. And nobody does.
You assume that if anyone had a list of sites with high "second hand level", he'd think it meant something. And ... you'd be wrong.
See, editing works like this. You look at a site. You list it if it has "significant" "unique" content -- information that's not anywhere else on the web.
Then you look at another site. You list IT if IT has "significant" "unique" content.
Then you look at yet another site. You list it ...
How do you pick which site to look at first? Chance. (Or Editor Intuition. Or Whatever Looks Interesting. But multiply all the other things by a few thousand editors, and it all looks random.)
And when you look at a site, you don't say "I won't list this until I find and list all the sites with higher 'second hand level' (or higher 'Google rank' or higher ANYTHING)'.
You say, "I'll list this site if it contains "significant" "unique" content. And if I find another site later, with higher or lower whatever, I'll list IT also, if IT contains significant unique content."
And that's what gets listed. Some sites with high Google rank, and some sites banned from Google. Some sites with high traffic, and some sites with hardly any traffic. Some sites that are very attractive, and some that are very ugly. Some sites that are very large, and some that are tiny. Some sites that are W3C-validated, and some that are generated by Microsoft FontPlague. Some sites that are generated by big companies, and some that are generated by unemployed poor people. And yes, some sites with high "second hand level" (whatever that is) and some sites with no level at all, second-hand or otherwise. AND NONE OF THAT MATTERS.
All that matters is, does the site contain significant unique content?
You assume that the editor will know what "second hand level" is. And he won't.
You assume that he'd care about it if he knew. And he wouldn't.
You assume that he'd know what the "second hand level" of your site is. And he won't.
You assume that someone has a list of all the sites with higher "second hand level" than a site in the ODP. And nobody does.
You assume that if anyone had a list of sites with high "second hand level", he'd think it meant something. And ... you'd be wrong.
See, editing works like this. You look at a site. You list it if it has "significant" "unique" content -- information that's not anywhere else on the web.
Then you look at another site. You list IT if IT has "significant" "unique" content.
Then you look at yet another site. You list it ...
How do you pick which site to look at first? Chance. (Or Editor Intuition. Or Whatever Looks Interesting. But multiply all the other things by a few thousand editors, and it all looks random.)
And when you look at a site, you don't say "I won't list this until I find and list all the sites with higher 'second hand level' (or higher 'Google rank' or higher ANYTHING)'.
You say, "I'll list this site if it contains "significant" "unique" content. And if I find another site later, with higher or lower whatever, I'll list IT also, if IT contains significant unique content."
And that's what gets listed. Some sites with high Google rank, and some sites banned from Google. Some sites with high traffic, and some sites with hardly any traffic. Some sites that are very attractive, and some that are very ugly. Some sites that are very large, and some that are tiny. Some sites that are W3C-validated, and some that are generated by Microsoft FontPlague. Some sites that are generated by big companies, and some that are generated by unemployed poor people. And yes, some sites with high "second hand level" (whatever that is) and some sites with no level at all, second-hand or otherwise. AND NONE OF THAT MATTERS.
All that matters is, does the site contain significant unique content?