Site dropped :: How can I get relisted again?

"flicker" said:

Well, that's not completely true, now is it? A lot of people make their own goods and sell them online, themselves. I buy from such mom-and-pop stores all the time.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment. Of course, you are correct. I neglected to see that point of view and stand corrected.

What I'm having a really difficult time understanding is the seemingly contradictory policies being enforced.

art.com
allposters.com
globalgallery.net
nothinbutprints.com
etc., etc., etc.

Its a small industry. We all get our products from the same place, as the copyrights to art print images are owned by a single source, typically the art publisher, which owns reproduciton and distribution rights through licensing arrangements. The stores above are virtually identical in terms of the prints they offer. I can site massive product duplications with many, many of the sites that are currently listed. So if the idea for the directory is to provide 'unique' content for outgoing links, why is there so much duplication allowed.

As an example, there are 81 retailers all selling Apple Computers here. How is that unique?

The second contradition is that if uniqueness was the goal, the entire directory would be riddled with 'only' mom and pop shops who offer products they themselves have made. Clearly, there are many big players listed.

Sorry guys. We have our ways of knowing things. We like to keep those ways. Not going into specifics is one of the ways that we keep our detection methods to ourselves. There are too many spammers monitoring these boards for us to reveal our methods. I wish I could help you further but the guidelines of this forum prevent it.

I respect your need to protect yourselves from spammers, absolutely. I would do the same.

Would you be willing to PM me? I'd really appreciate some clarification on the position taken.

Thank you.

It's not information for the public, period. In think this thread is beggining to verge out of the forum guidelines.

If possible, I'd like clarification on the general aspects of the matter, because it does seem to have changed since my own tenure as a DMOZ editor, although the rules themselves look remarkably similar. Naturally, in my work I have to advise many webmasters on what the current guidelines are *and* what the current interpretation of those guidelines tends to be.

It used to be that we'd (editors, as that's what I was back then) judge a site on its content, not just its products. Perhaps 80 sites might sell the same products (for example, brand name sporting goods) but those sites that had useful content were judged on that basis. e.g. the site of a sports club that sold sporting goods but provided great resources about the rules or such of a particular sport.

Not to get any more specific than necessary - has that now changed?

>It used to be that we'd (editors, as that's what I was back then) judge a site on its content, not just its products.

In Shopping categories, the content IS the products and services proffered for sale. Nothing else counts as shopping content.

In Information categories, "resource pages" from Shopping sites are considered as Deeplinks.

What has changed isn't the definition of "unique content" so much as the implications of it. Four years ago, a one-paragraph biography of some notable eighteenth-century creative genius was "unique". Today, we can find good three-paragraph biographies for almost anyone in Encyclopedia Britannica, and the encyclopedia.com-type entries are a glut on the market. online gambling affiliate sites used to decorate themselves with a page or two of rules for card games. Today that would be an instant reject, with disgust -- why are those slimy spammers wasting our time?

The effective standards for deeplinks of this kind are significantly higher. We'll still list good resources, but ... you need to tell your webmasters to look for something not already available on the net.

Black_Knight said:

it does seem to have changed since my own tenure as a DMOZ editor, although the rules themselves look remarkably similar

Click to expand...

As time has passed, tolerance for lookalike/sellalike sites has decreased. That's the change. Newer listings are harder to get, and older listings are increasingly likely to get the axe.

Thanks for the clarifications. I guess it makes sense. The net just keeps on growing and basically, there are only so many products; only so much can truly be unique; etc.

But here's a question: How many true varieties of coffee beans are there? How many of the coffee-selling sites use the same variety of beans as others in their coffees?

Be careful, because if you state that it is the blend that is unique (which is patently true) then you also have to consider whether affiliate sites are offering a unique blend of products too - don't you?

I'm a little concerned is all. You see, many artists may paint using the same shade of cobalt blue. Going by the uniqueness of the materials would miss the entire uniqueness of the art. The art of selling is often like that too. Many sell without uniqueness, but many have a USP (Unique Selling Point). A USP is obviously unique. No?

Sorry to press, but I really do need to understand this, not just be able to quote it.

What an artist is not unique products, but a unique service--unless he's been through the Thomas Kinkade course, no other artist will paint exactly the same way. In the same way, a plumber offers a unique service, even though many other plumbers use exactly the same pipe wrench technique, no other plumber lives ten minutes from YOUR house, which is a highly relevant datum when YOUR toilet explodes. And Walmart offers a unique service -- although most of their products are available elsewhere, nobody else ships them to one place where you can pick them up on your way home. A coffee plantation offers beans from its trees, and nobody else can offer beans from those trees. A coffee distributor can offer unique blends, by the simple expedient of blending beans from his own choice of suppliers.

What you actually do yourself is almost always unique in some respect, and you'll basically always know what that is. The services other people do, that you promote on a website, are almost never unique -- they themselves have absolutely unique knowledge and authority to describe their offerings, and their own websites are what we want to list. Likewise the leads you collect for other people to follow up on, and the orders you collect for other people to fulfill.

Aggregated advertisements for other peoples' offerings are barely listable, but ONLY if they are one of the handful of best sites in that class in the world. (allposters.com, despite its deplorable affiliate program, is such an aggregator.)

Thank you for your continued help in explaining this to me (and other readers) Hutcheson. It is much appreciated.

a plumber offers a unique service, even though many other plumbers use exactly the same pipe wrench technique, no other plumber lives ten minutes from YOUR house, which is a highly relevant datum when YOUR toilet explodes.

Click to expand...

Actually there are 4 plumbers within ten minutes of my home, I believe. Does this mean you'd list none of them, or that the one who'd been listed would suddenly been dropped because someone else followed his lead?

Walmart offers a unique service -- although most of their products are available elsewhere, nobody else ships them to one place where you can pick them up on your way home.

Click to expand...

No Walmart here in the UK of course. However, there are quite a few large 'general' stores, a couple of supermarkets, and basically at least three places that offer any particular product I can think of, so I'm not seeing the uniqueness there either.

I can see how this applies to Regional of course, but the pure eCommerce store doesn't have a 'regional' or 'location dependant' aspect. Well, not until we make 'virtual' a Region, at least.

Perhaps I have simply been 'thrown' by the earlier tack taken and am thus reading things the wrong way. I noted earlier that the uniqueness sought was in the product with the comment about mom and pop businesses that produce unique goods. I couldn't help but think how that would mean that only publishers could be listed for books (which made me wonder if Amazon could thus be listed under such rules).

I think we are both agreeing that there are other aspects of 'uniqueness' that are applicable, not just products. That being 'the most comprehensive' or the 'only one to deliver by courier to guarantee delivery to a specific hour of day' could also be classed as unique. However the rule of marketing is that any successful model will be imitated, emulated or outright copied. Has there been any policy discussion on how this is to be handled, or is that pretty much still on a case-by-case "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" basis?

Aggregated advertisements for other peoples' offerings are barely listable, but ONLY if they are one of the handful of best sites in that class in the world. (allposters.com, despite its deplorable affiliate program, is such an aggregator.)

Click to expand...

Thank you, that example does help.

To bring us back once again to our rather crude but effective art/artist analogy, we are all certainly agreeing that people who paint by numbers are not original or unique enough for this category. The question remains of whether an artist who creates reproductions of other famous artists, but more than one such artist (thus offering a wider range than the original artists individually) would be listed.

What Hutcheson is saying, in his own inimitable style, is that for bricks and mortar businesses there are two elements to consider - location and products/services. The location element makes them unique by definition. Don't quibble please! I know that in a few cases there will be more than one lawyer in the very same building. But essentially if a business is listed at locality level in Regional, the question of whether its products/services are unique in the whole world doesn't need to be asked.

The case is different in http://dmoz.org/Shopping/ . The category description and FAQ are worth a look.

jeanmanco said:

essentially if a business is listed at locality level in Regional, the question of whether its products/services are unique in the whole world doesn't need to be asked.

Click to expand...

NOT true. NOT NOT NOT true.

"Unique" is not that hard a concept. It is fatuous to say that no product is unique in every way. Of course not! When we're talking about goods and services, it boils down to this: what you and your hirelings choose to do with your grubby hands is unique. And you can make a unique website about what you are willing to do, and where, and how, and how much.

If, on the other hand, there is no business without the website, there is no possibility of unique content for the website. The best it can do is inaccurately recycle used information from real businesses, or be paid by real businesses to offer advertising for their own unique websites. Neither is listable.

OK Cleaner - let me rephrase that. If a bricks and mortar business is suitable for listing at locality level in Regional, bearing in mind our guidelines in general and any specific guidelines relating to that particular type of business (e.g. Real Estate) and in every way conforms to the principles that have developed of listing in Regional, approved by meta editors and staff, then we are not going to be concerned whether it is the first or fifth plumber in Much Piddling in the Marsh.

Different standards will be applied to such virtual enterprises as regional and local directories, or online shopping sites listed under Shopping categories in Regional, and may be applied at our discretion to deep links of chainstores, etc.

Furthermore nothing I say should be taken as any kind of guarantee that any site in particular will be listed in Regional.

Thanks once more to all who are helping me to clarify as closely as possible what is and what is not considered unique. Very much appreciated.

Is there any chance I could go back to a couple of questions that remain unanswered?

the rule of marketing is that any successful model will be imitated, emulated or outright copied. Has there been any policy discussion on how this is to be handled, or is that pretty much still on a case-by-case "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" basis?

Click to expand...

The thing I or a client has as an original and unique thing today is tomorrow's standard. Will sites be de-listed once others copy the uniqueness, or is this too early to expect firm policy guidelines on issues DMOZ doesn't yet deal with daily?

whether an artist who creates reproductions of other famous artists, but more than one such artist (thus offering a wider range than the original artists individually) would be listed.

Click to expand...

This question arose from Hutcheson's own 'Walmart' example when he stated:

Walmart offers a unique service -- although most of their products are available elsewhere, nobody else ships them to one place where you can pick them up on your way home.

Click to expand...

It seems as though the 'aggregation' process made the site unique. However, this was obfuscated a little by the locational aspect as well. Is Amazon an example of a site that makes a unique feature of its huge range without having to be locational? Does this mean that the 'blend' of products offered can be unique, or is that discarded and discounted in the assessment of uniqueness?

Off topic, it's great to chat with you all again.

Perhaps I shouldn't have introduced the regional motif. It wasn't specifically applicable, and I may have gone further afield than was helpful. It's not my fault, the doctor says I have A.D.D. but what does he know? I mean ... hey, look at the rabbit!

<later>Black knight, upon further contemplation, I think part of your problem may be your elitist arrogance creeping up on you: you're thinking in terms of "rude mechanicals" beneath contempt, while the "true artiste" generates creative, unique works of art worthy of a listing in the ODP: the flunky in the warehouse is not worth mentioning, but the Product Manager at the ad agency with the expensive office is a genuine specimen of humanity, a creative genius.

But the ODP is aggressively non-elitist (even though some editors' interests may have elitist aspects). We have fan sites for Madonna as well as scholarly sites about Handel. We list sites with original poetry that I'd be ashamed to have written -- let alone have my name on -- as well as the complete works of Shakespeare. We have plumbers as well as architects, lawn service companies as well as aerospace firms. If you will put your hand to something for hire, then information about your business is "unique content."

Most so-called e-businesses do not offer products or services to surfers. They offer promotional services to other businesses. And so they can't possibly have anything unique information for the surfer.

For Amazon, the issues are simple enough that any idiot can see them. Amazon is a genuine, legitimate bricks-and-mortar distributor, with its own stock, services, price list, etc. Amazon affiliates are promotional advertisements, nothing more, with no conceivable unique shopping information. For Vstore/SMC, the concepts are again idiot-visible simple: the affiliates are merely promotional advertisers. The difference between a vstore affiliate and an amazon affiliate is twofold: the amazon affiliate is MUCH more informative--they tell you up front whom they're promoting--while the vstore affiliate does not give that information. And that difference in information provided reflects an intentional distinction. The Amazon program is fundamentally honest: they created something that could be used to add value to a unique site. The vstore/SMC program is fundamentally dishonest and evil: the retained information is the most important part of purchasing something by mail, and it is concealed specifically for the sake of ease of spamming both search engines and directories. We ODP editors, as one of the biggest single collection of SMC victims, take their contemptible behavior VERY personally and VERY seriously. But that doesn't make it any easier to prevent being injured by them.

What does all this have to do with the site in question? Well, it's very hard for us to tell whether it's something like an SMC shrouded-doorway-page, or is a legitimate business. Nothing that has been said about the site in this forum (even assuming it's true, which is not something we could do without independant verification anyway) helps resolve that question.

Which is another way of saying: whether or not there is a BUSINESS with the RIGHT of creating a listable website, there isn't [yet] a listable website.

<later>Black knight, upon further contemplation, I think part of your problem may be your elitist arrogance creeping up on you: you're thinking in terms of "rude mechanicals" beneath contempt, while the "true artiste" generates creative, unique works of art worthy of a listing in the ODP: the flunky in the warehouse is not worth mentioning, but the Product Manager at the ad agency with the expensive office is a genuine specimen of humanity, a creative genius.

Click to expand...

LOL

Nope. No 'elitist arrogance' here, but out in the real world, it is not, ever, the "flunky in the warehouse" as you so winningly term him/her that decides marketing policy, website content, or promotional activities. It usually isn't the Product Manager at the Ad Agency either, but I guess you prefer to keep this "idiot-simple" and need the extreme stereotypes.

I deal with whomever has the responsibility for getting things done, be they in the penthouse, the warehouse, the outhouse or the dog-house.

Most so-called e-businesses do not offer products or services to surfers. They offer promotional services to other businesses. And so they can't possibly have anything unique information for the surfer.

Click to expand...

Then I guess your eBusiness Services category must be very empty, right?

An eBusiness which offers no unique content of its own and primarily offers promotional services to other businesses sounds a lot like any search engine or directory. All they do is collate the info of others. Yet that organisation of information is the unique service and the value of the whole thing.

It is starting to sound as if DMOZ would not deserve a listing in DMOZ. After all, thousands of mirrors do everything DMOZ does, but with added extras...

Since that can't be the case, I must still be missing something in your replies, or we are all being a little too simplistic.

You have certainly been missing the point of mine completely thus far it seems:

What does all this have to do with the site in question? Well, it's very hard for us to tell whether it's something like an SMC shrouded-doorway-page, or is a legitimate business. Nothing that has been said about the site in this forum (even assuming it's true, which is not something we could do without independant verification anyway) helps resolve that question.

Click to expand...

I take full responsibility for this misunderstanding.

I thought I'd made perfectly clear in my very first sentence of my very first post that I was not going to discuss the site that this thread started about. I said:

If possible, I'd like clarification on the general aspects of the matter, because it does seem to have changed since my own tenure as a DMOZ editor, although the rules themselves look remarkably similar. Naturally, in my work I have to advise many webmasters on what the current guidelines are *and* what the current interpretation of those guidelines tends to be.

Click to expand...

See the part about "general aspects of the matter" there? That's what I'm trying to discern. Not this case, but rather the issues and underlying policies that this discussion brought up. It could have come up on another case, but this was simply the one where I saw it come up.

If it helps you to split this topic from that point, so that no-one will be confused by the switch from discussing one particular case to discussing the broader issues, then go ahead (assuming the forum allows for that, which I believe it does). I didn't anticipate such confusion, and for that I apologise.

I'd mistakenly thought that spelling out the full and precise motives behind my asking, as well as outright stating that I wanted to talk about non-specifics would be an "idiot-visible simple" way of avoiding the confusion. The trouble is that we are all human, and thus all idiots (in the 'only human' sense) with our own ideas of what is visible and simple

In essence, as someone who speaks to many people who would like to be listed in DMOZ correctly and deservedly, I need to understand not only the guidelines, but the common interpretation of them too. It comes back to this earlier helpful reply:

As time has passed, tolerance for lookalike/sellalike sites has decreased. That's the change. Newer listings are harder to get, and older listings are increasingly likely to get the axe.

Click to expand...

I'm simply trying to get as good a handle as possible on what has changed, and how much, with particular emphasis on what aspects of originality get recognised (as products do) and which get dismissed (as organisation often does). Only through understanding it properly can I ensure I pass on only good advice to others in future, as I have in the past.

Yes, you are right, dmoz.org cannot be listed in a Shopping category. Although it links to many shopping sites, you can't buy any ODP products here. (Well, I think cafepress has some cool ODP mugs and mousepads that editors can get, but that's not ENOUGH unique product.)

Different categories have different kinds of unique product. One of the best sites for the greatest musician in history has lots of affiliate links -- no problem, they don't add to or detract from the site's chance of getting a listing according to its informational (musical) content. Other sites have banner ads, Google AdSense text ads, sponsor links, etc. That's fine. We just don't count it as content.

Hmmm...

I think that when reviewing websites, there is an initial fundamental classification for whether the site is primarily commercial, informational, or regional in nature. Some sites are clearly only one of these, others are a mix of two or all three, and still others are in reality one type pretending to be another type. The evaluation of a site's type is important to the further evaluation of its unique content.

It is starting to sound as if DMOZ would not deserve a listing in DMOZ.

Click to expand...

DMOZ is an informational only site. Unique content for informational sites is what (words, pictures, information organization) is on the site. The ODP's content is its unique ontology and links with descriptions of the websites. It meets our criteria for listing.

Consider a similar appearing site that has neatly organized categories similar to Shopping/, with affiliate links and descriptions of products. Shouldn't this site be listed per the criteria specified above? Nope! This site is not an informational site, it is a commercial site. Unique content for commercial sites is what products and/or services are being sold. As far as products go, this site has none, and wouldn't be listed.

In between these two extremes are a variety of sites - informational ones that begin to add commercial content, commercial ones that try to appear informational, regional ones that try to claim they serve the world, etc. This is where it is hard to define a specific criteria - type of site, amount of unique content compared to the rest of the site, and value of unique content to the category it is being considered for are all factors. Listings that were valuable a year or two ago may not be as valuable today, and might be deleted tomorrow - due to both changes on the site itself and changes on other listings in the category.

hutcheson said:

If, on the other hand, there is no business without the website, there is no possibility of unique content for the website.

Click to expand...

I think this is the simplest way I've seen this concept explained. If the only thing at the other end of the website is a webmaster with a computer hoping to get rich, the site is not likely to be one meeting ODP listing criteria.

HTH

More on the subject of directories.