The Light Has Dawned

First of all can I apologise to jimnoble and crowbar for their patience in my previous thread and my parting sarcastic comments.

I have finally seen the light and realised what "Read the guidlines" actually means.

For all you would be web designers out there that are frustrated with your sites not being listed in DMOZ, take a hint from me. Swallow your pride, stop your frustration, forget about DMOZ being an easy ride to page ranks etc and read the guidlines.

I like many others, assumed that I had understood the submission guidlines and probably like many others assumed that my site would be included automatically because (I designed it why shouldn't it?).

The trick is to get your commercial head off and start thinking about the end user, the simple facts are (already been stated a thousand times on DMOZ), design content rich websites for the end user not for the search engines, be unique (we can all copy content) and be patient.

My repects go to the many editors who have to suffer the abuse from people like me, simply because we don't understand.

There is much truth in what you say webstudio2000.

For reference:

• Main help menu
• How to suggest a site
• More advice & help on getting listed
• Resource Zone Posting Guidelines

Most of the issues people ask about on these forums are explained in detail on one or more of the above pages. It is not the usual legal yada yada and is very different to the way a lot of other directories/search engines work. As webstudio2000 said read it it will make the process of getting listed a lot easier to understand and will improve your chance of getting a speedy review of your website

I think you are starting to understand, webstudio2000.

Even the titles and descriptions of our listings are aimed at the consumer only.

We try to speak to the web surfer who is presented with say 30 possible sites to click on in a category. What is the site, and what can be found on it are the two basic questions a surfer needs an answer to, in order to decide whether to visit it or not. No hype, just unbiased facts.

If there are ten sites with the same generic information on them, there is no need to list 9 of them, it adds no value to the category, and serves no purpose for the web surfer, other than aggravating them by wasting their time.

If all ten of those same sites also had some unique content, found nowhere else, that would be of benefit to a web surfer, then all ten sites would most likely be listed (as a service to the web surfer, not the site owner). And that unique content should be mentioned in the description.

"Unique - 1. Existing as the only one of a kind. 2. having no equal;unparalleled. 3. not typical; unusual."

I think a better way to state it would be "unique content for the category it's in." What is unique in one category, might not be in another category.

Were I a webmaster, I would look at the current sites in a category, and tell my client, "Give me something unusual, that would be of great help and value to a web surfer interested in this topic, something none of these other sites have." And then make it stand out prominently where it can be seen.

Depending on the category, unique content could be something as simple as a profile of a real estate agent and some of the community activities they might be involved with, their credentials, information about the community, or testimonials. Something that would benefit a surfer looking for a real estate agent.

In a water garden category, it might be nothing more than photos of their personal water garden and some text about how they built it. That's unique content.

For a widget producer, it might be something about the manufacturing process, or a certain type of widget no one else makes. The main goal is to keep the web surfer in mind, and to be of service to them.

Remember, we don't deal with companies or judge their worth, we only deal with websites and what's on them. The entity is unimportant to us, only the content on the site is, and what value it has to the web surfer.

That's my personal view as an editor, I only speak for myself.