The “unique content”

It has been mentioned innumerable times that a website must have “unique content” to be considered for inclusion in the DMOZ. I have read the FAQ’s, the Social Contract and the Open Directory Editing Guidelines. I must say that the one thing that eluded me was a clear definition of “unique content” in the context of a specific category. I must explain the last statement thoroughly.

Let’s assume that there exist two websites, site A and site B. Site A is a website describing farmer John’s operations. Site B is about a farm that produces eggs and is run by farmer John. No, not the same farmer John. I am from Wisconsin. It is not unusual to have to neighboring farmers named John. Anyway, the content on both sites is quite similar. Site A is submitted to ODP Category A and sites B is submitted to Category B. Lets also assume that the Category A and Category B are the most appropriate categories for these websites. Site A has content that will be unique to Category A and site B has content that is unique to Category B. By unique I am implying that there are no other websites in these categories with remotely similar content. The question is: Would these websites, Site A and Site B satisfy the “unique content” requirement of DMOZ? A follow up question is: Is the term “unique content” a subjective representation of the underlying principal of ODP, the directory must contain unique websites as perceived by the editors?

Please, do not rush to label my inquiry as a manifestation of an ulterior motive of some sort. It is not!

In general terms, by their very nature, two websites for two different farmers who are completely unaffiliated with one another would each be unique as they are describing two separate businesses. In specific terms, though, we can't attest to the sufficiency of said uniqueness using hypothetical sites. It is entirely possible that there is something about the relationship between the two sites/businesses that renders one or both unlistable.

It is also possible that, while a website has the POTENTIAL to contain unique content (that is, about the business of which it is the unique representative) it doesn't actually achieve that potential. For instance, an "online e-business-card page" isn't listable.

The “unique content” in the context of a specific ODP category

I must say that I did indeed have an ulterior motive. It was to understand the unique content requirement in the context of a specific category in ODP. The Site A and Site B are completely and utterly hypothetical. The underlying issue still remains: Does the content needs to be unique for the category that it is being suggested in? Let me extend my thought a little further. Does the website being suggested for specific category needs to have unique content pertaining to that specific category?

You need to give us specifics if you want more of an answer than "It depends on the situation."

>Does the website being suggested for specific category needs to have unique content pertaining to that specific category?

Yes. And that is an important aspect, although it may seem counterintuitive. (Could we just not move the site to somewhere its unique content IS relevant? We should if we could. We usually do as we should. Sometimes, but not always, we can.)

riz said:

Does the website being suggested for specific category needs to have unique content pertaining to that specific category?

Click to expand...

As sites with the same (type of) content should be suggested in the same category this question is not relevant.
If a site describes a real company in the form of "this is the company and this is what we do for a living" the site has almost always unique content (it could have not enough as hutcheson already wrote). If a site is about "this must impersonate a real company and we get a small piece of the cake if we sell stuff that belongs to this other company" it is and never will be listable.

That is all what `unique` means. Are you describing something of yourself or are you just copying or modifying content that belongs to someone else.

I appreciate the candor in which every one has discussed this issue here. My question has been answered to the full extent as I had envisioned.

pvgool said:

Are you describing something of yourself or are you just copying or modifying content that belongs to someone else.

Click to expand...

The whole discussion was about an ambiguity in my understanding of the “unique content” requirement. It had nothing to do with any factual scenario, nor will it ever be. Again, I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness extended to me.

Riz,

I'm sure you've already read it, but sometimes people miss it.
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

The ODP's goal is two-fold: to create the most comprehensive and definitive directory of the Web, and to create a high quality, content rich resource that the general public considers useful and indispensable. In short, editors should select quality sites and lots of them.

Consider the relative value of a resource in comparison to other information resources available on your particular topic. Relative value refers not only to the quality of the site, but also to its ability to contribute important, unique information on a topic.

Click to expand...

Without specific information about a specific situation, this passage tends to sum it up best.

Basically speaking, the sites editors list should add value to the category. Having a bunch of sites rehashing the same basic information would not make the category more informative/useful to a directory user.