www.Shoparama.com

I know the shopping section of the ODP is one of the most difficult categories to get into. I also know that the editors don't like affiliate directory sites.
With that in mind, I'd like to know if there's any hope at all that my site could get listed.
I offer important tips to users as well as the ability to rate each merchant and a new forum to discuss shopping experiences.

Since redesigning, I've received positive feedback from users and other webmasters.

Should I bother applying? What suggestions can be given to make the site more useful to users?
www.Shoparama.com

Best Regards...

Should I bother applying [submitting]?

Click to expand...

I would say no. The links are all (or almost all -- I didn't check every single category) affiliate links, most of them cloaked. The site is a directory of affiliate links -- take away the affiliate links, there's really very little left.

What suggestions can be given to make the site more useful to users?

Click to expand...

If you're already getting positive feedback on the site, then I'd say it is already useful to users. But useful to users and listable in the ODP aren't necessarily the same thing, especially when in comes to sites that are virtually nothing but affiliate links.

Thanks Motsa..

It's just that many people get confused because the ODP shopping directories category is full of the kind of sites that fall in the affiliate directory category.

The big guys:
http://webcenter.shop.aol.com/main.adp
http://froogle.google.com/ (for crying out loud!)
http://eshop.msn.com/

others:
http://www.shoppinghunt.com/shopguide.html
http://www.digichoice.com/site1/apparel/Apparel.htm
http://www.eshopnet.com/

I think that is what throws people...
It just doesn't seem fair. Fairness rules!

I still love everybody and the world is still the most beautiful place I've been.

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi shwing.

To quote "I think that is what throws people...
It just doesn't seem fair. Fairness rules! "

I think most of us agree with that, but to be fair, the sites I looked at in the group you nominated are legit directories; not simply just affiliate sites.

Could you explain how?
They use exactly the same affiliates I use. Even froogle. MSN? that's totally all affiliate links... so are the rest of them.
I realize I won't get in but let's get honest here.

Sorry, no. Discussing other people's sites here is not encouraged because it usually does not solve the problem and only clouds the issue.

The problem with Shoparama.com in its current format has already been clearly stated.

&lt;&lt;The problem with Shoparama.com in its current format has already been clearly stated.&gt;&gt;
-- not really but let's leave it at that...

There's another dimension to "fairness," that is embedded in most national legal systems as well as implicitly included in the ODP guidelines. And that's the temporal aspect.

The first guy to publish a new idea has special ("patent") rights. That may not be fair to the second guy to publish, who really had the idea first but was in the hospital at the time: but it was considered a good deal for society -- it encouraged people to publish good ideas, and after 14 years or so, anybody could be using them.

The first website to post e-texts of the complete works of Sir Walter Scott has certainly created unique content. The second website....probably hasn't. And the ODP lists "unique content."

Now, there are ways in which the second edition may be better than the first, and in fact the ODP often lists several versions of classic works: some in ASCII form, some in HTML, some in annotated hypertext, some on standard archive servers, some at authoritative but shortlived academic sites, some integrated into personal fan pages, etc. (And I've published some XML versions of texts previously available only in ASCII or primitive HTML.) But after we've a half-dozen copies of a text, then we really have to ask: is this ADDITIONAL copy really worth it?

The sites you mention have been around longer than yours -- so to be "fair," in the socially accepted theory of creativity, they SHOULD be treated BETTER. (How much better? editor discretion.) And, to the extent that those sites have content similar to yours, they reduce any conceivable value that yours might add to the directory. And to be fair to the USER, the presence of similar sites raises the bar for your site's judgment.

Life is like that. You can't open a new gas station across the road from an established station, and expect to get business charging the same price. You've got to add value somewhere.

So when you say, "my site is exactly like 20 sites that are already listed, so you must list it," You're not even barking up the wrong tree, you're digging a hole for yourself on the wrong side of the forest. What you _must_ be able to say is, "my site is totally DIFFERENT from all 20 related sites that are already listed" -- and yes, we know that that is a harder thing to say than "my site is different from all 3 sites already listed."

Well said hutcheson, however a site like Froogle is pretty new and uses affiliate merchants. Froogle is also unfair competition for independent sites who just want to make commissions to stay alive. Many large sites like Yahoo, Google, AOL, MSN depend on affiliate merchandising for a good portion of their income so it's no surprise that shopping is a very competitive area.
Like I said, I'm no longer trying to convince you guys to consider Shoparama.
Let's just call a spade a spade.

Just a thought, as I know you guys have had this same argument ad nauseum...
Have you considered a section called "Crummy Affiliate Shopping Guides" or something similar. We do exist you know and it's not as easy as people think -- to add those links and weed them out as more dot coms die out. It's really an esoteric art form.
And I'm dead serious too.

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

You know, many of the various SEO forums have tips on how to increase traffic to your site without it being listed in the ODP. That avenue would probably be your best bet here.

&gt;Froogle is also unfair competition for independent sites who just want to make commissions to stay alive.

So is Microsoft, but we're not the Fates, or even the FTC. We just list web sites.

&gt;Have you considered a section called "Crummy Affiliate Shopping Guides" or something similar.

Yes. We did that with MLM sites. The experiment was very successful: it showed us a good approach to avoid with vigor. We shall not repeat the experiment with ANYTHING anytime soon.

yikes!

Shwing could always give up the idea of producing crummy affiliate sites and become an editor. After all of the above, he/she has a running up start!

Just mosey over to the ODP and click away. You could even say you know motsa and hutch and ....

I was just going to say.... I still love everyone and I also still enjoy a hearty discourse.

I tried the editor thing - failed woefully - still nursing exit wounds and a long glass of bourbon straight up (well...not really, just seemed to fit <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )

He/she/they/we/you --- I'm all-in-one. It's unified energy because I am you. Did you know? You've seen me on the corner. You looked passed me and couldn't catch my eye because it brought back memories of things you prefered to forget.

I'm going back to the drawing board to recreate my story.

And you?

BTW, I know motsa, motsa is good. I may never be as good as motsa.

&lt;&lt;BTW, I know motsa, motsa is good. I may never be as good as motsa.&gt;&gt;
Well... I knew Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was a friend of mine....
ok..I don't know motsa...

Hi everybody, and hi motsa and cleve <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />.

The discussion here is about the site of one of our competitors.
Just to make that clear!

He should burn in Hell hehe!

Just kidding… He brings up the same issues we were discussing with you a few weeks ago.
I read now “hutchesons” post about “patent” rights “unique postings” and ask myself:

If dmoz is about “patent” rights, meaning sites who had an Idea FIRST (that does not imply any evaluation of the quality of the realization of the idea) and “unique postings” like (black socks with Pokemon figures and Dracula teethes). Why are there so much sites, which are based on copied and more or less improved “patents” and useless sites (duplicate content) listed in the Directory?

Follow your own guidelines and remove 90% of your sites.
The new set guidelines also require a staff of just a couple dozen editors to keep the “patented” and “unique” content updated. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Let’s utilize Google as an example of your submission policy:

First Spider based search engine? No
First PPC Search Engine? No
First Ad-Space selling Site? No
First Product Specific Search Engine? No

Google NEVER invented anything, they just improved. It was never unique (if you reduce it to a basic Idea). What Google did was to IMPROVE existing “Patents”. They are big now. I know. I used Altavista for years as classic Search Engine and use now Google.
Why? They do a better job. Old Ideas, of course… They just did a better job than Altavista in the last few years.

Goto or now Overture (PPC Veteran) is now challenged by Google Adwords. Google’s Adwords are just a copy of existing PPC technology (they try to make it work better of course).
New Idea? Hell no.
Overture even charges $0.10 PER CLICK as MINIMUM now. Commercial big time, okay, but pioneers and also market leaders, right? Listed in Dmoz of course. Don’t want to miss a pioneer.

You list now sites, which are super-affiliate sites themselves now.

BizRate is not what it was a few years ago. I appreciated the QUALITY comparison shopping to evaluate merchant next to its competitor. Gone! BizRate is now nothing more that a CatalogCity.com Style Super Affiliate (not in DMOZ… hail… yeah…).

DealTime (9 Links in Dmoz) an Altavista Super Affliate Links Portal.

Parasites like Ebates, WhenU , iWon and Gator.com are listed listed in dmoz because their unique content. Sorry, but it’s not even decided yet, if some of the stuff those sites are offering is legal. My example now is ugly and it is intended to be like that.

Would you have listed me as soap reseller on dmoz.de in 1943, if I would offer high quality soap mad of human bones? No legal problem in germany at this time, unique, for sure!
“Patent” … most likely! Nasty… extreme example.. I know.

The landscape for eCommerce Sites is changing every year. Travel Sites buy each other and fight fierce battles for customers among each others, ugly sometimes. Online Ticketing is also a popular target. Both markets are in a middle of a revolution.
The regular eCommerce will follow in their footsteps.
Most big playes are going either with the Affiliate Program shema or the PPC shema.
All the shemes work for he merchant and the consumer looses.
Comparison Search Engines loose merchants, because they do not want to be compared.
Who is the better Merchant, the one, who can afford payments of x% Commission to Parasites and Portals for every single sale or the merchant, who has the better prices in the first place?

You hate us now and think we should not be listed in your precious directory where we are black listed already. Look at the facts of reality and you will realize, that a lot of your precious sites are not shining anymore and that the Idea of new sites such as the one in question here or ours is not that bad after all.

what he said!

everyone just assumes shwing's a guy huh?
like everyone thinks Dr smith's a guy or chief running water's a guy...

THAT deserves a tsk tsk...

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt; If dmoz is about “patent” rights, meaning sites who had an Idea FIRST ... why are there so much sites, which are based on copied and more or less improved “patents” &lt;&lt;

What hutcheson said was that it wasn't about who had an idea first, it was about who published an idea first. For our purposes 'pulished' means 'submitted to the directory', hence we'll list the first site that we receive that contains a given content. We'll look closely at the next few sites with similar content to see if they've improved upon it. We'll look less closely at the next dozen or so because they'd have had to make quite obvious and significant changes to be worth listing. After that, if the content is still recognisably the same, it's not worth adding.

Even after several hundred submissions of the same content, we still take a quick look to see if the author has done something new and useful with it. If they really have come up with an innovation, we'll list it. Obviously, the more copies of the same content that we have, the less likely it is that anyone will be able to improve it any more, but we always check just to make sure.