drichman Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 I have a question about the guidelines for submitting URLs when you are an "authority website." In other words, when a website has large, major categories and sections that contain enough specific and focussed information to be considered websites of their own. A portal of many specialized subjects, if you will. Take for instance... - Babycenter.com. At my last count, BabyCenter has "48" unique URLs in the ODP to their various online articles, tools, and category sections. - Americanbaby.com has nearly "20" unique URLs in the ODP. At Parents.com ( http://www.parents.com ), we have undergone a major expansion and redesign over the past year. We now offer the same level and quality of articles, online tools, message boards, etc. And we have extensive and comprehensive sections of our website devoted to the many specific and focussed aspects of raising a family (babies, children, food, health, etc.). However, lumping all of those areas of our site into one or two categories on the ODP makes little sense for web-users who would rely on so many of our services. In addition, our monthly magazine, Parents Magazine, has been the #1 parenting periodical in America since 1926 -- with over 14 million monthly readers. Our website now reflects our magazine -- and our brand -- and is a major, and trusted, resource for families across America and the world. However, we have little representation in the ODP when compared to our competitors. Currently, we only have a total of 3 URLs to our site listed in the ODP. My question is: How can we submit our major categories, sections and tools to be listed on the OPD -- much like our competitors have done -- without overwhelming the various editors and violating the standard submission guidelines? Your help is greatly appreciated, -Dan Richman Parents.com
Meta hutcheson Posted October 14, 2004 Meta Posted October 14, 2004 You are operating under a number of assumptions that we simply do not share -- indeed, that we firmly repudiate. Just to mention a few: (1) There is some size at which we start considering subsites to be websites of their own. There is no such thing. (2) That the size of a magazine's circulation has any relevance to us. It does not. (The fact that there IS a stable printed magazine is for most purposes irrelevant. It does favorably affect our consideration of "authoritativeness", but certainly doesn't create a presumption that there is any content there to be authoritative.) (3) That we have any concerns about competitive placement of any business (or indeed about any kind of search engine placement.) We do not. We are just as happy (and generally more eager) to list websites with no commercial involvement whatsoever. (4) That your competitors submitted all those URLs themselves. It is just as likely (perhaps more likely) that editors added them on their own initiative. (5) That there is a way to violate the standard submittal policies without violating the standard submittal policies. We would not be surprised not to find such a thing. (6) That a more authoritative site will have more ODP listings. It isn't so. Sites which have scattered medium-depth content may be expected to have more listings than broad, shallow sites -- or even than very deep, balanced sites. However, there is a question hovering near your post that (IMO) is reasonable, and I would phrase it something like this: "Given that here is a well-known organization purporting to provide a lot of their information about their topical focus online: are there portions of that content that: (1) are somewhat remote from the site's focus as indicated by it's main listing; (2) contain exceptional content, compared to other resources available online (e.g., unusually authoritative, comprehensive, unique in form or informational content, etc.); (3) Cannot reasonably be mentioned in the site's main listing, or that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to find at the site based on the site's other listings... What about it?" As I say, a fair question. I've written to submitters at several magazines suggesting that they submit MORE deeplinks. Some examples that might indicate how I'd approach the subject: If "Widget Crafting Magazine" is listed in "Hobbies/Crafts/Widgets", then no way is its forum, no matter how good, going to be mentioned in "Hobbies/Crafts/Widgets/Forums". The main listing should mention the forum. It is unnecessary for "Presidents Magazine" to be mentioned under "Regional/US/Politics/Presidents/Grant"; any reasonable person would expect to find somewhat about Ulysses S. therein. But -- an exceptional article on Ben Franklin at that same site might well merit a separate listing. By the same token, an article on "Mayan Metallurgy" in "National Geographic Magazine" might well get a listing in Archaeology/Mayan, while the exact same article in "Mayan Studies" would not. The normal "minimal deeplink content" would be roughly equivalent (in information content and authority) to a feature magazine article on a highly focused topic remote from the magazine's main purpose (article on "Vampire Bats" in Scientific American); a significant book on a highly focused topic near the site's main purpose (e-text of novel by Thornton Wilder at "American Literature Classics" -- which might have many novels but no easy way to figure out exactly which ones); significant authority subfocus (collection of Gardner's mathematical columns at Scientific American); ... etc. OK, with all that in mind -- I'd suggest that you pick 3-5 URLs that represent the most likely candidates for deeplinking, post them here, and perhaps editors could give a quick read on why those suggested links are or are not likely. And then based on that, you should be able to get a feel for whether this line (of promotion from your point of view; of content indexing from our point of view) is likely to address any intersection of interests.
kctipton Posted October 14, 2004 Posted October 14, 2004 You have 5 listings: http://www.whois.sc/dmoz/parents.com It's very likely that the bulk of your competitor's links were added by editors on their own, yes. Counting links is the wrong way to go about judging a site's quality, an editor's fairness, or ODP's submission guidelines' flexibility. The trend is to NOT add deeplinks of a magazine's site unless the content is really good AND can be trusted to not go 404 next week. A lot may fit the first criterion but fail the second. Those of us with experience in these areas are known to list the main site and perhaps links to a few subsections that are unlikely to be renamed or deleted any time soon (such as forums, for example). Speaking of 404s, many magazines take advantage of a dead page to redirect people to the main site instead of giving a proper 404 warning that spiders (our own Robozilla) can detect. Has Parents.com set up a proper 404 arrangement?
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 While I fully understand, and respect, that no site ever "deserves" to be in the ODP, and all decisions are entirely left up to the respective editors, my question to you is not 'which URLs should I submit,' but, 'how do I go about submitting a bunch of URLs without "spamming" the editors?' Let's assume for all practical purposes, hypothetically speaking of course, that parents.com and babycenter.com are identical in depth, breadth, quality, range of topics, etc. (In many ways this is true). So, if babycenter.com has 48 URLs in the ODP, and therefore, it is hypothetically conceivable that parents.com has 48 similar URLs that are also worthy of being "considered," can we submit all 48 of those URLs, or is that frowned upon?? In other words, is it poor form to submit 48 "carefully chosen" URLs all at once??
motsa Posted October 15, 2004 Posted October 15, 2004 'how do I go about submitting a bunch of URLs without "spamming" the editors?'You don't. If the ODP editors consider the site to be authoritative or worthy of deeplinking, we'll do it on our own. In other words, is it poor form to submit 48 "carefully chosen" URLs all at once??Yes, yes it is.
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 Your responses are a bit confusing. Some of you (hutcheson) are saying that magazines should be submitting MORE deep links to the ODP. And others (motsa) are saying 'don't bother,' the editors will do the deep linking for you. So, which is it??
Meta hutcheson Posted October 15, 2004 Meta Posted October 15, 2004 Please reread my post. I did not say that ALL magazines should be submitting MORE deeplinks--I said SOME should, and so it was fair to ask if yours was one of them. (I did not express an opinion on whether yours should.) And I gave examples where the EXACT SAME CONTENT would be deeplinked from one magazine, but not from another. So if you're still thinking that two sites equal in content would get exactly the same number of listings, let me summarize my previous post: they will NEVER get exactly the same number of listings (the first one in will get all the listings, the other will be totally panned as a mirror site.) Deeplinks are for "exceptional" cases -- every case is exceptional in a different way.' My offer still stands. Read the examples until they make sense. Then pick three deeplinks that in your newly-informed judgment seem most plausible to you -- most exceptional in the ways that matter to us. And let us look at them.
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 Here you go... ----- Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies Drinking water on a surprising number of airplanes found to be contaminated, the government says. http://www.parents.com/articles/health/5825.jsp Possible location: Health > Conditions and Diseases > Food and Water Born ----- Backyard Feast Celebrate summer with a meal outdoors. Here are perfect recipes for a relaxed, kid-friendly meal. http://www.parents.com/articles/family_time/4122.jsp Possible location: Home > Cooking > Outdoors > Barbecue and Grilling ----- Birthday Party Planner Got a birthday coming up in your family? Plug into our planner to get dozens of ideas for the best birthday party ever. http://www.parents.com/other/birthday_planner.jsp Possible location: Home > Entertaining > Party Planning
motsa Posted October 15, 2004 Posted October 15, 2004 I wouldn't list the first one. The other two?....Maybe.
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 My question is this... Is there a limit to the amount of "exceptional deeplinks" that we can submit before it becomes "spam?" Or does "exceptional deeplinks" not qualify as spam?
Meta hutcheson Posted October 15, 2004 Meta Posted October 15, 2004 Get out of the "so many listings" mode. We do not work that way. The limit is the number of exceptional deeplinks there are. And "exceptional" is weighed based on "distance from the home topic or site focus" and "depth". The first you mention is certainly far from the home topic. But it is noways exceptional in depth, focus, or authoritativeness -- it's not close to a "feature article", more like a UPI short newsnote. This is the kind of deeplinking that will generally give you a bad name. It's also the kind of deeplinking that might happen if an editor is desperate to build up a small tightly focused topic, and it is the kind of deeplinking that happened four years ago much more often than today (so you may see some such already in the directory.) Remember, we're listing deeplinks to promote the TOPIC, not the WEBSITE! The second -- remote, yes. Comprehensive -- well, compared to what is customarily deeplinked in recipes, maybe. I'd say submit it and let the local editor decide. The third -- remote, yeah, probably: comprehensive is a more dubious matter. In a case like this, look at the category. If it's overflowing with sites not much worse, forbear please. If it's skimpy and has many sites with less content, then consider submitting. Without closing the discussion on these, how about mentioning the next three on your list?
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 Here are three more: ----- All About Healthy Eating http://www.parents.com/health/healthy_eating.jsp Possible location: Kids_and_Teens > Health > Nutrition ----- Holiday Essentials http://www.parents.com/food_fun/holidays.jsp Possible location: Kids and Teens > People and Society > Holidays and Special Days ----- Cutest Kid in the Universe Photo Contest http://www.parents.com/cutekids/ Possible location: Home > Family > Babies > Photo Contest
Editall Callimachus Posted October 15, 2004 Editall Posted October 15, 2004 The first two of those are returning server errors (503). ODP Editor callimachus Any opinions expressed are my own, and do not represent an official opinion or communication from the ODP. Private messages asking for submission status or preferential treatment will be ignored.
drichman Posted October 15, 2004 Author Posted October 15, 2004 We flushed the cache on our servers at 4pm today for about a minute or so. Should be all set if you check now.
senox Posted October 15, 2004 Posted October 15, 2004 Should be all set if you check now. Not really. For me it's currently a 500 error.
spectregunner Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 My question is this... Is there a limit to the amount of "exceptional deeplinks" that we can submit before it becomes "spam?" Let's make this nice and simple. Yes, there is a limit. Spam is anything more than: -- one submission to the single best topical category -- one submission to the single best Regional category -- one submission to each of the single best non-English language categories where the site has significant content. Do not submit more than that no matter how wonderful, unique, or spectacular you view your site.
Recommended Posts