Hi all, I'm about to create a new directory. I have heard that DMOZ clones are not loved by Google, but how does Google identify clones? 1) can I copy the DMOZ categories/subcat structure ? 2) assuming I have the categories, I will need to populate them; I don't want the directory to appear empty to new users. How can I kickstart the content (since I can't just copy DMOZ)? Or is it OK to show up with an empty directory? -- Dan
Check out http://dmoz.com/help/getdata.html or http://rdf.dmoz.org/ . They talk about how to get both the category structure as well as the link data. I don't know about the Google side of the question, though. BTW, I'm hoping empty directories are OK: I just tried to 'kickstart' my own one thread down
Yes, I know about obtaining a DMOZ "dump". My concern was with Google's treatment of (and designation as) DMOZ clones. In other words, how much can I copy from DMOZ without being declared a clone? -- Dan
Because there are many categories, and re-creating a taxonomy is a lot of work. I'd rather put that work into making my directory "different" and "better" via functionality (I believe I have some original ideas). Sure, if it's the only way to avoid being labeled a clone, I could re-create the taxonomy, but I'd rather not. -- Dan
How about making the root categories first, and make the subcategories later when someone submits a website for it. Make empty subcategories invisible for users, I hate it when you go into subcategories of a directory and then to find out that all of them are empty. My 2cents, Theo
Creating the unique category struture is better than using other ready made dbs. Unique category structure will take lot of time, but its best professional way for the development and uniqueness of your directory..
theo-zzzz, how can one post to a category that's invisible? Making people "request a new sub-category" is too much effort too ask; they will simply post upstream, polluting the directory. All others, thanks for the feedback. No consensus seems to emerge, so I'll think about it a little more. I'm tempted to start with dmoz categories, then maybe mutate over time. -- Dan
When I visit a directory website and all I get are empty categories. That's a directory I will never visit again. You will put off visitors by serving empty categories, that's my opinion. See this also http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2464.htm Theo
I make my own category structure, then populate each category with a few sites that I just pull from google, that way every category has something in it.
They don't pollute the directory - you simply add the categories and move the new listing into it. After all every time you add a new category you then have to revisit the existing listings to see what's meant to be in there. Personally I only work with the niche directories so the RDF dump is less relevant but being pro-DMOZ I would put a vote in for it as you know the listings won't be filled with SEO spam and you have a massive start to your directory. On the flipside it does mean you have to show the attribution even when the directory has evolved well beyond the dump. Totally agree with that. And those categories that say they have contents but its just more empty categories...
OK, I see there's a strong sentiment against empty categories. This bias seems to be based on the directory reader's interests; I still think submitters will prefer a clear pre-built structure with enough depth. A good compromise might be to show the empty categories only when someone requests the "Submit" link. Perhaps with a little warning when the current category has empty sub-categories. To everyone who suggested "growing the hierarchy" gradually -- I prefer to keep manual splitting/moving of categories to a minimum. Has no one heard about Google's anti-DMOZ-clone bias? Perhaps it was just a baseless rumour? -- Dan
Google's anti-DMOZ-clone bias isn't a baseless rumour, it's based on a tightening of the duplicate content filter. Google obviously doesn't want more than one copy of the same information in its index. Obviously this doesn't apply to its own version, because that has the "added value" of presenting the sites in (old) pagerank order. So even if Google isn't successful at catching all copies of DMOZ clones and excluding them from their index, you can bet that this is what they are trying to do. Personally I think it's bad to show up with an empty directory, since it provides your users with no reason to visit. This in turn makes it less valuable to submit to. Empty pages mean that real users are much less likely to find it through the search engines, and when they do find it they are much more likely to leave immediately. No content is also a good sign that the directory owner is unlikely to spare the effort to develop and promote it. You can kickstart the content by going out and finding your favourite sites, and adding them. Don't expect submitters to write all your descriptions for you, because 90% of submitted descriptions/sites are useless spam.
With all due respect. Your focus is on submitters. While visitors and especially returning visitors are far more important. Theo
In your opinion (and mine). However the submitters are the ones paying the $10. mdalan talks about PR so I figure his target market is webmasters and search engine bots. The directories are not designed for end-user consumption.
sarahk, (and theo-z*) in a way you're right -- there are 2 viewpoints to take here (submitters vs. users). But no, I'm not building a PR-only directory. I just figured that DMOZ is so submitter-unfriendly that there is an opportunity to please submitters. It's not a black-and-white issue -- I'm just aiming to be a little more submitter-friendly than others A PR-oriented directory sounds like a link-farm, and that's not what I want to do. -- Dan