Writing An ODP Compliant Title and Description

As editors, much of our time is spent rewriting submitted descriptions and titles as part of our editing tasks. We often hear, "Why does it take so long to get a site listed?" Well, that's one of the reasons.

Much of this time consuming work could be done by yourselves, before it ever reaches us, and it would greatly increase our ability to review sites and get them listed, if we were given compliant titles/descriptions to begin with, and it would speed up the whole process for everyone.

I'm one of those who believe that there is a massive work force outside of the Directory that should be utilized because I recognize that there is a webmaster/seo industry out there that submit a great many site suggestions to us.

The first thing you need to understand is that a Directory description is much different than a description you might want for pr or search engine purposes.

What we try to do is to describe to a web surfer who has never been to the site two things, what the site is, and what kind of content they will find if they choose to visit the site. This means the information has to be factual, read as full sentences, and limited to two or three sentences.

The rules (Guidelines) for writing these descriptions and titles that every editor follows can be found here:
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html

These are openly available to the public.

There are also special Guidelines for Real Estate sites because the rascals are a tricky bunch and they've forced us to adopt certain measures to deal with that fact. Those can be found here:
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html

When we see a compliant looking description submitted, it very likely that we'll look at that site suggestion first. It doesn't have to be perfect, no one expects that, and we'll give it a bit of tweaking if necessary, but when faced with tens of thousands of sites, I think you can imagine the kind of time it might save us, .

Another thing you can refer to are the sites that are currently listed in a particular category and the type of descriptions they have. That will give you a good indication of what we want.

A list of keywords or advertising text will not be accepted and it may delay it from even being looked at. We get thousands of site suggestions, and human nature being what it is, we're more apt to go for the easy stuff first, and let the more difficult ones just sit there and stew for awhile.

Recieving thousands of ODP compliant descriptions will absolutely speed things up for you and us, and it gives you something concrete that you can do that will make a difference, .

 

This is getting depressing... are there any quality porn pages listed at all?

BTW I got some body painting photos at the end of the APPF gallery, do these qualify me for deeplink in adult or they aren't sleaze enough?

 

The adult section is offensive to many of us, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about the other 99% of the Directory and writing descriptions in that. I did mention that you should check existing listings in each specific category to see what kind of descriptions are acceptable there.

If you want to talk about categories you personally hang out in, then you should perhaps start your own thread about adult, so the rest of us aren't submitted to your perversions.

 

How is it offensive to you while you defend it at the same time?

Are you saying that those listings are against guideline and the 22 listings are result of corruption? Do you agree that guideline is not really a guideline but a collection of loopholes to make it possible for senior editors to abuse the directory in anyway that they like?

 

I don't defend it, I accept that it's out on the Internet, and the Directory catalogs what's on the Internet, but again, you are off topic. Take your discussion of adult to your own thread, not this one.

 

It is not about adult, it is about correct title and description. These people were so good in writing title and description that they have got 22 listings even if they don't have any content and there is misleading link in that one page that they have. They should serve as an example for anyone who wants to write "guideline" complaint titles in order to get multiple listings.

There are many better sites on all subjects out on the Internet, how come DMOZ is not interested to list those sites and you claim editors have no obligation to list any site?

 

Please start your own thread about adult, you are off topic, and as the OP of this thread I know when someone is off topic.

 

• Topix - News from thousands of sources, sorted geographically for US cities, as well as a wide variety of subjects.
  
• Topix - News from a wide variety of sources.
  
• Financial Services News - Topix - News on the financial services industry continually updated from thousands of sources around the net.
  
• Biotech Industry News - Topix - News on the biotech industry continually updated from thousands of sources around the net.
  
• Business News - Topix - News on business continually updated from thousands of sources around the net.
  
• Topix - Health News - News items gathered from many sources around the web.
  
• Topix - Algeria News - Headline links from media sources worldwide.
  
• Topix - Angola News - Headline links from media sources around the world.
  
• Topix - Botswana News - Headline links from media sources around the world.
  
• Topix - Central African Republic News - Headline links from media sources around the world.
• Topix - Congo News - Headline links from media sources around the world.

Very informative, so much that they needed 10,000 listings to repeat the same one sentence.

DMOZ guideline is a joke, it is a collection of loopholes.

 

Excellent post Crowbar. Let me know when captcha is working properly, I have lots sites for some obscure regional cats ready to send you.

 

Thank you, Annie, I'm sure they'll be great ones, . Dang technology never works right.

 

That one was done by robot so it doesn't count - maybe robot did Adult too?

Same here, that captcha is annoying and useless, as if it isn't bad enough I got no idea which websites I've already submitted and which got rejected for who knows what reason.

P.S.
Are you trying to get crowbar removed for showing favoritism?

 

gworld has always admitted she has deliberately lied to ODP, to get several editor accounts, if there is corruption there perhaps we should start with her.

gworld claims to want to improve ODP but constantly carps about adult, where she was an editor. Sadly when crowbar seeks to enable the general public who are not interested in porn on gworld's sites or the internet, but want to get decent sites listed, she derails the topic into being about porn.

Please start as many threads as you like about your seedy porn websites but leave the ones alone that may be of genuine interest to webmasters. For a change don't show yourself up for what you are.

 

A porn queen complaining about porn listings? Now I am confused, but she's still off topic.