Guidelines for adding Multiple listings on DMOZ.

It is referenced in the guidelines as a further source of guidance on deeplinking. Call it a supplement to guidelines or the "official" interpretation, but it is the primary source available and the one to which all editors asking the question are referred.

If you were to document the actual practices (except Adult), i.e. how the interpretations have worked out in reality, then I think you would find it pretty consistent and easy(ish) to understand as it is almost invariably that split between knowledge/information resources on the one hand, versus product and service marketing pages on the other. There is a lot of time passed since that article was written and it should be possible now, with all the experience built up, to review, rewrite, and adopt formally into guidelines, something clearer.

It appears to be the case that practices developed that did not accord with practices elsewhere. Certainly that was my position, I couldn't deny it. But part of that position was that it was out of line with the main directory which forms 99% of listings (and the Adult share is declining) and more than 99% of editors. So in any general circumstances editors will be referring to the 99% and rising where guidelines are mostly much clearer and a lot less contentious. Could it happen elsewhere? I don't believe so, the circumstances that allowed it to happen in Adult were quite unique in that the branch is comparatively insular and has been resistant to issues raised by non-Adult editors in the past. Whereas most senior editors will roam around most of the directory at some point in time and feel free to join in discussions, there is one place most won't go.

 

I would hope that you're right, brizzie, but the point is in a large organization it is far better to lay out the rules clearly and make sure everyone understand them than to blindly trust in the goodwill or good sense of everyone in the organization.

 

Obviously had the guidelines been much clearer then the situation that has arisen in Adult, and which has been the subject of attempts to change it several times over the years, would most likely not have happened or not been allowed to happen. Let's hope this will eventually be resolved.

 

I;m glad there are still editors (no matter the level) who actually spend their own unpaid time to explain and protect the DMOZ community.

If some of you didn't took the effort to do this, DMOZ would've been dead a long time ago.

 

There seems to be a distinct difference in what you refer to as "rules" and what editors refer to as "guidelines" which are open to interpretation. As long as there are only guidelines as opposed to rules, it's probable that there will be no change. I hear editors mention that guidelines are just that - guidelines and not rules.

 

That's a good and possibly crucial point, CReed.

 

It is true that guidelines are just that, guidelines. But some have the force of rules. Inappropriate deeplinking is an indicator of possible abuse (or of an editor needing some education). A guideline that is a rule will be specific on that and often carry a warning of penalties. Other guidelines have a "range". For example, a site is definitely listable and rejection may be abuse, a site is definitely unlistable and acceptance may be abuse. Inbetween there is a grey area where editor discretion comes into play.

Take http://dmoz.org/guidelines/accounts.html#one

ODP editor accounts are issued solely for the use of the person who applied for it. Accounts should not be shared with a relative, co-worker, or friend; encourage them to apply for their own accounts instead. Accounts discovered to be shared among multiple people may be removed.

That is a rule, not an option. Breach it and lose your account.

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/accounts.html#removal allows for removal of accounts for "Failure to comply with the editorial guidelines" clearly indicating the existence of mandatory rules.

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#descriptions on the other hand gives guidance on best practice but editors will develop their own style compliant with what a good description is. It becomes a rule when editors develop a style that reflects the do nots.

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#note tells editors about making notes and some are mandatory - rejecting a site must have a valid reason in the note, and some are options - useful information. Often no note will appear when a site is accepted.

 

The guideline regarding editor accounts is clear and concise;

The guideline for deeplinking is open to individual interpretation - and it also seems that the guideline has not been applied as intended:

General Rule: In the vast majority of categories and branches, deeplinking is the exception rather than the rule. Deeplinks should offer content that is unique and extremely useful to a particular category. There are no strict rules regarding the type of site that should or should not be deeplinked. Providing deeplinks, in a uniform way, to sites that offer extremely useful and unique content can add value to the directory in a few cases (e.g. categories with very limited content, and where the meat of the available web content is typically buried within larger sites). However, editors should be very judicious when adding deeplinks of a particular URL. If you are uncertain about adding deeplinks, ask an experienced editor, such as a meta or an editall, for advice or guidance. Ultimately, all deeplinking decisions are subject to staff approval.

 

Let me state this clear.

DMOZ has a Suggestions guide. Not a RULES guide.

This is the litlle bit of information that SOME do not understand.

That Suggestion guide notes a LOT of usefull and correct info, but it's up to each editor to develop his own rules, based on those suggestions.

 

Thanks for the clarification, now everything makes sense.

When DMOZ guideline states that affiliate doorway pages should not be listed, that is only a suggestion and editors base on that suggestion make their OWN RULE that affiliate doorway pages should be listed.

Thanks again, now I understand how it works.

 

You twist the situation. You know what i wanted to say.

I am FOR DMOZ too, not against it.

Nothing personal either.

 

Well I got a bit bored posting what I thought to be basic common sense numerous times in this thread only to keep being told I missed the point time and again... when I don't think I did. In fact I know I didn't.

Brizzie didn't clarify for me or for you Minstrel, what he meant when he mentioned 'types'. Only later did he clarify what he meant for us. You agreed ( I think ?? ) regardless.
Guidelines and multiple listings for.. is the topic in question. I'll say again, without even having to read through loads of rules and regs and guidelines, that in 'layman's terms' it's just common sense why deeplinking should happen in some areas and not in others.

I think some of the posts here get soooo technical and go over so many people's heads, that most of the points are lost TBH. I myself was lost many times and I was only talking about 'Forrest Gump' and 'Mumps' ???
But I tried to give adequate examples to the reasoning behind deeplinking and why it's different in some areas, that I hoped most people, editors and non-editors alike would understand.

Endless links to boring old guidelines may be of interest to those who edit, or those who would like to discredit it by picking them apart. But to those who just want to know why basic deeplinking principles do or do not apply, I refer you once again to 'Forrest Gump' and 'Mumps'.

I think common sense gets lost a lot of the time here in discussions in favour of 2 page's worth of 'guideline' discussions.

At the end of the day.

1) Does anyone at all agree that deeplinking should/ should not be acceptable in areas such as , Health , Education, Kids and Teens, Movies and Games. Basic theory being that it gives the surfer the info they want in a concise and easily searchable manner rather than them rooting through individual 'general' sites to find what they are looking for ?

2) Does anyone see why deeplinking would or wouldn't be a problem in Shopping to do the same ? Given that it would result in 1000's of url's in each area most of which would be changed every few weeks or so ?

3) Is there anyone here that thinks that a few Guidelines should be black and whitely applied acros the board regardless of what the surfer loses out on ?

'Types' or not, I've said before and will say again, different categories serve hugely different purposes, and guidelines have to reflect that and bend to what the objective is.

Basics, let's stick to them rather than get embroiled in arguing about a sentence here or a sentence there, and go with overall logic concerning why some areas allow deeplinking and some don't. It's a PR disaster also if editors and those who critique dissappear up their own bums to out do each other on 'technicalities'.. and pretty yawn-inducing I should think for those that just want an answer why. ( In simple terms ).

Time to put your feet back on the ground and talk to real people, webmasters and surfers alike, but let's make it simple eh ?

 

Common sense is against DMOZ guideline and can result in editor removal. Do not make such outrages suggestions again or I have to file an abuse report against you.

On the serious side, you are right. I wish DMOZ applied common sense to the guidelines but that makes the abuse too easily detected and it is not acceptable. That is the reason there are hundreds of shades of gray in each guideline and sometimes sentences in the same paragraph contradict each other.

 

Agreed.

Agreed.

Can't understand the black and white thing.

 

Black and White thing..?

Same guidelines, rules, regulations, deeplinking practices across all categories regardless of objective, whether it's education or Gucci handbags treated the same.
ie : I should be able to go straight from Kid and Teens/ Health editing to Shopping/Real Estate and do exactly as I was and shouldn't need to learn anything different. I think ?

 

Absolutely.

 

You do ? Fine by me..

Do you sell them ?

Only joking, but simply, why do you think so ? And you don't see at all that it may cause a few problems ?

 

I appreciate a joke anytime.

No. When we are speaking of websites. Not categories.

Categories, as you said before (Shopping versus others, for ex.), need separate guidelines.

Websites, on the other part, should not be separated, as far as guidelines go. I don't care it's stanford.edu, or insert-my-best-greatest-cheapest-company-phrase-part-here.com

 

As per the title of this thread, I'm wondering if the best way to get multiple listings on DMOZ is to become an editor.

 

No. I definitely do NOT agree. If deeplinking is acceptable for certain types of content in ANY category, it is acceptable for the same types of content in EVERY category. It makes no sense whatsover to say it's OK for adult and not for Kids or Health or Education or whatever. The criteria should be based on content, not on category. Be consistent.

See above. Deeplinking is either not appropriate anywhere or it is appropriate everywhere, depending on the content of the website. The category is irrelevant.

Yes. If the guidelines make sense and are applied consistently and equally across the board, no one loses. You cannot count on the judgement of editors when it comes to deeplinking - the experience of Adult shows you that. For that matter, so does the confusion among non-Adult editors, including yourself. You make a rule and enforce it. Period.