DMOZ and Hostile Propaganda towards a competitor

Here is an explanation of the meaning of "related sites" that I penned a while back. Webmasters tend to take a very narrow view and intepret it the same as a mirror. Editors take a broad view.

Related, from an editor's perspective, means a business that markets/sells related services and products, but elects to market them on separate websites. Web hosting, web design, content management, domain names, etc. etc. are all (for DMOZ purposes) related products and services. If there are 4 websites belonging to the same business selling each of these products separately, editors will only list one of those sites. Otherwise Business A would get 4 listings because they have put up separate sites for each services, when Business B gets 1 listing because all their services are on the same site. In fact, Business A is risking getting no listings at all because spreading their content too thin may actually leave each site with insufficient content for a listing. Business in this context is taken to be the entire business portfolio of a particular entity regardless of tax and legal corporate distinctions.

So we are talking related in terms of content AND beneficiary (owner/operator/etc.)

Sites that are related in terms of content only will almost certainly fall foul of other provisions such as lack of original content, affiliate, etc.

Sites that are related *only* in terms of beneficiary are not subject to rejection on those grounds alone, though many fall at other hurdles.

Examples:

• Andy owns a web design site, Ben owns a web design site, they are direct competitors, both may be listed subject to having sufficient original content, even though they are both selling more or less identical services.
  
• Charlie owns a web design site and a web hosting site. They are selling related services (web services) for Charlie's benefit. David, his nearest competitor, owns a site selling web design and hosting services on the same site. Charlie and David are entitled to one listing each, subject to having sufficient original content. Note that by splitting his content between two sites Charlie may have spread his content too thinly and both his sites might be deemed as having insufficient content to be listed.
  
• Ernie owns a web design site and another selling teapots. These are entirely different business areas and even though the sites may have reciprocal links each would probably be considered independently.
  
• Frank owns a site selling retail teapots, and another selling wholesale coffee. Very careful consideration would be given as to whether to treat them as related or separately. Each site would be scrutinised very carefully and maybe several editors would get involved.
  
• Gary cuts a deal with Frank and becomes a reseller of Frank's teapots. Frank rehashes the content of his site and gives it to Gary as part of the deal. DMOZ won't list Gary's site - it lacks original content.

The more clear cut the lack of a relationship between the content: teapots, web design, etc. the easier the decision to treat them independently. The same the other way around, the closer the relationship the easier to make a decision to treat them as related. From "Internet", the circle of "related" may well extend into all things technological - telephony, hardware, networking, etc.

But you also hit a point where a business is so diverse: teapots, tennis balls, computers, furniture, that editors would look at them as general merchandisers.

 

Thank you for the explanation. It still doesn't make (complete) sense to me... but I guess it is what it is. Again thank you for your help. - Guy Somers