Guidelines for adding Multiple listings on DMOZ.

That is exactly correct - deeplinking depends on the content of the website. In most categories, the category is defined by the content of the websites that will be listed there.

Shopping for example - since it's come up here and is an area that discourages type II and type III deeplinks. The only websites that are listed in Shopping are those that have prices and a way to order products. For all websites that contain that type of content, editors are discouraged from deeplinking.

Occasionally (rarely actually ) a website that contains Shopping content will also contain unique Information content. Information content is one that is encouraged to be deeplinked. Information content is usually found in Reference, Kids & Teens, Arts, Education categories - those are the categories that encourage deeplinking. Because the topic of the website is Information as opposed to the topic of Business or Shopping.

 

I'm not sure it's such a good idea to be placing so much emphasis on a newsletter article (classifying different deeplinks into different types). Newsletter articles are not guidelines. They are meant to help editors better understand the guidelines, but an editor does not need to read the newsletter to be a good editors. Conversely, just because an editor does read the newsletters does not make them a good editor.

 

How's Picard ?

 

You're a funny guy, E...

 

I think he's in a wheelchair now.

 

Sorry to mess up the thread.. Spock ?

 

Captain....?

 

Please unplug Data. It's the visible on/off switch when you lift the upper half of his head.

 

Ewww.... will I need a spoon?

 

Um Ish - this particular article is referenced explicitly in the guidelines. Don't you think that would make it "part" of the guidelines?

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/site-specific.html#deeplinks

 

I'm not so sure that I would consider an article from a 2001 newsletter from an editor that was removed as "part" of the guidelines. Besides, when was the last time anyone checked the links in the article. Great reference and example for new editors

The only relation here is that it's her husband.

 

No. If it where part of the guidelines the URL would start with http://dmoz.org/guidelines/ Where it stands now, it is a resource that is meant to help interpret the guidelines, not supplement the guidelines.

 

LOL.

Not only there is not an agreement on guideline interpretation, there is not even an agreement on what is or is not a guideline.

I suppose this guideline has fully achieved the goal of majority DMOZ guidelines: 100 shades of gray, open to interpretation and unenforceable.

 

There are some who believe rules should be explicitly stated and others who feel that rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation. The ODP generally uses the latter approach, they have consciously chosen to have guidelines rather than rules. I acknowledge that this approach is not always perfect but the philosophy is that discretion and commonsense is for humans, strict rules and algorithms are for computers.

 

How well is this working for you so far (hint: Adult)?

 

Well, you can be right. May be the failure is not in the guideline, it is in the type of humans that they have recruited. You can surely find evidence in support of this theory by looking at some of the "senior" editors.

 

well what can I say..

Fine speech there. Now let me know exactly what kind of 'one' overall guideline I should be applying re : deeplinks for :

1) A pre-eclampsia site which has wonderful sections on other pregnancy complications and a general pregnancy forum.

2) A site covering hydro-elecritcity with a kids section.

3) A site that sells Ipods ( no make that 10,000 of them to keep it realistic yes ? )

4) Harvard.

5) A dating site that concentrates on Goth Romance yet has little or no actual members but loads of ads around. It may be the only one of that particular niche around though.

6) A general beauty advice site that has 5 really bad sections, but 1 really good and extensive advice on French manicures.

Now, if you'd just like to sum that little lot up for me under one or two 'general' basic deeplinking guidelines. I would be just over the moon at how simple it all is...sigh... yet somehow I missed it somewhere.

Ok 'Experts' take it from there, because that IS what editing is all about. Put them all under one overall deeplink guideline without any ensuing problems for surfers or webmasters. Lets see what you come up with shall we ? I for one am completely all ears as it, well, would completely revolutionise editing and make it 100% simpler for us all lets face it..Fab !!! Oh and lets lump in Adult there as well while we're at it.

But I absolutely will put my arse on the line saying that you're all 'mouth' will very little to back your 'yah yah, let just have one rule to cover all categories ivory tower talk'. And I so bet the next post (if there is one !) will say some crap about 'oh that's not what we meant' or a 'gloss over' platitude about how 'thats not what editing is about' sort of stuff. Oh and the 'your the editor you tell me'. (Yawn). I forgot the 'You're mad/insert insult' one.

No, if you want to harp on about one guideline for all categories no matter what regardless. Then give it to us all, if that's what you say is needed. I'm interested.

( Ps no more arguing established guidelines... even the OP has openly admitted unsubscribing from this thread ).

 

If you didn't understand it the first half dozen times, what makes you think my saying it again is going to help, SG?

 

My be I can explain a little bit the concepts and after using your common sense, I am sure you can figure out how to form a guideline that can be used for all categories.

To start with, DMOZ uses a hierarchical ontology scheme for organizing site listings which was copied from USENET. You can ask then what is ontology, let's look it up in dictionary.com:

Ontology: The hierarchical structuring of knowledge about things by subcategorizing them according to their essential (or at least relevant and/or cognitive) qualities.

This simply means that you collect similar things in the same category and when necessary divide it in to the smaller categories. We do this, so it will be easier for everyone to find things that they are looking for.

Now imagine that you walk in to a big store with many floors with no sign about where different products are located, obviously you would not like to keep going up and down to find the TV department or shoe department, therefore there is sign on each floor which informs you what product are sold on that floor. For example you can see a sign that informs you that there is a shoe department in that floor because there is an essential quality that separate shoes from furnitures or TVs but you do not see 100 different signs for red shoes, black shoes, sport shoes,.... because those are not essential qualities.
The deep linking practices should be based on the same principal to make it easy for the user to find what they are looking for on the web site. When you look at any web site, ask your self, is this a big store (figuratively) that needs direction signs or just an small neighborhood fruit store that you just walk in and look around with no sign necessary.

You can use the same idea for a big hospital versus local clinic, a big university versus a small school. Any time there is a need for a sign then deep link is good, if there is no need then deep link is not necessary. The purpose of directory is to help users find what they are looking for and not to provide navigation replacement for a web site or be a marketing tool by providing deep links.

Think about the above and I am sure you can figure out the rest.

 

Could anyone explain what gworld's post has to do with deeplinking? Because I'm almost confused now.