Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_noble
I'd agree that very few websites are suggested with guidelines compliant titles and descriptions. I would say that even fewer than 1% achieve them. However, editors routinely rewrite them so that they are - that's part of the job. A website should never be declined a listing on such grounds.
|
Rewrite? You mean massacre Titles and Descriptions to something like “Company site” or “Fans pages” or my favorite description “General Info”. Come on Jim, you can do better that that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_noble
Despite that, it's still worthwhile trying to do it right. Your listing suggestion will stand out from the crowd and is likely to be given some priority. We all like to do the easy jobs first  .
Far more important is content - good solid useful content, not content mill garbage, not affiliate link farms and not MFA sites. We also don't like to see blank or 404 pages because they haven't been written yet. If the content isn't there, don't link to it in your navigation. |
Why don’t you just say it Jim what you mean by that, or you want me to guess? Ok, let me guess… hmmm… I am going to try Unique. Am I right? You Jim want every site to be unique, “good solid useful content”. What else can it be if not unique?
I have news for you. There is not such a thing anymore Jim. Unique sites disappeared 10 years ago and these days they all the same only look different. Then again, if I have unique site then why would I want to submit it to DMOZ? What is and where is my benefit?
Google will count my link in DMOZ the same as in some PR0 directory, as one single link and if I have
unique site then my site will be validating DMOZ and not other way around.
Does it make any sense to you Jim?
fastreplies