18 replies to this topic

[Bernard]

What if the major search engines and SEO industry endorsed a new meta tag that simply identified a numeric code pertaining to a category (by subject).

Something like:

<META NAME="secc" CONTENT=23562>

where the tag could only specify one code per page. Search engines could have a means to check whether their relevancy algorithm agree with the webmaster's intentions - boosting pages where matches agree and penalizing pages where they don't (thus, the incentive to be accurate).

Could this in effect turn every webmaster into an editor for a web-wide directory (of sorts)?

secc = search engine category code

[qwerty]

Speaking of which, did anyone see this article on metadata? There's an awful lot out there that isn't commonly used, and I wonder if any of it ever will be. There's always Internet2.

[Jill]

Sounds pretty crazy to me!

[Scottie]

Welcome Bernard! :bye: Good to see you here.

[Bernard]

Thanks Scottie!

Jill, I got the idea while thinking about SIC codes.

[Scottie]

OK- I have usability issues with SIC codes... they are not well-organized, IMO.

I was using them to purchase b2b mailing lists a while back and there were too many appropriate categories for some industries and none at all for others.

If you start with SECC codes I guess you would use DMOZ as a starting place for assigning codes? Not perfect, but the most comprehensive classifications so far on the web.

And if you do that... simply by being listed in DMOZ in that category you are already getting a boost for that subject, no? So there already is that structure in place, human-reviewed, without "trusting" the webmaster to use the "right" code.


(aw, that one is cute)

[dragonlady7]

I think all the funky metadata out there is interesting-- I read that article a little bit ago, or one similar to it. I'd love to adopt one or more of the standards they're proposing, but like they said, it's a catch-22. If it's not widely used, the search engines won't pay any attention, but if the search engines don't pay any attention, it won't be widely used. The location stuff is really neat though. I like the idea of knowing the latitude and longitude of the pet store I'm looking up!!

But, again, it's not in me to be a pioneer of that sort of stuff. It's very hard to get The Internet to do anything. It's kind of like herding cats, without even being in the same room or indeed country as said cats.

Aw. It's nearly bedtime and my sweet sweet boy just brought me a jigger of Crown. Time for a wee tipple and then some slumber, methinks.

[Bernard]

Scottie, I didn't mean to suggest that the "secc" codes should mimic the SIC structure, just the idea.

DMOZ would be a good and logical place to draw category designations from. Assign a numerical code to each category and it would be a good start.

The true benefit of a crazy system like this (assuming it worked) is that all sites could potentially be included (including affiliates, real estate, etc.). Currently, as I understand it, DMOZ may reject good, quality sites if there are already lots of similar sites in their index.

[Scottie]

Scottie,  I didn't mean to suggest that the "secc" codes should mimic the SIC structure, just the idea.

I know. Just throwing out my complaint in case any government-type wanders across the forum and wanted my opinion of their setup...

[Paul Hayes]

I find it hard to believe that any serious consideration could be given to having DMOZ be the originator of ANYTHING other than their own directory.

Yes, DMOZ is a wonderful esoteric 'lets all hold hand and make the web a better place' kind of experience, but the endless stories about submissions never being reviewed do not inspire confidence in anything that adds to that backlog.

What are your clients going to say when you explain to them that DMOZ has not yet assigned a number for their type of business web site?

Better to put it in the hands of someone in the SE business, such as Google, that way it will actaully get done !!!

[Bernard]

Hi Paul, welcome to the forums. I didn't mean for DMOZ to be responsible for (possibly) setting this idea in motion. Just that their existing category structure would make a good basis for defining the initial structure.

[CLBridges]

I know.  Just throwing out my complaint in case any government-type wanders across the forum and wanted my opinion of their setup...

LOL! (looking over my shoulder now)

[CLBridges]

What are your clients going to say when you explain to them that DMOZ has not yet assigned a number for their type of business web site?

(Disregarding the DMOZ reference)

Well think about it. How many codes would you actually need? And then, how many NEW codes would be needed each year? I'm thinking in terms of relation to (lets say) the good ol' "Yellow Pages" with codes only being assigned to one word and not all the sub listings under that word.

For instance: CARS

Not USED CARS, Not CAR SALES, Not CAR REPAIR...

Just CARS??

It's an interesting idea and one that (IMO) doesn't sound all that difficult to implement.

(And yes, let GOOGLE run with it and it just MIGHT HAPPEN!)

[Jill]

Welcome OldWelshGuy and Clbridges!

The amount of spam submissions is definitely the major problem at DMOZ, from what I understand. It's one of the reasons why directories such as JoeAnt and GoGuides implemented the paid-option.

I don't think DMOZ will do it, but if they would implement a paid option also, it could solve a lot of their problem. It was the same thing at Yahoo years ago (when they were still a directory). Once they went paid, it was easy to get in and there were fewer complaints.

Jill