This brings up another interesting question. How does DMOZ editors find these links? The normal excuse for listing deep links is that they are not accessible from main page, so how do they find it? Do DMOZ editors own crystal balls that shows them these deep links and then they will list it or do they own them and know exactly where the links are? The excuse to that question will be that webmasters are submitting the links and DMOZ editors are only approving it. Well, we have all heard here that in normal categories if a webmaster submits his domain link 3 times during a year or two, he is a spammer, spammer and doesn't deserve to be listed, so how is it that a porn webmaster can submit 200 page links of the same domain and not only they are not spammer, spammer but also deserve to be listed 200 times?
In case anyone was wondering - the Pedophile Affirmative Views Chat Rooms category is gone from its home under http://dmoz.org/Adult/Computers/Internet/Chats_and_Forums/. Hurray! But only as far as http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Chats_and_Forums/ . It is the sites that are the problem, not where in Adult they are listed. Shifting them somewhere else isn't going to change anything. And just to make sure people realise it is for Affirmative Views chat rooms there is a nice prominent rellink (link to related category) going to http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/
I think this is typical reaction to problems in DMOZ, sweep it under the carpet, change a category, try to make people believe the problem is solved but the most important thing is to continue with everything as it was before.
The answer is that these 'deeplinks" are currently acceptable for listing in Adult/Image_Galleries, so it's not considered spam. You can agree or disagree with that stance - but it is the answer nonetheless. That move wasn't really related to the pedophilia cat specifically - the need for the move was just noticed as we were looking at that category. basically the "chats and forums" categories were moved so they would be grouped with by topic as opposed to all being housed in Computers. A few other categories were moved as well. The actual discussion related to the pedophilia categories is still ongoing...
OK, let me refrase my words. I have been told that this is the way Adult free and avs sites are build. DMOZ did not invent this 'rule' about 20 pictures minimum sites but adopted it from the major adult linklists. I looked at some of these linklist and they all have the same rule, sometimes in exactly the same words. Copied form one of these sites The same as DMOZ The difference: DMOZ does not ask for a reciprocal link. Playboy and the same like them are a totaly different leage. I wouldn't even call them porn. Erotic OK, but not porn. Were I live in Europe they are sold next to the latest copy of Donald Duck.
I am sure people in real estate, shopping, art,.. will be happy to hear that even bad bad people who sell porn affiliate links are much more upstanding citizens than scummy real estate agents or webmasters and because of this porn webmasters are not spammer but everybody else is.
Don't you understand, gworld? They can deeplink those porn image galleries because it's considered "quality content."
I have also looked at some of the USA Real Estate categories in the past and I must say that if I must chose between editing in these Real Estate categories or in Adult I would prefer Adult. This doesn't mean all people working in real estate are bad or spammers but there is some amount of them that have caused DMOZ to make rules for RE very strict and each suggestion will be looked at very carefully, and even than some slip through or change after they get listed. Luckely I can also chose to not edit in both of them.
pagode; I most likely suspect that you are a honest person, so let's say that you have been fooled by DMOZ adult editors who have used your lack of knowledge in these areas. What they been telling you, has nothing to do with quality or providing benefit for DMOZ users, it is just way for them to fill their pocket. Those one pages with 20 pictures are designed so big porn producers can use affiliates to spam the users through bulletin boards and emails instead of they getting involved in spamming. This is what officially UGAS tells it's affiliate on their web site. I have made suggestion to sidjf on how DMOZ can provide high quality unique content to DMOZ users without the risk of corruption in one my previous posts in this thread. You can find it or ask sidjf about it. If you can't find it, send me a PM and I will find it for you.
How about artists? let's imagine that I am a painter and I present my work on my web site. let's say I paint about 100 painting a year, I will have 1000 painting in 10 year, would DMOZ provide a link to every painting on my web site or 1000 link?
Real estate - real problem. At least with American agents. Very tight guidelines with more or less zero room for discretion about acceptance and placement. Adult - real problem. Guidelines so loose and woolly you could drive a train through them and with more or less unlimited room to interpret how you want. That is the problem when it comes to Adult galleries - appalling lack of clear and precise guidelines.
Yep. Painting is so yesterday. Take a photo and a bit of fancy software and lo, you have something that looks like a painting. Who needs artists?
may be they should post this on top of the art category under on how to get 1000 link in DMOZ. I understand your sense of humor, things are so crazy in DMOZ that some times just laughing at it looks like the only solution.
To be honest. I think Adult guidelines are very clear. Maybe not the guidelines I would prefer (and certainly not the guidelines you prefer) but they are clear (atleast to me).
I just want to point out that this deeplinking policy isn't actually used in all of Adult. Only in Adult/Image_Gallleries. The rest of Adult follows very closely the listing policies and rules of the rest of dmoz. When people say that they think we should not have an Adult section in the ODP, I think they usually just mean Adult/Image_Galleries.
The problem is that they are a combination of practice, and unwritten conventions, and interpretation of primary guidelines that are out of synch with other branches. And no matter what Adult editors would like to think their own guidelines are and always will be subsidiary to the main guidelines. To justify what they do they must get a written exception appended to the main guidelines regarding deeplinking. To get around that they redefine site and deeplink and anyone challenging that is immediately accused of being ignorant of the online porn industry and their views dismissed.