Changing your site listing

The top level doorway page is now listed correctly, that should have been done last year, when an editor noted that you had incorrectly submitted two related web sites (and one was tagged as being "do not list").

Agree there is no record of abusive editing. However once you made that post in RZ indicating that DMOZ sucks and other editors were incompetent (which truly indicated you did not want to be an editor and were against the concept of the ODP), your removal was a foregone conclusion. Its surprising it took so long.

 

Logs are investigated at random but any time anyone raises an issue you know someone will do a trawl. And yes, corrupt editors are wise to keep their mouths shut. But Summer says she did nothing shady so she would have no reason to stay quiet on that score.

If I had access to the logs I could probably work out the reason and speculate. But I don't. Doing something you shouldn't have been doesn't imply dishonesty - you can break guidelines and be removed without being dishonest. If I were still an editor and quoted verbatim from an internal thread here then that would be grounds for removal potentially. Editors have been removed for "abusive" (not necessarily offensive but at least discourteous) communications too, i.e. you can get removed for the way you express an opinion not for the opinion itself.

 

That is pretty much what they will do. Run around and tell you you did something wrong. Then claim they are here to help you. They are all shit bags.

There I said it. There's a weight lifted off my shoulders. Why on earth anyone gives so much credit to DMOZ is beyond me. It's not like you cannot rank well, quickly, get indexed, get good PR without DMOZ listing.

If you actually keep up on a category and keep it clean and keep it devoid of waiting listings, you're doing something wrong. Reminds me of a painting job I took in college years ago. The union workers would get pissed at me. Said I was working too fast, making them look bad.

Why anyone gives DMOZ any credit, or even takes the time to bitch about them in endless go no where discussions here is beyond me. I try to stay out of it, because it is pointless. Now, just when I thought I was out, they PULLED ME BACK IN...

It's a useless resource if you ask me. I've seen no positive/negative affects either way with sites listed or not. I'm not upset or bitter, as I have nothing to gain or lose. I've never had troubles getting sites listed. I've got sites listed that I never listed, so what does that say?

It did take forever to become an editor, but took even less time to get bitch slapped, and even less time to get de-editorized. Screw it. I've got more important things to do with my time.

 

OK you tell me which bin to put my empty milk carton in and I'll explain.

I would generally use a site's name unless there were reasons for consistently using the company name in a category, like protecting against multiple listings of similar URLs from the same source. Similar meaning in the same sort of field of endeavour, clothing for example. If I found an umbrella site covering more than one of the business's specialisms within that one area of endeavour, e.g. clothing, I would list the umbrella site. Doorway is not a term I would use unless it was clearly an SEO trick - many companies have different corporate and retail sites for reasons unrelated to SEO.

[Gworld - you can't argue against that because it is precisely the change being sought for Adult galleries - one umbrella URL to cover all the others on the Adult theme. ]

It would be inconsistent for me to argue against multiple listings of related URLs in Adult then agree that it was OK to have 2 sites from the same source in Shopping/Clothing. But then it is inconsistent for DMOZ to prohibit your two sites being listed in Shopping/Clothing then allow the same thing to run unfettered in Adult galleries. Which is the crux of the Adult galleries fiasco.

 

There are no real rules but we make them up as we go along to suit our goals at that moment.

The above seems to be the golden rule of all DMOZ policies.

I was always wondering about the part about discourteous communications, does this mean if I call a meta corrupt and abusive, this will be a discourteous communications, even if it is true and it shown by evidence? Is stating the truth, an abusive act according to DMOZ?
It is also funny that while the fairy princesses in RZ and her ass kissing followers are so rude to both people outside of DMOZ and new editors, that is not considered discourteous communications.

 

Very good Yes, that would be abusive communications punishable by warning or removal. Because there are procedures to follow to report that corruption or abusiveness which don't include doing it in public forum and because there are other factors the person doing the reporting may be unaware of, e.g. permission sought and granted by Staff for the listings, or a quirk of guidelines that gives an impression of corruption where it does not really exist.

 

How do you define related? As long as 2 sites have different domains, these are not related and each should be judged on it's own merits, independent of which company owns it. Are CNN, AOL, Netscape,.... related and should we only list times-warner because it is the mother company?

I never said that a known meta can not list all the domains, as long as they have a list able content, I stated that meta should not list each domain hundreds of times in DMOZ by deep links.

Does this mean that telling the truth is punishable by removal?

 

Probably now, you will have the honor of officially be listed in DMOZ enemies list. It is strange that there is not enough time for editors to list sites that are waiting for years but there is enough time to update such stupid lists.

 

I am different than you in that case. I never punished an employee that had an opinion and argued against me even if they were wrong but I have fired few ass kissers.

 

DMOZ Club Rule #1: Do not talk about the DMOZ Club.

DMOZ Club Rule #2: Do not complain about the DMOZ Club.

DMOZ Club Rule #3: Do not criticize the DMOZ Club.

DMOZ Club Rule #4: Being right is no excuse for violating Rules 1 through 3.

 

I just gave a great long-winded explanation and lost the lot when I tried to post it. What it came down to was the desire for fairness by restricting people to a single listing for related shopping sites or it would resemble Adult galleries and be seen as full of corruption because gworld noticed editors with lots of listings in different niche categories. One listing per owner of related products (I can't open your sites Summer to say which I would choose). Related, in Shopping I would define as in the same sub-branch - Clothing, Music, Crafts, etc.

Banana Republic and its siblings get a listing each because they are not effectively departments set out within the same store for the purposes of marketing but highly distinct and separate competing enterprises albeit under the same parent. If Vicious Enterprises gets to that level then fine it should have different listings for each shop.

Site in DMOZ terms does not mean Domain and apologies for using URL earlier, my fault. Sites are what DMOZ lists and a site can be spread over 100 domains or there can be 100 sites on one domain. Site - related material from the same source. Related as above for Shopping but it varies from branch to branch. So sell teapots and knickers and get two listings. Knickers and socks and get only one.

Are you saying that if the deeplink rules change all they need to is move each to a separate domain and you will be happy? You have just made some Adult webmasters who were losing sleep very happy!

In some circumstances I guess it is possible. But removal would not be for telling the truth but the way in which it was told.

 

A lesser man would have just given up in despair. But brizzie didn't get his "Most Long-Winded Editor" award just from sympathy votes!

 

I have never fired anyone. If I want rid of anyone I just drive them to drink and nervous breakdown by faking senility. Quite effective for other things too. Except in DMOZ where it did not get me promotion to meta strangely.

 

Maybe you just quit too soon. It seems to me that is almost exactly the job description for a DMOZ Admin.

 

Don't worry, they are not losing any sleep. There has been many such discussions before about deep links and as long as Google copies DMOZ directory, there will be many such discussions in the future.

You missed an important point in my posting, list able content as quality, unique content. None of those editors that are deep linking today, could produce so many good porn web site, otherwise they would have been making money on their porn business, instead of abusing their edit privilege by listing affiliate deep links.

The problem with many of adult editors is that not only they are corrupt, but are also too cheap and too lazy to buy different domains and make an actual site.

 

VS, brizzie is an ex-editor. He resogned in frustration with DMOZ.

That goes without saying. If their goal was quality, or anything even a tenth as noble, they wouldn't be in the porn business.