Notice they are still having trouble attracting and keeping editors: ...still well below the number of active editors in 2005.
On the other hand it could mean they've become better at weeding out the bad ones in the past year. The drop could be a good thing.
It could also mean that Dmoz has tighten up because they are becoming more secretive. The last thing the powers that be at Dmoz need is something else to shake up their money pit and power structure.
See Annie there ya go again, you always get the facts wrong. It wasnt the beer thread it was the Margarita Thread. By The way when can I look for my site to be listed by You LOL. Remember you said you would. Dont be afraid of Hutch..he will be out of a job soon. Maybe he shouldnt talk so much in the internal Dmoz forums.. Dont ask how I know.......maybe I am an editor.....maybe not. Gworld is not the only one with a few tricks up his sleeve.
Actually, she said: You have not posted one single link pointing to child pornography listed in the ODP. Furthermore, what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
Well editor numbers are not down for the second month running - they ain't going up enough but perhaps the tide is turning slightly. Could still do a lot better. I reserve judgement on whether new linkrot tools are working - net growth appears too high for the number of editors. Might go and do some cat tests... Major change missed so far - "At the same time, trustworthyness is now explicitly named among the criteria to consider when selecting sites." Can you see which person or entity is responsible for it? Does it give enough information about the source for a user to judge its reliability? While we cannot assess the accuracy of every site we list, we can select sites which give verifiable information. For example, the site of a trustworthy business or organization typically displays its official name and address, or includes industry-appropriate information about itself verifiable through a recognized third party. A trustworthy informational site typically gives its authorship and/or sources, as appropriate, and makes clear any commercial sponsorship. The information necessary to verify a site's trustworthiness will vary depending upon the topic and the category. I like that change - it is weapon against spam and crap. I would still like to see more actual real information and proper analysis - the report still appears bland.
Added sites number will probably be significantly lower in May with a sharp decrease on 10/11 May - she's rampaging
What does beer threads have to do with the topic or the other two remarks. This is not RZ Sid go get a life my friend, the more you speak the more I almost want to believe your Hutch, but you may not even be that stupid.
Child pornography is a very serious matter and it is unfortunate the DMOZ allows site listings that use "selling words" like Lolita and Young Teens.
David, sidjf isn't really waiting for anything at all. He knows what's there and where it is. He just doesn't want to change anything. For reasons of his own, he's apparently quite happy with the current status of DMOZ Adult.
Yes, I am actually. The situation in Adult is improving every day. Guidelines are being improved and categories cleaned up at a faster rate than ever before. Adult will look completely different than it does now in a matter of a few months.
If you're quite happy with the current situation, why does it need changing? If you're not happy with the current situation and want changes to continue, why do you continue to come to DP to act like an obstructionist ass?
Sid for once I agree 100% with you. You are right it will look different as I suspect all of Dmoz will.
Here you go Sid. The site that you were defending so bravely as acceptable to be listed in DMOZ is considered even by porn industry a child porn site and they prohibit their members to link. It seems porn industry have a higher standard than you have. Link to my post about this: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=894529&postcount=1933