Does keeping a directory clean matter to you?

Most directories posted up in the "Solicitations & Announcements" forum accept links for gambling, pharmacy and pornography sites.

As time and time again webmasters are advised not to link to bad neighbourhoods, why do directory owners continue to do so?

Most directories posted up on here accept links from any and every type of website and have no real editorial policy.

If you are a directory owner why do you chose keep your directory clean, or, alternatively, why do you not care about linking to these types of sites?

 

DMOZ has adult and gambling links, does that mean its unclean and therefore no one should submit to it?

 

Yea who started the rumour that adult and gambling sites are bad neighbourhoods anyway?
Bad neighbourhoods are sites of poor quality.
If your site is in the niche its relevant.

I also think gambling sites are much more generally accepted than adult sites.
I think its an American perspective where gambling isn't accepted like it is in say the UK.

 

Well if i wanted to accept adult id just keep it completely seperate, in an adult directory.

I do want my directories to be seen as ok for most ages so need to keep the adult out.

Pharmacy speaks for itself.

I have on one of my directories decided to allow gambling sites in but i think ive missed the boat on that one, i used to reject all of them, now im willing to list them ive had no submissions of gambling sites.

I think that if a directory lists hardcore porn sites and its a general directory then it should maybe consider having the same types of warnings that porn sites do.

Added

Theres other websites that should and could be thought of as not desirable, other than the usual 3 or 4 usually mentioned.

For example:

Gun and knives sites.
Racist sites
Pro anorexia
Suicide guidance and tips
Sites teaching people how to make explosives.

Those and literally hundreds of others could be seen as bad neighbourhoods.

As discover mentions, in the UK gambling laws are different from countries like the US.

 

if your directories are family friendly,
reject any adult and gambling sites is acceptable;
otherwise i cant find out any problem for those sites at all.

 

I do not list adult, gambling, racist, hate sites etc. The reason primarily is local laws and paypal terms and conditions. It's totally directory owner/editor's choice to accept or reject certain type of sites.

For some countries gambling / adult / alcohol sites would be illegal and bad neighborhood for others some of these are allowed. BTW, I list alcohol websites in my directories.

 

I made the decision early on to family friendly. Both of my directories are niche sites and I therefore don't have to worry about gambling and pharmacy but for the arts and crafts directory, I had to make the decision on how to define when art becomes family unfriendly. I have declined wonderful artists, who though quite talented, cross the line between art and porno at least IMHO.

I for one simply try not to submit to directories that accept the various lotions and potions claiming to enhance body parts. I just don't see why providing advertising for snake oil and other scammers is necessary on a directory or any other site claiming to be a resource. And I certainly was not fond of having my site listed among the "top sites" on a directory where my site was the only one that was not related to sex or enhancement products. It took a single click from me to get on the "top sites" page and hopefully by now, I've now dropped off of that page.

Now that I think about it, one click to land on the "top sites" page? Perhaps that answers the question here better than anything.

I don't really care how DMOZ decides to handle it. Even if they have a section called sexual art or something similar, it doesn't mean that I have to as well.

 

I quickly pulled a definition of a web directory

I think one needs to be careful about turning that definition into

The largest and most popular directories on the web accept gambling, they accept pornography. One needs look no further than Yahoo, DMOZ, Google, BOTW as just a few examples.

Personally there are certain categories of sites I will not list so I can't say that I leave personal biases completely out of it. I don't feel it is appropriate to list pornography - racist/hate sites or even some of the snake oil stuff ymc mentioned for example. In the end it is my directory and I have the prerogative to set the rules for what I accept.

One should also note that some of the categories you mention are not quite so black and white. There are sub categories within them also. Gambling for example. There are online casinos which I will not list. There are also sites related to gambling such as the MGM Grand hotel and casino in Las Vegas which is a reputable, established business with an actual geographical location. I have been there many times and seen families with their children vacationing there. I would list the MGM Grand and might already be listing it - not sure.

Someone once told me that if you can find it in the yellow pages one should be able to include it in a web directory. Well you can find a lot of things you wouldn't expect to in the yellow pages.

Some of the primary things that I consider make up a clean directory is not just what category of sites they allow but the actual editing. Are the descriptions unique, well written and not just jumbled keyword spam? Is the title not just a bunch of keywords jumbled together. There may be keywords in there but do they make sense in conveying who the site is?

 

We do keep our directories clean.. we are not accepting links of adult and gambling related website

 

Rather than looking to DMOZ, perhaps we should look to the company who claims to index the entire Internet - Google. We all know that they do not list every website or list some sites so far down the list as to essentially de-index them. They have numerous times contended that they are a private company and as such make no guarantee that any one site will either be listed or be listed well. The courts, in the US anyway, have supported that position.

Why would it not also impact directories owned by much smaller players? Part of what elevates a directory above a link farm is the human review. Why shouldn't that review include what a directory owner/editor deems appropriate.

While it is true that same logic would apply to directory owners including listings for the trash of the Internet, to me it's more a matter of intent. If we go back to the original reason that webmasters linked to other sites and return to seeing links as a public referral or recommendation perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation. What's the chance you would tell a stranger, "Hey there's this really cool site that sells _____!" when it's a snake oil site?

 

I concur with Swedal. It's not the categories, but what's in them that count. There are useful sites about gambling, pharmacy and adult material, if they're populated with good quality relevant sites I don't see a problem.

 

Swedal is quite right. Not all adult sites are porn sites; there quality are sites that deal with "adult" issues sexual health; and then there are quality porn sites other than the cheap image of video streaming sites, vivid and hustler, for example. But at the same time there are some sites that you'd just not want, sites of terrorist organizations for example.

But to get back to the OP, it's not the category of sites you list, but their quality that matters IMHO.

 

I would like to keep the directory I am building very clean so that I do not end up on any blacklist. Once happened to me, when I was parked, and it was a real effort to get the domain off blacklists once it is there.

For this reason, I am right now looking for a script that I can modify to include the Google Safe Browsing API database as well as the urlblacklist.com database, for verification purposes.

Rich

 

I've made the decision to keep my directories clean of adult content because a lot of people who list in them don't want their brand to be associated with adult content.

 

It is all up to the owner's prospective on what they want in their directory.
If they feel that adult and gambling niches are bad for their directories so be it. For DMOZ, it was their decision.

For me, I don't like the looks of gambling/adult themes in my directory because I just believe it will hurt my site's reputation in general.

 

I am Agree With Pipes and YMC Also...

 

I haven't been getting any adult or gambling sites submitted to my directories for some strange reason, so until today I have yet to face this issue

 

yes it make dir. better and people submit into that.

 

Hear Hear!

A directory is really only as good as its content. That means listings (the title of the website, the links/websites that are listed, and the descriptions that define what those websites have to offer).

The nature of the site (adult, gambling, etc) is probably less of a concern, and more of a personal preference as to whether to list those sorts of sites or not. They are listed all over the web, and if a directory is actually categorising them that is a beneficial service.