Some of the motivation is that people maybe have an exaggerated view of the ODP's importance - it doesn't get the traffic that Yahoo does, and its numerous clones are less likely to appear in the search engines than they once were. But it's also the fact that it's stated mission is to be an open, non-profit, collaborative directory, with a bunch of guidelines and procedures that are meant to ensure fairness. Whereas Yahoo doesn't claim anything of the sort.
So I was lying and cheating while I was editor - maybe in posts where I was defending DMOZ? Nice accusation without single shred of proof and coming from fellow editor who can easily check all my edits to find the truth for himself this would be considered deliberate slander, lucky for you I'm not in US so I could sue you. You are attacking gworld about lack of proofs but you don't seem to be bothered by the lack of same when it is serves your needs.
The difference is that I just keep showing them the proofs and the abusive listings but every time I post different evidence of abuse they just go quite and disappear. On the other hand, they just imply that everyone who criticizes is corrupt but never show any proof for their claims since they are supposedly bound by DMOZ secrecy terms that is for protecting you and permits them to post baseless accusations but not any proof. Don't be upset with Sid since he is a good guy; volunteering and working hard in a directory that lists illegal sites that encourages the involvement of minors in porn, rape and torture sites, and he does not do it for profit but for improving the future of mankind.
Indeed. They wouldn't dare admit that they removed me because I wanted ebay stores and rubylane stores to be deeplinked or not deeplinked THE SAME WAY, whichever way it was. We're not talking "Adult" categories here, or pro-anorexia and pedophilia. Nope. Good old financial interests of large websites. I thought of many remote possibilities for my removal but none hold water. Them Rubylane deeplinks sure were important!
Same here. But I don't read it the same way as you do helleborine. A desperate desire to retain Rubylane links for some nefarious reason? Not very likely. Fact is that even if a couple of metas actually have Rubylane stores, and if they are desperate to retain ODP links to them (which is a whole lot of supposition), they would not need to throw you out in order to do it. The debate wasn't going your way. I saw some merit in both positions. It was an interesting discussion, with some support for your view. The person who gave that support is still an editor. Isn't it more likely that your vehemence triggered suspicion in certain editors who have become jaundiced by too much investigation of suspected corruption/abuse? People can start seeing it where it doesn't exist.
This makes sense, if someone is fighting corruption and wants the abusive listings investigated, according to DMOZ powers, this is a sure sign that the person is corrupt and not suitable as editor and therefore must be removed. You don't think that adult editors list the illegal sites for improving the future of mankind, do you? Don't stop at rubylane, pharmacy sites and gambling sites are not far behind either.
Um. Did you read the thread in question GWorld? No one mentioned corruption or alleged that the listing of Rubylane stores was abusive. It was a run-of-the-mill debate about whether to classify hosted sites as deep links. We have had similar discussions dozens of times about various sites. Now helleborine is alleging some sort of nefarious behaviour, because that seems to her a logical explanation for her removal. I don't agree.
I know, preferential listings of some sites and not listings other sites are not abuse, just "exceptions". It is just pure coincidence that the sites that get preferential listings are usually related to "senior" editors in DMOZ.
Exactly. Periodic discussions of the way we do things are healthy and should be encouraged. Thats the way the system works. There are several things within the ODP that I do not agree with. I have expressed my views, others disagree, I don't get my way. Thats the way the cookie crumbles. People don't get removed for disagreeing. No doubt you will be adding this to your list of incontrovertible evidence that the ODP tolerates corrupt editing practices.
Any answer to my previous question about how many of sites listed in adult are owned by adult meta or how many deep links adult meta has? Don't worry about it, just close your eyes as hard as you can and claim that you don't see any corruption and abuse and therefore it does not exist.
I'm no expert in Shopping categories, but to the best of my knowledge Rubylane is not an exceptional case. Nor has it been given preferential treatment. There are a number of sites which host individual stores or other business sites. Periodically discussion crops up about one or another of them. Generally the conclusion is exactly the same as on Rubylane. Sometimes it can go another way for one reason or another - insufficient content perhaps.
If an admin, meta, category editor, or what ever, has more than 1 site or deeplink then that does not make it abuse. If an editor has added a number of their own sites that would not normaly be eligible for a listing in accordance with the guidleines and normal practice then that is abuse. What is so hard to understand about that?
Could someone please PM me Ivan's and helleborine's editor names? That'll give me something to do tonight.
This is not the answer to my question, just a miserable attempt in justification of abuse. HOW MANY sites and deep links the meta has? What is so special about cookie sites with no unique content that deserves so many deep links?
It should be obvious by now that neb has no intention of answering any questions. His purpose here is purely smokescreen and distraction.
Supplementary question, then: Why don't you know? It's not like you can't access the information. Are you saying you don't care? That it isn't important to you? or to DMOZ?