I sent a PM to gworld asking if has any specific allegations. Or specificly what sites and who he is talking about. You never know he might even have some information we can act on. That would be nice. Or is the question more general in that he is asking what percentage of adult site listing are owned by metas in general? I don't have the figures on that. Since there are so few adult metas I would have thought it to be very low.
Actually, it is like I can't access the information. I don't know which sites belong to editors and which don't. I'm sure if I looked into it enough I could figure it out...but if gworld already has a list then it would be easier for him to just show me... So, gworld - how many and which ones?
Sorry old chap, I haven't been here that long, and I don't read this forum religiously everyday. Got better things to do. Haven't you? By the way I have never heard an allegation from gworld that could be of any use in sorting out a dishonest editor. Actually that is not true. He shot himself in the foot once. The nearest thing to something of substance that I can recall was him saying was he found an unnamed senior editor who has 25 listings. If he is serious let him send me a PM, If he has something of substance I don't want to get involved in a public tarring and feathering of an individual.
May I suggest that, if you can't be bothered to read the threads that provide the background to an issue, you refrain from making pointless comments on that issue, or requesting information that has already been provided?
I am not going to waste my time and post everything again, here is the link to some of my previous posts: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=433544&postcount=121 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=433316&postcount=105 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1077598&postcount=17 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=621336&postcount=1004 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=800323&postcount=66 All these are common knowledge and it has even been discussed in DMOZ. You can contact brizzie (oneeye) for more information too.
What the hell has this got to do with sites owned by metas? Nothing. Zip. Every claim you have ever made disapears into smoke when any sort of reasonable scrutinty is applied to it. You are nothing but a fraud my friend.
The information that gworld was alluding to does not exist. He knows that. You know that. Show some integrety man.
He/they said they had evidence of a certain thing, then in proof offered something completely irrelevant. The topic was the number of sites owned by adult metas. No matter what spin you put on it the threads referenced by gworld were unrelated.
Just answer me honestly. Does this belong to Philippine Adult Image Galleries Etnic Asian Filipina - Still in Braces. Or is this just a deeplink ? Asian - Indian Sex.
Neb is a shameless and unquestioning DMOZ apologist. His job here is to ignore and/or divert questions, not to answer them.
They may not have personal interests in Rubylane, but it's quite possible that their friends did, or someone paid them a few bucks to allow deeplinks. My opinions could not have aroused suspicion. I neither have an ebay store nor a Rubylane store. At the time, I was re-organizing the Jewelry section - that's where all those Rubylane stores were. There are millions of jewelry websites out there, and the Rubylane "stores" were occupying the lower rungs of the quality ladder. My preference would have been NOT to deeplink Rubylane or ebay stores. Not exactly an editor opinion that should arouse suspicions of evildoings. I don't even own a single piece of jewelry, I suffer from an exquisite sensitivity to nickel. You couldn't possibly have a more disinterested editor to re-organize and clean up the Jewelry mess. And what a mess it was. There's no way in the world that they could have looked at my opinion of the Rubylane deeplinks, and all the meticulously impartial work I did for the directory, and found my integrity wanting, unless they themselves were corrupt. There is a third editor who contacted me personally, against DMOZ policy, so no name will be given, to express dismay and concern about my removal. Am I a disgruntled ex-editor? I prefer to think of myself as most disillusioned.
People are concerned because ODP is very valuable if you have a link in that directory. Anyway from these allegations (not sure if true), i think ODP still needs a organizational redesign since i assume there are tons of pending submissions.
I was involved in that debate and shared helleborine's opinion. I didn't think they should be listed and I was vocal about it but editor consensus is that they are sites, and that rubylane is just hosting them. Therefore, they can be listed. Although I don't like the reasons for listing them I understand the reasoning and respect the consensus. There were other editors on the same side of the debate as helleborine and me but we were clearly in the minority. However, any editor has the freedom to decline reviewing those submissions. I use that freedom.
Also ditto. As genie says these types of discussion are routine and I never saw anyone removed before or after helleborine in similar circumstances. The thread was simply coincidence. As I've said before I don't see anything inherently unlistable about rubylane stores and I would also have listed any ebay stores up to the same standard as an exception to a general rule of thumb. Whatever the reasons, rubylane wasn't it. You are an editor, and since she has given this information in forum you have access to it. Why should anyone else go look up what you probably already know but if not could look up very quickly. Why are you pestering other editors to answer a question you already know the answer to? Is it some kind of trap you are setting? Since the answer is in an internal forum then to answer it specifically in public would be to breach confidentiality guidelines and they cannot publish it without being removed themselves, they could only PM it to you, editor to editor (though what is the point). If it is within normal practice for the branch, but outside the interpretation that most people put on the guidelines, and might fall within the scope of what some documentation indicates as a sign often associated with abuse, then it is pretty difficult to understand why no-one is concerned about the possibility of abuse. The only explanation is that the practices were known about by AOL and they chose not to treat it as abuse, as would have been the case in other branches. The reasoning for this appears to be related to the marketing practices of the porn industry.