Deeplinks with Original Content. ODP Standard.

If anyone submitted a site in DMOZ and were told that their site has no Original Content, you might be surprised.

Just did a quick reporting on that and my thread was immediately CLOSED which is an ODP issue.

General ODP Issues

 

Popotalk, I think they want you to use the Quality Control Feedback forum for the issues you're raising. It's not really a General ODP Issue.

 

It's an "Issue" Annie. I was just starting and see how do the METAS respond to that.
I'll give you one link again and see if this has an Original Content as in ODP standards you be the judge. Then we go to PORN LINKS, PEDOPHILES and ILLEGAL SLUTS. How about that. MOTSA was afraid that I will blow something out of proportion.

Norfolk Craigslist - View classifieds for jobs and products/services for sale.
Virginia: Localities: N: Norfolk: Business and Economy

 

I think the general issue was a question as to why deeplinks of this kind were permitted, the reasoning behind it. As usual for RZ the answers ranged from the useless to complete avoidance. How is it possible for people to understand DMOZ unless proper answers are given? If there is a credible explanation then it should be possible to explain it, not cut off the discussion and lock the thread. How is it possible for people to identify and report bad listings of inappropriate deeplinks if meta editors refuse point blank to explain the concepts? I despair.

 

Because of issues discussed in this thread I cannot see the category or the listing. Maybe we can discuss it another day.

 

Can you actually get feedback from DMOZ regarding a submission? In looking at these posts, it seems like you can join their forum, which means feedback could come from anyone and could basically say anything.

 

Thank you, brizzie. Exactly my point. Since the links are not good for viewing I will just PM you one of the links there.

 

Annie, I've had no problem accessing dmoz.org over the last hour or so - I've been working through a travel agent cat again.

Why are they not good for viewing popotalk - what sort of thing am I likely to find that you would not publish a link to out here?

 

Do you think this is good for General Viewers.

New York
Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 9 responses

Chicago
Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 200 responses

Houston
Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 54 responses

These are were live Pedophiles hang out.

 

Were you also expecting replies like this ?

I was overwhelmed with how many straight males simply included pictures of their organs and nothing else. Were they really expecting that a girl would see a picture of their organs and exclaim “That’s the guy for me!”?

 

Correction - I'm obviously working on a cached page. Search server works though.

I was going to say no I don't. But then I thought about it, and it is not that far removed from personal ads in my local newspaper that kids can buy - in terms of the text not graphic pictures. On the NY one I didn't spot any porn photos on the heterosexual listings. When I clicked the gay link it warned me of sexually explicit material (more than DMOZ Adult does) so I didn't go any further. Some of the links are RSS feeds which at one time DMOZ was specifically encouraging editors to add if they saw them on a site.

That was off a blog from someone experimenting - not photos published on the site. Though perhaps if you would like to check the male to male you might find something I wasn't brave enough to discover.

I also noted that the blogger was using the site to look for jobs. On that basis, and given the warnings about sexually explicit material where it exists (which DMOZ lists itself), my personal view is that the site deeplinks are obviously quite useful to people for a variety of non-personals reasons, and therefore I have no problem with craigslist being deeplinked.

RSS feeds - something DMOZ was actively trying to categorise but the normal page should also be listed alongside.

Community deeplinks - it seems people use the sites and the deeplinks are community based, and therefore relevant to the appropriate Regional localities.

The personal ads are nothing unusual (where I live anyway) and there is a warning on sexually explicit material.

The only concern I have is that as far as I know non-Adult categories should not link to pages with links to sexually explicit material. But with the relevant parts of the DMOZ server infrastructure down I can't check the Guidelines.

Why RZ mods didn't want to say that is beyond me.

 

This is the concern what has been discussed months ago.

Explicit. It's a haven for pedophiles.

Have you seen Real Estate ? Whereas not so long ago there seems to be a listing argument with Las Vegas Homes. Well, if Real Estate sites would not be qualified for listings I will much prefer them rather than Craigslist deeplinks.

And by the way Motsa edited her post from its original content to make her look good. Nice try Motz.

 

brizzie, you almost made my heart stop beating.

popo, where did you get the quote by lmocr? I don't see it anywhere.

 

That Resourceless Zone thread is typical... honestly, why DMOZ doesn't fire all who even post there astounds me... what a gang of useless miscreants that is.

 

It is worth discussing but with the guidelines unavailable, no confirmation that there is sexually explicit material beyond the warning, and what is visible before the warnings not really any different from a local paper I reserve judgement.

How so? Pedophiles are trying to trap kids by pretending to be other kids, not by posting ads in an adult gay classifieds section that has a warning on it that should keep kids out (if their parents are responsible). All forums where kids post are havens for pedophiles but craigslist is not a forum. Not saying you are wrong but I don't understand your conclusion.

No, is it agents or for sale by owner?

 

In all fairness minstrel, we can be pretty mindless here as well. Admit it, you know I'm right.

 

I qouted that one ESPECIALLY for her. I have ways and means. That is a low blow considering that I have issues.

 

And you must admit that RZ continues to reach new heights in arrogant pointlessness with every passing day.

 

These are things exactly that needs to hold some listings. I don't say its quality or unqualified. But meanwhile why not Senior Editors guide category editors or put tags to any sites that links to questionable sites.

That is what I'm saying it's LIVE.

 

Yes - you have issues (have you considered seeing someone about that?). Yes I reported your posts for inappropriate content (after all, that is what shawn asked to be done).

It's nice that you edited out that particular word - but if you're that upset about what Craigslist lists, shouldn't you be having this conversation on a Craigslist forum rather than a DMOZ forum?

If you've seen pedophile postings on Craigslist, have you reported them to the proper authorities?