DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

What you define as clear, is what others see as accepting corruption as "norm" and clear.

I think it is shown already that what is clear or if we use a better word "norm" has no argument or validity except helping affiliate webmasters in porn industry; and provides end users with lower quality content than otherwise available.

The question is why providing lower quality of content to users and helping porn affiliates should be considered clear or norm?

 

If you'll reread my post, you'll see that in fact I was asking AC what it was about the sites he was asking me to 'review' he considered made them inappropriate for listing in that category. I assume he is coming from roundabouts the second point of contention you just made, i.e. that porn cannot be considered 'quality'. This I answered. I am frankly shocked that just because you disagree with my answer, but find yourself unable to demonstrate how it's wrong, you seize on the fact that it is in defence of a DMOZ action to brand it as 'making excuses'.

This debate cannot continue if you continue to stick your head in the sand like that. I have been more than ready to point out what needs to change regarding the Adult section (to the point of deleting it entirely!) - but as soon as I defend something DMOZ did right that's automatically 'bafflegab'? I suppose it must be, since DMOZ is evil and its every action is flawed, it must definitely be indefensible. Highly unfair and immature.

 

Bradley I posted the live link and a list of dead links showing the sites descriptions, I don't need to go to the sites myself, I can see from those descriptions that there are sick individuals as webmasters from the sites DMOZ descriptions!

It is really simple to see Bradley!

Would you like to start a new thread here using the posts so you can put a poll in it to see what the members think

If so please do, if you don't want to do it, maybe I will

 

Well, unfortunately this is not exactly true either. These deep linkings provide an opportunity for other adult businesses to get around DMOZ rules.

let's look at this link in DMOZ

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=cheap-phone-sex.net&all=yes&cs=UTF-8&cat=Adult

cheap-phone-sex(.)net
cheap-phone-sex(.)net/snapshots-0039/
cheap-phone-sex(.)net/snapshots-0028/
cheap-phone-sex(.)net/snapshots-0010/

and while cheap-phone-sex(.)net is listed only once under phone sex, it gets 3 extra links under image galleries which takes back the user to their original business which is selling phone sex. This web site is owned by SE communication and I think you know who SE communication is.

If this is acceptable, does it mean any business, real estate, clothing, artists, forums can make hundreds of pages and submit it to DMOZ, so they can add 100 extra link to their original listing?

 

No, it is exactly true. Outside of Image_Galleries, the rest of Adult follows the same guidelines as the rest of the ODP (there might be some other small exceptions that I am not thinking of).

If a webmaster creates some image galleries that contain ads pointing back to their other sites, that is not against any guideline that I am aware of.

What difference does it make whether an advertisement on your site points to another of your own sites or to someone elses?

In a sense, yes - but that still does not = abuse.

Indeed I do. AFIAK it's not a secret lol.

If the sites they create are listable, then yes.

You are failing to understand that, for the most part, we (dmoz) do not care about the webmaster. If the sites we are listing offer content that is acceptable according to our guidelines, then it will most likely be listed.

That, of course, is not to say that some of these guidelines (particularly in Adult/Image_Galleries) do not need to be changed!

 

20 images on each of the "galleries", which are of course just an advert for the phone sex line. When you look at those galleries the photos are very similar to one another - 15 minutes work - barely unique. They definitely look contrived to meet the bare minimum for a gallery listing.

And there is an apparent connection with an Adult editor. I say apparent because it is always possible it is a setup and I wouldn't put that past enemies of an Adult editor. On the other hand the whois records match between the URL provided and the editor's profile homepage. A meta editor will be able to look up affiliations and confirm whether the URL is declared or that they are connected with another site that has been declared.

If the connection can be proven to be genuine then it looks pretty cut and dried abuse to me but then not having been an Adult editor I don't know whether phone sex adverts count as galleries. Have you reported this using an Abuse Report? If it isn't abuse then I would certainly like to hear why not.

 

You're making a large assumption that the editor (if this is an editor's site ) added the links his/her self.

It's not abuse if an editor submits their site and someone else comes along and lists it in the normal course of editing.

 

If the site is an advert then it makes a difference. And if it belongs to an editor is is a bloody disgrace, a total abuse of editing priviledges.

 

First of all, these are not sites, these are doorway pages.

second, anybody can become one the porn sites affiliate and they will provide you with 1000s pictures in a zip file. download it, run a program like album and set the number of pictures to 20. you should be able to get at least 100-200 pages from just one affiliate membership. Start submitting your new 200 pages to DMOZ and since this is according to DMOZ rules there should be no reason why such pages should not be listed.

If people start doing this and their pages not get listed, can they PM you here in DP about why not, since RZ doesn't give answer to submission questions anymore?

 

take for example http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Porn_Stars/D/Diaz,_Marisa/

The cheap-phone-sex(.)net listing is just as good (if not better) than any of the other sites listed in that category. If the cheap-phone-sex(.)net site belongs to an editor, then why would that be abuse?

In the interest of full disclosure (I have nothing to hide) - I was the editor that created that category.

I had a hell of a time find good quality sites for it (as can be seen). But each of them meets the requirements to be listed in Adult/Image_Galleries.

Also, Marisa Diaz is hot!

 

I don't think that it was editor, I suspect it was naked Santa Claus who submitted these links as editor Christmas present. Naked Santa Claus knew that editor has been a good girl and needs more advertising.

 

Granted and assuming the editor concerned was also unaware of that someone else or that they had made the listing. And I can't see the editing logs to see who and if. Neither can I see the affiliations database to see if it was declared. Hence it is a matter for an Abuse report and investigation.

 

It is an advert siddy.

I give up... I am thoroughly sick of the impression that these galleries give, they are a running sore and bring the rest of the directory into disrepute by association. For God's sakes clean them up and remove all appearance of impropriety now and forever. That was the main theme of the thread I started in December. I said all I needed to then so there is no point in keep repeating it over and over. Goodnight all.

 

With respect sid and as someone with little idea until now that there are vastly differing interpretations on the guidelines within Adult and what consistutes a 'site'...That really sounds kind of like a nice backdoor into getting quite a few listings for your new affilate site ??? Nothing more really.
And I say this as an editor AND as someone who is still confused over why these differing guidelines exsit in this particular image gallery category.

Given the fact that in getting a brand new website off the ground most new webmasters are told to 'submit and forget' to Dmoz on loads of various webmaster-related sites... might it not be the case that Adult webmasters are advised by other Adult webmasters to get themselves a 20 pic gallery and submit ??? Especially in regards to the first few pages in this topic when 1 particular site accumulated nearly 150 links.

It does seem unfair to webmasters who have spent years building up 100's or 1000's of pages of written and original content in other areas of the web where the guidelines are somewhat stricter in terms of even achieving 1 listing. You have got to admit that having a gallery with 20 pornographic pictures shoved in which consistutes and justifies a listing must be a bit tough to take ??? Even I can see that.

I know the guidleines ARE different to other areas in the directory, I'm not disputing this...I guess what I'm asking specifically is why ???

 

Don't shoot the messenger people!

All I'm doing is telling you what the guidelines say. I've already said that I don't like the current Adult/Image_Gallery guideliens - I'm just answering questions based on what is currently acceptable.

 

No. I'm a lot more upset personally by the inclusion of "affirmative views" forums and chat rooms.

 

sidjf, this seems to be the humorous side of those postings. Even considering that the cause is a serious one, it must be nice getting shot by such a charming girl

 

Who is shooting you? We are all positive people here.
Here is some love and hug for you so you won't be sad.

in the wise words of minstrel:

 

So if I understand you correctly each image page can be submitted to Dmoz for a listing, if this is the case then I have over 70k photos of homes that I should submit to be included, wonder if I can get some deep links from that...oops I forgot I havent bribed an editor yet so my site isnt included in the directory but it is by far the best one within that category and the LARGEST for unique content...this I have proof of.

 

If you can figure out what category in Adult/Image_Galleries a picture of a house would belong in, knock yourself out...