More fun with DMOZ, II

That is a bit simplistic gworld - there is always the possibility of collusion when these things are looked at and collusion of that nature is, naturally, editor abuse punishable by instant removal. Obviously not as easy to detect but not impossible since it has been detected. But again, with Adult, a point is being missed - collusion in the sense of some secretive and underhand conspiracy is not necessary - the listing rules applied in Adult permit open listing of multiple crap deeplinks from the same source. It doesn't matter if one or a dozen editors were responsible for listing a dozen galleries from the same source - Adult is open about it - they reckon it is OK and say so. And, therefore, a normal indicator of possible editor abuse is nullified. Perhaps, given the branch record of removed abusive editors, an altogether too convenient nullification of a normal indicator of possible editor abuse.

 

LOL.

excellent post. of course adult editors can not accept an open discussion and democratic process. They will be laughed out of DMOZ and all their listings will be removed at the same time.

Just as one of the examples, look at my previous post here in DP.

I think it is very clear who owns those listings. Her editor name starts with phone.

 

As I wrote before the listings (Adult/Image Galleries) are within the DMOZ guidelines. Deeplinks are allowed on editor descretion everywhere. The Adult guidelines don't overrule the DMOZ guidelines (and they have never done so). They only specify under which conditions a deeplink will be listed.

I probably understand the editorial guidelines and the editor community better than you do. My responses were not canned but summaries of what has been discussed internaly. As long as I am able to respect myself and my fellow editors and they can respect me I don't need the respect of people here at DP.

As I have stated before the links in Adult/Image Galleries are deeplinks.

 

If you bothered to read the DMOZ internal thread you could have noticed that the editors in favor of the guidelines were mostly not Adult webmasters at all.

 

Does this include all editors or only spammer editors in adult?

I am an editor and I have no respect for some one who supports corruption and wants everybody to accept it as the norm.

so you won't mind to move this discussion to general section and have a secret poll about it, would you?

 

Address the comparison with online garden furniture then please.

Care to share your credentials?

"Why the guidelines allow these listing? Because DMOZ editors decided in the past, and still agree, that these are the guidelines we want to use to build the directory." suggests that there is consensus on this and we know that isn't true.

You are repeating word for word spin that has been spouted many times as an official line - it does not address the issues. The why and how come.

I suggest you go and do more homework then on what a "site" means to an Adult editor. But again, if you are talking deeplinks then explain why if this kind of deeplinking occurred in Shopping it would be abusive but in Adult it is not. Same guidelines you said so it should be easy for you to explain.

 

aquarius, I am most curious why you deemed it necessary posting this, but since you made it your duty policing DP, I can only speculate, correct me if I am wrong. Is it that you are trying to limit discussions about this topic to internal threads? Your "some editors have agreed..." is it your impression that there is ODP-wide approval of that position?
Hesitated to react when reading "Only one (also active at DP) did not approve this explanation." Could almost feel singled out and start suffering from an inferiority complex for not being part of the magic "some", you forgot to mention numbers detailing your "some" though.

At least I don't understand this as an order to stop posting here. With your editorial experience, I would expect you being able to accept that at times there has to be a tiny bit of external discussion of problems, including criticism and not only Yes-men.
This should not get a sterile operation.

 

Ofcourse it is allowed to discuss this outside of DMOZ. But changes can only be made through DMOZ internal discussions.

 

If it wasn't for this forum, DMOZ would still have affirmative pedophile views listed. Admins did their best to protect those listings but in the end they gave up because of the pressure.

If these discussions didn't have any effect, you wouldn't be here, defending spammer editors.

 

Sorry...

Because DMOZ editors decided in the past, and still agree, that these are the guidelines we want to use to build the directory.

to

Some editors (most not being able to edit in Adult as far as I can see) have agreed

What I am actually interested in, since there apparently a discussion on these Adult image galleries, is whether a final decision has been made and if so whether changes to the guidelines have been agreed to make it clear.

 

There is no real discussion. The usual defenders of adult, one person who is not in adult but likes to edit in adult and changes his opinion more than people change their shirt and one ass kisser. That's about it.
There is one person who tries to post the truth about the situation but you are well aware of the gang mentality of spammer editors in adult, so you can guess what is the result.
How can they defend their multiple listings of affiliate and doorway pages that for all practical purpose has no content, in a serious discussion?

 

Brizzie, discussion is ongoing, no final decision has been made. Come discuss this internally, where you can really make a difference.

 

Thanks Annie, the very best idea, already feeling lonesome there.

 

Not sure I would be welcome Annie - someone without the courtesy to identify themselves just left me a red rep - "shame to see you repeating digital point nonsense". Fact is whether it is internally or here in DP I would be saying exactly the same thing, and have been doing so for some time. I am quite insulted really - after so long as an editor you would have thought people would know I don't need to "repeat" anything, my views are my own. What is a real shame is that there are some in the editor community who simply just will not listen to any criticism, but if you don't you can't improve.

 

Sadly true, but is it ego tripping and stubborness or the strong imperative not to censor anything, or corruption in Adult categories?

 

Brizzie, I'm surprised you haven't considered the possibility that it wasn't an editor who left that message. I can't believe that the ODP I know and love would hesitate to reinstate you. Anyone familiar with your work as an editor would have to welcome you back. Yes, you do speak your mind but you do it intelligently and politely and anyone who's really part of the editor community knows that.

Come on, reinstate... lets see...

 

I wonder how much AdSense money gworld is making from these threads?

That seems like a more likely motivation for these nonsense threads than anything altruistic.

 

@sidjf, you really just scraped the bottom of the barrel.

He obviously believes in what he writes about. Like you have passion for your dear dmoz, he is passionate about a topic, too. It just happens to be one you don't like.

 

If this was about money, I wouldn't need to post here and be called every name in the book. I could have simply joined the corruption, Inc. in adult section and spammed DMOZ with my affiliate doorway pages as other adult editors do.

I suppose this forum makes it much more difficult for you and your friends to fool other editors when they have access to the truth and can read it here.

 

LOL It is the early hours here and I am dog tired from work this week. Point taken. But you know there are some who don't appreciate me voicing my opinions. I guess if it was an editor though they would have red-repped all the non-Editor DP posters here and chastised them for repeating brizzie nonsense.

[removed long winded explanation of why I think the time is not right for a return - the tide has to turn on the current approach to the management of the project and its priorities that I believe are not working before I think getting involved internally again would be in the best interests of the project as well as my stress levels. I want to be contributing towards the future not constantly banging my head against the wall in frustration]