Changing your site listing

After looking at their pictures that they use for their avatar, I very much doubt that they have ever seen a lingerie in real life.
What is your favorite brand for lingerie? Are you in States or Europe? If you are in North America, you should start to market to Canada, there is so little choice for high quality lingerie here.

 

Summer, I will offer a possible explanation though one that is pure speculation. I have done some clean-up editing in ladies knickers (most uncomfortable it was too) so understand some of the problems in that part of the directory.

In many parts of the Directory, including Shopping, the store/site name is used not that of the underlying company. Sometimes this gets abused - false names to get a higher listing (as people do with Yellow Pages listings) being one example. In lingerie I know there are lots of sites coming from the same company with different names - I removed plenty of their multiple entries at one time. If you use the underlying company name as the title then you can clearly see when the same business is using different site names and pare them back to one. But whether you use site or underlying business names should be consistent for everyone in a category (though not necessarily across a branch). I actually rejected an update request dozens of times when someone changed their Shopping site title to something I considered designed to jump them to the top of the listings in a category, and stuck to their company name, using the same reasons you were given in RZ. I eventually raised it in forum as the lady was very persistent, and was overruled and was told I *had* to use the site not the company name. You are an editor, you can go to the Shopping forum and dig out precedent threads giving instructions, then raise the inconsistency internally. If there is an inconsistency - practices may have changed in the last few years. You might get some hassle for raising an issue about your own site but there is a precedent when Staff effectively told senior editors to shut up when someone raised an issue about their own site if the issue itself was valid so dig that reference out too as a defence before raising.

I am pretty sure I know who you are talking about and he is extremely knowledgeable about Shopping branch practices and policies across the board as well as being fair, even-handed, and open-minded - I wish he were an Admin and he is probably one of, if not the, best meta editor DMOZ has. If you ask him politely he will take the time to try and explain. If you go in there like a bull in a china shop then he is only human after all...

 

Please post a few pictures.

Oh yeah, probably that editor named Bob again. I agree with brizzie, he's a sweetie, very good, and very nice. He'll always take the time to explain what he does and why... just ask him.

 

I can imagine it would be uncomfortable.

Edit: I noticed that Annie has a dirty mind too and already posted about this.

 

After that salacious photo of the eggs, nothing Annie says shocks me any more

 

Please clarify, is it that you edited a category about ladies knickers or did you wear those fashionable ladies knickers while editing?

 

Yes, I must confess, have a dark side. I enjoy making egg dramas and drawing stick figures of death. That photo was only first in a series... maybe I'll post the rest in time for Easter. For now I'll just say gworld may have started on top in the beginning, but the ending is not for the squeamish.

 

There seems to be an inordinate degree of interest in brizzie's undergarments in this thread. You DMOZ editors are weird.

 

If memory servers, Squeamish is a town in British Columbia. No wait... maybe I'm thinking of the Canadian name for BigFoot.

 

Not that you are looking for some elegant way for confessing that you are a foot fetishist?

 

http://www.manties.net/ wish I had known earlier.

He's a very nice gentleman Annie but for the record I never said "sweetie"

Yes, you will find my sticky fingers all over the lingerie.

 

Remember that all editors can see everyrhing that happened in a category. And also can see anything you as an editor have done.

1) That "60 year old guy" did less than 5 changes in that category correcting a few small mistakes. I wouldn't call that what you did.
2) "hard work" , don't make me laugh - there are more sites waiting review in that category than there are listed ; or are you one of those editors many DPers are complaining about (keeping out the competition)

BTW I'm sure you know more about lingerie than that specified meta but being a good editor you don't need to have understanding of a subject you must be able to write titles and descriptions according to guidelines and be able to spot listable sites.

 

Maybe not, but you are only telling your small part of the truth. I just showed the other side.

But they can be checked by all DMOZ editors. Which we can't state about the empty accusations done by you and your friends here at DP.

I have to disappoint you. You don't need deep knowledge about a subject to be a good editor in a category about that subject. Strange thing is that most good editors work in a lot of categories with a subject they know little about and editors who work only in a category of which they think they are a subject expert in are in many cases not so good editors.

 

The thing about you, pagode, it that you're way too dumb to realize that what you just posted, if credible (a big if in your case), is a condemnation of DMOZ policy.

 

I think people are rather missing the point here. Let's look at the psychology. People don't like having their work corrected. Yet that is bound to happen in a collaborative project like Dmoz or Wikipedia. In the ODP any senior editor can drop into a category that someone thinks of as their own and fix up listings as per Guidelines.

Summer was upset by that. She's not the only one. Editors have departed in high dudgeon because another editor revised their descriptions or re-categorised listings to fit the Dmoz standard. Now what do we do about that? Obviously we would prefer people not to go storming off into the night if they are willing and able to aid the project.

Yet if we allow all editors the freedom to do whatever they like, we would have anarchy. What happens if there are several editors listed for a category? Who gets their way? How would all the different categories being created on completely different principles link together? Would it make sense to allow each editor to list anything they like in 'their' category, whether or not it belongs there? Would that build a directory that people could actually use?

It was to avoid that kind of anarchy that the Guidelines were created, and professional staff brought in to aid in creation of a logical ontology. Some sort of consistency was imposed on a directory built up by thousands of people.

Yet knowing the reasons why doesn't necessarily make us feel one bit better about having our work corrected. It's only human to feel sore about it. It feels like a personal attack. Let's try for a little understanding here, rather than pouring oil on the flames.

 

Oh, now I get it. Is this what happened in DMOZ Adult?