1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ editors: Please post this in internal forum

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by gworld, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #61
    Odd. They all suddenly disappeared. :eek:

    I guess they needed to run off and spend a month or two trying to decide what the correct answer is. :rolleyes:

    Or perhaps orlady let them know she was displeased with their antics... ass-kissing will always win out over the joys of trolling for people like that.
     
    minstrel, Apr 11, 2006 IP
  2. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #62
    This has been answered before. It just wasn't the answer the answer you wanted to hear. Are you more open minded today. :rolleyes:

    NO. Affiliate doorways should not be listed and if they are listed should be removed.

    BUT. Current listings within Adult/Image Galleries are NOT affiliate doorways according to DMOZ definition. [if you know of any that are there are several ways to report them, this can be done anonymous if you want - listing sites here at DP is not one of the ways to report them]

    Most probably you won't approve what I wrote but DMOZ is run by DMOZ guidelines and definitions. It is not run according Gworld's or Minsterl's guidelines (whatever these might be).
     
    pagode, Apr 12, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  3. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #63
    But some how the same pages that I posted about and sidjf defended, has been removed now. :rolleyes:

    What is DMOZ adult editors definition of affiliate doorway pages?

    "Pages that have no real content and are only designed to act as doorway pages that redirects the users to the main site that they are affiliate of, are not doorway pages because otherwise DMOZ adult editors will loose their listings."

    If you mean the above, I couldn't find it in the guideline, but may be it exists in adult editors definition of "Norm". :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  4. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    Wow, how did you do that? We were here, and the next thing I remember is waking up this morning... spooky! :cool:
     
    compostannie, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  5. orlady

    orlady Peon

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    Gworld, once again, you aren't making sense to me (and not just because of editing your older posts). I had to take some time to try to figure out what you are talking about, and I finally concluded that I don't know what directory those sites you were complaining about got deleted from. Some of the "cheap phone" URLs were deleted from dmoz several weeks ago, but the "almighty zeus" ones that I checked are still listed in dmoz. :confused:

    As for dmoz's definitions of terms like "affiliate" and "doorway", see http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/faq.html (in case that URL gets stripped from my post, it's the FAQ for Adult:Image_Galleries, and it's a public page). The FAQ could be changed at any time, but these definitions have not been changed since 1999:
    The pages you complained about were listed on the basis of their unique non-affiliate content, as found on the listed site. They are not affiliates or doorways within the meaning of these definitions.
     
    orlady, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #66

    From More Fun with DMOZ posting:

    "In my previous post I mentioned that one of the sites listed in that category was a door way to sex phone business listed on DMOZ but I decided to look on another site in that page. One of the sites listed under Marisa Diaz category is in a domain called almightyzeus(.)com. This domain is such a high quality site that if you search for it, you will find 35 listings in DMOZ.

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

    There is only one problem with this high quality site, it has no content except doorway pages to different affiliate programs. click on the links and after that try the sign up link or webmaster link and it will take you to the real sites.

    1,5,10 link goes to bellababes which in reality is platinumbucks if you click on webmaster

    2,3,4,8,9 goes to macandbumble which in reality is bumblecash"

    Domain listed in DMOZ: Almightyzeus.com

    Domain it goes to for signup : bellababes.com (Links: 1,5,10)

    Domian it goes to for signup: macandbumble.com (Links: 2,3,4,8,9)

    Link to entrance page ends with hit.php?ref=100482

    Affiliate number = 100482

    Link nr 15 goes to danni.com

    Link for entrance page ends with dannicash?dcwid=100128

    Affiliate number = 100128

    From DMOZ adult guideline:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. "


    Don't you think if you want to make up stories that these are not affiliate pages, you should make up a story that is not so easy to show that is untrue? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  7. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #67
    I don't think it's helping any to keep showing the guidelines that contradict gworld's statements - no matter how often we try to point out that the sky is blue, he'll keep saying it's green because there are trees in the sky :rolleyes:
     
    lmocr, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #68
    I have shown the link and I have shown the affiliate ID and you are still trying to say that these are not affiliate pages. :rolleyes:
    I think part of the problem that you can not read and understand something so obvious, is because of your limited vision since your view must be quite limited while having your lips glued to Meta's back. ;)
     
    gworld, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  9. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #69
    You're right about one thing, lmocr. You're not helping any. Indeed, I can't think of a single worthwhile thing you've ever contributed to these discussions.

    I'm sure there's a lot you can accomplish back at the Resourceless Zone, though - as I believe I've said before, I'm sure you'll find that environment much more to your liking. :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  10. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #70
    I guess so..

    But then again, 35 listings isn't that bad for 1 main url in Dmoz either .:confused:
     
    shygirl, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  11. orlady

    orlady Peon

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #71
    If you had continued reading, you might have noticed
    Note: just because a site has an affiliate link on it does not mean it must be deleted. If the site also provides sufficient content of its own as well as an affiliate link, it is OK to index the site.
    But I suppose it's more fun to insult people than it is to read. ;)
     
    orlady, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #72

    How did you draw the above conclusion from this:

    From DMOZ adult guideline:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. "

    So affiliate and doorway pages are OK, if some one adds 20 low quality image to it. Is there anything that in your opinion which is not acceptable for adult editors to list in order to generate traffic for their affiliate pages? :rolleyes:

    No wonder that DMOZ is in such bad shape if this is the best an Admin can come up with. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  13. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73
    I think there is some ambiguity in Guidelines and in terminology. If those can be nailed down so everyone understands where we are now then you can start to discuss whether there is need to enforce what exists or change something. What it might come down to is redefining acceptable levels of quality in Adult image galleries as well as dealing with deeplinks or multiple domains from the same source via a discussion that has already apparently started internally. Either way it is clearly on the Admin agenda to take seriously and resolve these ongoing issues that IMO have been a running sore for a long time - in the past Adult issues have flared up then seem to have been dropped as being too difficult an issue. I am actually very impressed that dialogue is obviously still continuing and movement in the right direction is taking place. It may be too slow and technical for some but Rome wasn't built in a day.

    General rule of thumb in DMOZ as a whole when it comes to affiliates is to mentally block out the affiliate links and if what you are left with is sufficient original content then you may list the site. That should apply equally to Adult as anywhere else. What gives the appearance of impropriety is the apparent special treatment of Adult galleries so if they get exactly the same treatment then I would be fine with that.

    Where I have a difficulty is the definition of "site" when it comes to Adult listings when it has been stated internally that a "site" is considered to be a gallery in effect. And the inconsistency of treatment of related sites/domains/deeplinks. For example in the issue raised here recently concerning vicioussummer's two clothing stores it was clear only one would be listed in Shopping but in Adult two galleries from the same source can even be listed in the same category. They must be related in subject matter to be in the same category and they must be related in owner because... they are the same owner. Quite honestly I don't give a flying fig that 15 or 20 photos constitutes sufficient content. What I believe gives the impression of abusive practices is that people, including past and present editors, obtain multiple listings of related commercial sites (by Adult terms) or deeplinks according to more conventional wisdom. Not just 2 but 10's of related listings. I say impression of abuse carefully - it is not actual abuse if it has been accepted practice to list in this particular way. If that practice is officially reversed and Adult editors ignored that then at that point they become abusive editors.

    Bringing it back around to affiliate sites - I have no theoretical problem with listing a site with affiliate links if it meets the original content bar for the category - if that is 15 poor quality images then so be it as long as everyone's 15 poor quality images (all different) are accepted too. What I do object to is the habit of listing 10, 20, 50 "sites" or galleries or deeplinks (whatever) from the same owner each containing 15 poor quality but original images alongside their mass of affiliate links.

    Not only would correction of this anomoly significantly reduce the appearance of abuse but it would also mean, bearing in mind that very few senior editors edit in Adult, that actual abuse would be far easier to spot and deal with by editors and metas and Admins unfamiliar with the Adult branch. The issue of vested interests within Adult is also important because there are some Adult webmasters who are also Adult editors. They are open about that. Those editors have clearly been investigated numerous times and no evidence found to warrant a charge of abusive editing. Nevertheless I am sure they would wish to avoid appearances of impropriety themselves and that is easily achieved by applying the same standards of not listing multiple related sites (etc.) in related categories as applies in other commercial branches such as Shopping. And to extend the definition of Affiliate to include sites that clearly exist *solely* to drive traffic to another and are contrived by the inclusion of a minimal number of images to qualify as an image gallery.
     
    brizzie, Apr 12, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #74
    Can someone tell me with this imaginative interpretation of Guideline by adult editors and Admin, what can possibly be an abuse? :rolleyes:

    Affiliate and doorway pages can be listed in contradiction to the guideline because even when it is proved that it is affiliate page, it doesn't matter as long as there is 15 low quality picture.

    Guideline states minimum 20 image but that is no problem, 15 is acceptable, 20 is just a suggestion.

    Multiple listings of adult editors pages are OK, even for advertisement of editors business that is already listed in DMOZ.

    The usual excuse for not being abuse was that different editors have added the listings but now everybody accepts that multiple account for same person can exist and that excuse has been blown away too.

    Orlady;

    tell us, what can possibly be an abuse with your interpretation of guideline? :rolleyes:

    The simple truth is that all so called discussion in internal forum is just a bunch of BS to cover up the fact that these listings exists solely to generate income for few people through affiliate doorway pages. Anyone who pretends that he or she can not see it, either is dishonest and is benefiting from the abuse or a complete moron.
     
    gworld, Apr 12, 2006 IP
  15. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75
    Using a less emotive example, for many years lots of Regional and Shopping editors of all levels believed a listing in one was mutually exclusive for the other and hence rejected sites for listing in both. The believe was wrong and the policy rectified. No editors were punished for many incorrect rejections. Guidelines were clarified. The facts about Adult listings, whether you like it or not, and I don't, is that a practice has built up over years that has been accepted. I happen to think that the practice is wrong but that doesn't make it abuse, any more than my deletions in Regional of submissions in Shopping and vice versa were abusive. If I had continued with the rejections after the clarification then there would maybe be a case.

    What would constitute abuse would be if an editor applied the Adult interpretation of the guidelines unfairly and inconsistently. So if an editor listed 40 of their own galleries then did not list 40 of someone else's on exactly the same basis then that is abuse. You would have to show inconsistency of treatment of affiliated and non-affiliated submissions to prove abuse.

    Multiple accounts are a way of disguising the editor listing the sites and when caught they are dealt with accordingly. One would have to assume they were also being deceptive by not declaring the connection. But there is no deception if a site is listed that has been declared as an editor affiliation - doesn't matter who does the listing. Since the editors you say are abusive have, AFAIK, declared their affiliations, there is no attempt at deception. So if you find a site owned by an editor that has been listed (or even not listed) then you can report that to an Admin in this instance for confidentiality and they can check whether it has been declared. Who listed the site is, to all intents and purposes, a red herring.

    And I think that is wrong too. But that is not abuse necessarily, it would simply require guideline clarification.

    See my previous note on the treatment of sites that contain affiliate and unique material. If the content bar is 15 unique low quality pictures and is applied consistently then the site is listable as things stand. It may be that the bar needs to be raised substantially higher but that is a different issue.

    The simple truth is that there are circumstances that have arisen that give the strong impression of your belief. These are correctible by bringing Adult listing practices into line with, say, Shopping, and raising the content quality bar. This would also result in the removal of many sites listed by editors who were proven in the past to be abusive and whose ill-deeds remain as an embarrassment - what the hell if you get caught and the proceeds keep rolling in month on month. Essentially the current situation cannot, IMO, be allowed to continue. And there are apparently efforts being made at Admin level to do something about it. Instead of disparaging those efforts now, it would be more sensible to await the outcome. If, when all is said and done and the discussions concluded with everyone going onto something else, there is no change then personally I would despair that Adult will continue to give every appearance of impropriety because of failure to address the impression that current policies give. But I am not going to pre-judge that now there is discussion under way. You say internal discussion is a bunch of BS but how can you come to that conclusion before you see the final outcome? I have seen BS in previous discussions about Adult that withered and died but this current round is not going away - there appears to be a will to tackle it at last. Why would you want to discourage that? Be positive and support change instead - it is change that you have influenced by years of plugging away at it. Just don't mix up actual abuse with appearance of abuse. If there is actual abuse then it will be uncovered by clarifying guidelines and policy but until then, unless you can show evidence of unfair or inconsistent application of existing policies or outright deception, no amount of shouting about the appearances will achieve anything.

    It's a little bit like tax evasion versus tax avoidance. One is criminal, the other achieves the same result but is legal if morally questionable. Instead of trying to prosecute the tax avoider and losing time after time you revise the tax codes to close tax avoidance loopholes - the individual then either complies and pays tax like everyone else, or ends up in jail.
     
    brizzie, Apr 13, 2006 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #76
    I think one of the editors summarized this type of internal discussion very well in that thread:

    "I have to ask.... ARE the guidelines actually going to change if some consensus is reached.... or is this another "discussion" that may/could/will go nowhere.?"

    Some people are just very smart and know the result from the beginning. ;)

    And as some other editor mentioned, there is nothing in the new proposal that stops listing of any of listings that are currently listed.

    So what is this discussion about:

    1) affiliate page should not be listed but it doesn't mean that affiliate page will not be listed because some affiliate should be listed.

    2) may be it is good to have minimum number of images but it doesn't mean that pages that don't have the minimum number can not be listed because it will be listed.

    3) may be the pages that are listed have old pictures from 80's and porn actress had hair style which is old but it doesn't mean that those listings will be removed, it means those listings should be moved to another category for old style porn.

    4) may be the pictures should be bigger in size like 1200*768 but it doesn't mean that others will not be listed because may be some one has dial up and in desperate need to find old porn picture through DMOZ directory.

    Did I forget any topic in this revolutionary discussion? I don't think so. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 13, 2006 IP
  17. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    The current thread is I am told led by an Admin. Firstly that gives an indication there is high level will for change, secondly it ensures any changes agreed are implemented.

    I thought I did in December. I hope I was wrong and I'm open-minded enough to believe it is possible if not probable right now that change will at least start to happen.

    Some kind person I trust summarised the goals for me. That doesn't match your description above. Since I know you are biased I'll take your own summary with a pinch of salt thanks. Unless someone can independently verify you are not being selective in your report. Even so, sacrifice an account and have your say with reference to those goals. You aren't going to get a second chance this good are you? You are whining on about this here but are not willing to stick your hand up where it counts - have the courage of your convictions gworld. I have an excuse - I do not have an active account, you do.

    Or are you actually against change because it would resolve a great many of those complaints you have been making for years - how would you fill your time? Go on. Do it. That is why you have multiple accounts isn't it? To monitor abuse and expose it, don't falter at the final hurdle.
     
    brizzie, Apr 13, 2006 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #78
    I invite all the editors who can read that thread, to post about any topic of discussion I might have missed. ;)

    The only thing that I didn't mention was the usual editors rant about how bad people in this forum are and how stupid and rude, we are to question adult policies but I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 13, 2006 IP
  19. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    I suppose with only those two possibilities, I would fall into the "complete moron" category. Are you absolutely certain there are no other categories for people like me? :confused:

    G, I'm not getting the same understanding from the internal dmoz discussions at all. Maybe most of us just aren't familiar enough with the Adult industry to see what you say is so obvious. Does that make us complete morons? At least I'm willing to learn... but how do I go about learning the Adult industry? I don't think there's a Dummies Guide to Internet Pornography. Perhaps you could write one for us... maybe even a blog with daily lessons that we could all learn from. Clearly you have some expertise that most of us lack. (I'm not being scarastic, really.)

    If you educate editors rather than calling us corrupt or morons maybe we could make a difference. Contact me via icq and give me lessons. Please! :)
     
    compostannie, Apr 13, 2006 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #80
    Lesson number one from DMOZ:


    "1.8 Q: What is an affiliate site?

    A: An affiliate site is a site which sells memberships to another site without real content of its own. A good way to spot these is to look at the sign-up links. If the link is to another domain and has a numeric or cgi ending, then it is an affiliate site. An example of what this would look like would be for a link from http://www.mysite.com to go to http://www.cybererotica.com/ad/welcome.cgi/raw_3526/K. Note: just because a site has an affiliate link on it does not mean it must be deleted. If the site also provides sufficient content of its own as well as an affiliate link, it is OK to index the site."

    1-Notice in the description that it mentions real content, it does not say no content. I do not think in the whole Internet exists a page that is solely an affiliate link with nothing else on that page, so adult editors excuse about 15 images is just ridiculous.

    2- The test it mentions about sign-up test (enter the site button) is the best test for affiliate site. Does it go to another domain or stays in the same domain? Does it have affiliate ID or not?
    Majority (over 90%) of listings in adult fail this test. :rolleyes:

    3- What does the note really means? It means if there is a real site, for example about flowers and has content, navigation and you could really use this site without the need to click on a affiliate link this site could be listed (1 time), even if there was an advertisement for some flower delivery service that site owner was affiliate to.
    It never meant that doorway pages that have no function, except for user to click the entrance page and be taken to the real site, should be listed in contradiction with guideline and then every doorway page be considered a site, so the same domain can get 30 listings. :rolleyes:

    What is the point of stating that affiliate sites can not be listed, if you can surround the link with couple of pictures and list it?
    Why should these pages be listed, instead of the sites that these pages redirect to through their enter button? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Apr 13, 2006 IP