DMOZ editors: Please post this in internal forum

I'd like to share your optimism but see http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=802664&postcount=1 .

 

Gworld, the analogy to flower affiliates is good. I worked on that clean up, boy what a mess it was! I do understand what you're saying but do you understand that it's not as simple as that? I do need to know a lot more about the topic to go on an affiliate cleanup like we did in flowers. Do you remember how much discussion that took?

We can't get as deeply into specifics in a public forum as I would need to truly understand the problem. I would truly need to understand the problem to work on it. Quoting guidelines is good, but it's in the application that my knowledge is lacking.

In Shopping we have examples but we don't have that for Adult. Without an Adult counterpart to learn from, an editor like me will have a heck of a time trying to work all this out. I've read the guidelines over and over, but the problem is in applying those guidelines when you don't know a thing about the topic being edited.

Does that make any sense to you? (It's a bit hard to explain.)

 

You can use all the sites that I have mentioned in this forum as an example. Practical application of guideline is childishly simple. Click on the listed site, find the link or button that is usually called Enter, sign up, more pictures,...and click on it. If it takes you to another domain and the link usually ends with an affiliate ID number, then it is an affiliate site and should not be listed.
All the sites that have real content, you will be staying on the same domain and you will buying the membership from the same site that is listed in DMOZ.

 

Sign up? You mean I have to sign up to check that? They want my personal information first?

Would I have to give real information, or can it be faked?

Wouldn't that expose me to tons of spam emails?

 

No you don't need to sign up, you just click on that link and it will take to another domain, so you can fill your information. In that stage you can just close the browser or go to another site.

For example in my previous post about almightyzeus, you will notice a a link that states: pictures provide by bella babes, if you click on that, it will take you to ballababes(.) com, this is because there is nothing on that page, except the few picture listed to get around DMOZ requirement and the only thing is being sold is membership for bellababes that they are affiliate for.

This is how you know that page is only an affiliate doorway and this domain has no actual content of their own that they sell.

 

These sites that you're complaining about are in the Adult/Image Galleries categories. If you read the description - this explains the types of sites/deeplinks you would find in the category:

The flower sites were brought up as a comparison. The description for those categories is

The purpose of the first category is to display picture galleries - the question to ask is: In order to see picture galleries do I have to go to another site?

The purpose of the second category is to sell flowers - the question to ask is: In order to buy flowers do I have to go to another site?

If the answer to either question is NO - then the listing doesn't belong in that category.

If you can't find a picture gallery on any of the listings in Image Galleries - let someone know (use the update URL or post on RZ or post here). That would be a quality control problem. However, the listings that have been brought up here all have image galleries on them (that you don't have to go to another site to see).

I'm not a porn site owner like gworld is - I have no vested interest in whether any of these listings stay or go - I don't really care if they're listed or not. I do care if the listings are not guidelines compliant, so:

1. Are they quality - I don't know (doesn't matter according to current guidelines)
2. Are they original - I don't know (doesn't matter according to guidelines)
3. Are they unique to the category(s) they're in - yes (at least the pictures I looked at were)
4. Are they image galleries - yes (didn't see a listing without one or more image galleries)
5. Do you have to go to another site to see the pictures - no (I didn't leave the sites I looked at by clicking on the links to the galleries or the links to the photos).

What am I missing?

 

OK, I see what you see; one of the reasons why what I saw when I looked at Adult initially disappointed/confused me.

This is one of the things that has to be addressed I believe. Conventional treatment of the affiliate site is to blank out the affiliate content and if what is left constitutes sufficient unique content then you may list. So you ignore the affiliate material and what you are left with are images that qualify the site. What this suggests is that the sufficient unique content test for image galleries is far too lax and takes no consideration of the purpose of the site which is to drive traffic to the affiliate. The primary purpose of the site is not to provide unique and valuable content - that content is contrived and is effectively an SEO trick. These are the guidelines that cover this type of site:

Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory. However, a site that contains affiliate links in addition to other content (such as a fan site for a singer that has interviews and photos plus banner ads and links to buy the singer's CDs) might be an acceptable submission to the directory.

General rule of thumb: Look at the content on the site, mentally blocking out all affiliate links. If the remaining information is original and valuable informational content that contributes something unique to the category's subject, the site may be a good candidate for the ODP. If the remaining content is poor, minimal, or copied from some other site, then the site is not a good candidate for the ODP.​

This suggests to me that the content in addition to the affiliate links must be relatively substantial. But it is woolly and vague as to what constitutes sufficient quality content. It could be clarified. And as I said several times raising the quality bar would instantly have an enormous impact. The problem at present is that the judgement is too subjective so you have stalemate. Many people look and see crap and therefore reject on the basis of the above guidelines. Others look and see sufficient content and accept on the basis of the above guidelines. Until people discuss this (internally) and come up with much stricter and clearer criteria you have nothing to hang an abuse allegation on. That is a fault in the system because it makes it damned near impossible to tell legitimate listing from abusive listing.

I don't think it is that difficult. I rejected hundreds of affiliate travel sites and I didn't even think about counting the photos of hotels and try to prove they were the same photos as on other affiliate travel sites. They were an affiliate travel site, simple, gone. Then you might get a travel site with lots of information about the destination, and some affiliate links. But you can clearly see that the travel information, unique content, is the function of the site and the affiliate is subsidiary - therefore it is OK. I would apply the same type of definition to the Adult galleries. Is its function to send traffic to the affiliate - reject. Is the function to provide good quality galleries and there just happens to be affiliate links - consider for listing. In the practical reality of editing, whilst there is still a level of subjectivity, that kind of judgement is really very easy.

 

Although I'm sure there are a few altruistic porn webmasters out there who pay for hosting and content and then give it away just to be nice...what porn site doesn't exist to make money either through advertising or membership?

The "function" of almost every site listed in the ODP is to make money in some way or another - same as television and radio. Content (website information, tv shows, songs) are included to attract people - the real purpose is to make money via advertising.

 

Over 90% of image galleries disappear (conservative estimate).

 

It seems it is the real purpose of adult editors for editing in DMOZ too.

Ignore the minimum content necessary to get around DMOZ requirement and the only thing you are left with is the affiliate link that they use to redirect the user.

 

There is a difference between a site designed to send traffic to an affiliate and a site with affiliate links that are subsidiary to the content. They are not difficult to tell apart. Every commercial site is selling something but the key factor is whether what they are selling is their own unique content. Every editor with any experience in an area of the directory that suffers from affiliate schemes, i.e. every branch level editor, editall and above, knows the difference or should not be in that position. The travel agent who has Amazon affiliate links to guides for the region is nevertheless selling his own travel services. The travel agent who includes a paragraph on a destination then sells everyone else's travel services via affiliate links is not selling his own travel services and is therefore an affiliate worthy of instant rejection. What is the function of the site? Is it to sell the owner's goods and services, or someone else's. Easy.

 

I think it is VERY VERY VERY EASY too but some how sidjf who is an editall has such hard time to understand this simple concept that has been explained many times in different DMOZ documents, can it be that he DOES NOT want to understand?

 

I am very sure sidjf does understand or he would not be an editall.

The point is with clarifying what would constitute a site that contains affiliate links in addition to other content and might therefore be listable. My reading of the guidelines is that the example provided makes it very clear - a fan site for a singer that has interviews and photos plus banner ads and links to buy the singer's CDs
The function of the example site is to be a fan site with interviews and photos. That is the content being "sold" to users of the site but income is derived from affiliate links and banner ads and that is subsidiary to the primary function of the site.

Sidjf and others may have a different perception, hence the need to debate and clarify so everyone is playing by the same set of rules.

 

I am sure he understands it too but this is one of those cases that ignorance is a bless.

 

I think you mean, "ignorance is bliss" (irony?).

 

I think you can use both, the pretense of ignorance brings "divine" favor on those listings and in the same time causes extreme happiness for adult editors.

 

Ok perhaps I'm too new as an editor or too niave... I don't know.

But, if a webmaster wants to put up 50 free galleries be it shoes, art, or porn pictures, whatever... what exactly is the problem listing them all from the root ???

If they're free for all to browse anyway what's the hassle ? Thats what I am completely and hopelessly clueless about ? If webmasters want to offer galleries free to surfers, offering their particular wares, why not list them all on the first page, easily accessed and easily browseable, like most webmasters do offering freebies.

Is there some sort of problem with Adult webmasters in their genure being prevented from doing so ?

And if there is such a reason why Adult webmasters cannot do the completely obvious and list free galleries on the their homepages confused: ) why does Dmoz care anyway ?
It's not a listing service for webmasters after all, no matter what genure, and no matter how they choose to build, and monetize, their own personal websites as they see fit.

I just don't get it... Am I missing something ? Or am I just one of the dimmer ones as suggested ?

 

I don't think you're missing anything at all, shygirl. No doubt someone representing Adult will be along in a moment to tell us all we're dumb as posts for not getting it but the reality is that none of the explanations for why Adult is the way it is make any sense whatsoever.

 

You are not missing anything. DMOZ is being used as marketing arm of adult webmasters (AKA DMOZ adult editors). They need to have multiple listings since they want to improve search engine result for each affiliate page for different type of porn. One thing that even adult editors agree with, is the fact that all these pages are of such low quality and content that no one who is interested in porn will be interested to look at these pages.
The whole purpose of these pages is to be transient doorway page to the real site that they are affiliate to.

 

shygirl - I know you're not going to (although I don't understand why - well, I do understand, but think your concerns are based on DP nonsense rather than reality) - but if you are actually wondering about these things, it would make a lot more sense to ask in the ODP forums so that people that actually know what they are talking about can at least have the possibility of answering.

Asking non-editors questions about listing policies is not going to result in very accurate answers.

Hell, if you have a question, PM it to me and I will post it for you internally and you can read the answers for yourself from people qualified to give the answers.