DMOZ editors: Please post this in internal forum

Perhaps they should ask themselves why that is.

Considering the record of Adult editors and their listing practices, I wouldn't say it's sad at all - I'd say it's well deserved.

 

That's not really fair. From what I understand, some long gone abusive editors have left a mess in Adult, but it takes a huge effort to completely clean up the damage even one abusive editor can do. We have some very good editors working in Adult right now and I don't think it's fair to attack all of them because of the mess they're stuck with. I do think it's sad that they have to put up with that legacy, they certainly don't deserve it. I understand why they're defensive, I just wish they weren't put in the position of always being attacked so that they could feel more comfortable about interacting with the rest of the editors.

 

What I see from people like sidjf is repeated attempts to justify very questionable listing practices. Most recently, these include resorting to the childish, "Ok, so maybe what we're doing isn't right but look at those Gaming categories - they're just as bad".

 

No, that's not what sidjf said at all. It was more like, "it's ok in Adult, it's ok in Games, and it's ok in Arts - why just pick on Adult?"

Sidjf asks a legitimate question IMO. I'm only trying to tell him "I don't know, but I'd like to understand." How can I say it's wrong to deeplink in Adult when I don't even understand why they do it? I do understand deeplinking in some categories. In fact I've been working on heavily deeplinking municode.com in Regional. When I'm done with that there could be thousands of deeplinks, but I feel it's a legitimate site to deeplink because they add value by publishing the entire code of ordinances for cities and counties throughout the US. And no, I don't own that site.

 

A doorway page is a doorway page wherever it is. I think you're talking about multiple listings of a site with regional information. I don't see that as being at all similar to numerous sites with 15-20 non-unique images all pointing to a pay-to-enter porn site, do you?

 

I'm concerned about all branches following the same set of guidelines. If Arts and Games need attention too then fine but one at a time. Adult/IG is a well known problem area for corruption due to the commercial rewards from abusing it, and that is acknowledged at the very highest levels. I didn't start the current thread on Adult listing policies, an Admin did.

In addition, AFAIK Arts and Games do not list sites based on a count of images on a gallery and therefore include obvious affiliate sites and adverts, which add the images just to get a listing.

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.​

The example of a site with affiliate links that is acceptable above indicates a variety of valuable content, not a count of images.

Affiliate Site
A site which is constructed primarily to drive traffic through affiliate links. Affiliate sites (sometimes referred to as simply affiliates) are not listed in ODP unless they have significant non-affiliate content. ​

Deeplinking is the process of adding links to sub-pages and sub-domains within a site.

General Rule: In the vast majority of categories and branches, deeplinking is the exception rather than the rule. Deeplinks should offer content that is unique and extremely useful to a particular category. There are no strict rules regarding the type of site that should or should not be deeplinked. Providing deeplinks, in a uniform way, to sites that offer extremely useful and unique content can add value to the directory in a few cases (e.g. categories with very limited content, and where the meat of the available web content is typically buried within larger sites). However, editors should be very judicious when adding deeplinks of a particular URL. If you are uncertain about adding deeplinks, ask an experienced editor, such as a meta or an editall, for advice or guidance. Ultimately, all deeplinking decisions are subject to staff approval.​

I know very little about Games but Art - well that should include image galleries on the same basis as Adult you would have thought. Except non-Adult. But I couldn't find any examples, certainly not on the scale of Adult in any case. But please educate me.

But the arguments used to reject multiple URLs and deeplinks in Shopping are equally valid when it comes to Adult. How can those arguments be following the guidelines when the exact reverse happens in Adult/IG?

Read the guidelines on what is considered acceptable when it comes to listing affiliate sites and deeplinks elsewhere in the Directory. They talk about substantial, extremely valuable, exceptions, being very judicious, etc. IMDB, for example, offers a unique level of detail on every movie and TV programme that, currently, cannot be matched. And you most definitely do not see multiple IMDB pages in the same category. The only place you see multiple URLs and deeplinks from the same source in the same category is Adult. I am not saying that other branches might not have their problems - like the abortive attempt to list more or less every CNN page. And the controversy over Topix in Regional. But no other branch has the history of abuse that Adult has either.

I don't see Shopping editors routinely listing multiple URLs and deeplinks in apparent disregard of general guidelines (as quoted above). The only answer I ever got by asking was along the lines of because that is how we do things in Adult... and you don't understand the Adult web industry so butt out.

Ditto. Like I said above.

Because they refuse to admit what you've just said, that there is a problem with legacy abuse, and that it needs to be cleaned up. I also understand there was an attempt made to clean it up a while back that was considered by some Adult editors to be ruining their good work. Other editors would help in the clean-up if the same standards about affiliates, multiple URLs, and deeplinks, per the Guidelines, were also applied in Adult.

I repeat something I said earlier - if there is no appearance of impropriety in Adult then why is an Admin seeking to change Adult guidelines to eliminate the appearance of impropriety?

 

Annie - here's what I think:

Adult is like a mini dmoz - it has most of the same top level categories that TOP does (Business, Games, Shopping, Regional, News, Arts, Computers, etc). The Image Galleries category is similar to the same category in Arts/People - there are many more galleries of course (but there are also more Quarter Horse listings than Fell ponies too). It's more of an Art category than a Shopping or Business category, which is why deeplinks are not frowned on.

 

That is exactly the point. I don't know why sidjf has so much trouble understanding it.

Addendum: Just saw lmocr's post. Apparently she doesn't get it either.

 

But it is the most credible explanation I have seen to date.

But again there is a difference. Arts/People will not list two sites/deeplinks from the same source in the same category. Adult will. Arts/People does allow any site in based on a word count (swap words for images) thereby allowing in affiliates and adverts for other sites. Adult will.

 

If this was true then why there is thread in internal forum where sidjf publishes a list of aggressive submitters and spammers as he call them and the admin puts a filter to stop their submission? Why does he want to delete a site that has 19 picture instead of 20 while he defends the site that has 15 images?
It seems listing of deeplinks are acceptable but submission of deeplinks are spam and only deeplinks that mysteriously appear on editors screen can be listed hundreds of times.

 

gworld - it must really hurt you to know that your site is not as well received as you think it should be.

 

Truly hilarious, lmocr

No doubt your horses and grandchildren think so anyway...

 

lol, once again you are so desperate to back up your silly complaints that you will bring up anything you can get a hold of, even when it doesn't even help your pathetic case. You apparently have no grasp of the concept of there being a difference between someone telling you how something is and how they think it should be. I'll go over it again, just for fun...

In my opinion, the quality of sites listed in Adult/Image_Galleries needs to be raised dramatically. The best way to do this would be to quit listing the "TGP" pages - pages that are really designed to be submitted to TGPs. They are generally around 20 pictures and have a fair amount of ads.

They are currently listable - this is fact.

What you and minstrel are too dim-witted to understand is that me telling you how things are does not mean I agree with it.

Personally, I don't really care (for the most part) who owns the site or how many deeplinks it has. I care about the quality of the site.

Many people here think we need to stop listing deeplinks in Adult. That doesn't address the real issue. The real issue is the quality of the sites, not who owns them.

I'm ready for the slew of mis-quotes, word twisting, and general gworld/minstrel smokescreening which always comes after someone makes a post that displays the ignorance of their claims!

 

You have already shown that you have no problem with bestiality porn, is your defense of porn business because your are a supplier to that niche?

 

You're so clever! How long did it take to think of that one?

 

Not as long as it takes you to find all the crazy excuses for listing those pages.

 

What sid said

The only "porn" I'm involved with is the type that takes place when my stallion meets a mare - unlike the individual accusing me, I can honestly say I have no ties to this issue in any matter whatsoever (except as an interested bystander).

I don't edit in adult, only own one business, and only have one website. We've been through this dance before - you couldn't back up your imaginary claims then - or don't you remember this thread ?

 

OK, if your defense of porn and abuse is not because of the profit, may I ask what kind of glue do you use to glue your lips to Meta's bottom, it must be very strong since no matter how fast they run, your lips stays glued.

 

That was more entertaining the first dozen or so times...when minstrel said it. If the best you can do is to copy minstrel's insults, the least you can do is to pick ones that he hasn't already repeated to death...

 

Totally agree. This would resolve a lot of the problem.

Had to look that up: a Thumbnail Gallery Post (or TGP) is a common type of ad-driven website that provides links to free Internet pornography.

Totally agree. This would resolve a lot of the problem.

Controlling deeplinks and multiple URLs on closely related material is DMOZ not doing the webmaster's navigation for them but substantially raising the quality bar and stop listing TGPs would solve that one. Because it would bring the Adult branch deeplinking policies into line with general deeplinking policies - substantial, exceptional, extremely valuable, editors being very judicial. The only thing I would add to that is not to have multiple URLs or deeplinks from the same owner in the same category - that happens nowhere else, it should not happen in Adult.

See http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/03014/#Deeplinks

An example of abuse is: Adding multiple deeplinks to a specific site in the same category. You will recall in December internally in one of the last posts I made as an editor I made mention of this being done as an example of why Adult was giving an appearance of being abusive. Never mind that it is/was accepted practice, DMOZ's own guidelines on identifying abuse say this kind of thing is inappropriate and everyone else sticks to that. Stopping this practice removes that appearance of impropriety unless the guidelines are reworded to exempt Adult. This is not my imagination or DP posters making silly accusations, it is fact - Adult practices breach DMOZ guidelines on deeplinking. If you can point to Games or Arts or any other branch that gives the appearance of abuse by routinely adding multiple deeplinks (or multiple URLs - the domain name is really irrelevant) to a specific site in the same category then they have a problem too but I don't think you will find any evidence of this.

Sorry sid, but you have been giving the impression that you do agree with the status quo. If you had prefaced with "I don't agree with it but I will try to explain the reasoning..." then possibly you'd have had less fun winding up gworld?