DMOZ editors: Please post this in internal forum

Sid's been spinning his wheels trying to change the status quo in adult image galleries for over a year... Sorry brizzie, I thought you knew that.

 

DMOZ quiz time:

Who said this:

"There is no such thing as semi-official guidelines. It's either official or its wrong. "

A) a webmaster who was spamming DMOZ

B) a porn webmaster who couldn't get his sites in DMOZ

C) rdkeating25

 

I thought so but that is not the impression I was getting here.

I gave up trying to explain things I did not believe in, unless prefacing the explanation with I disagree with it but..., long ago. No matter how much you try to sound convincing it never comes out right. And you end up arguing with people who are actually on the same side.

 

Back to basics then for the newbie...

Money ? Traffic ? Backlinks ?

For me, a site is a site is a site... 1 page of pictures doesn't consitute a site for me. Generally after looking at the examples given internally and externally, they look to me like, well... a page of pictures. Which really, lets face it, they are. A page of photographs. Not a site.

I'm still lost as to the amount of listings theses 'sites/pages' receive on the basis of these 'pages' of 'content'.

I do not understand the adult industry either, but I think I know the difference between a 'page' and a 'site'. And the explanations internally are not really explaining things for me. I do read them, but am disinclined to post as no one really yet has addressed the real issues as far as I can see.

Seems to concentrate far too much on how Adult webmasters do or do not do business. And is Dmoz taking that into account, doesn't seem to elsewhere on balance.

I look for 'sites', and I list them in my categories if they are listable and I think they add value to Dmoz. But I don't list them if they are already listed somewhere close or relevant. Another editor found the site before me and more than likely the link to the section I wanted to list is there anyway. Again I speak as a newbie editor probably 'bambi eyed' with this stuff.

I do deeplink if needed, but generally only to make kids homework easier, and it's not a particularly money making area. I can see the logic there. But the difference between 50 free galleries of shoes and 50 galleries of porn I can't. Either both deserve the listings ( as the commercial value is all too obvious, or neither do).

Look, I guess what I'm trying to say is that any editor in Dmoz can press a button to see if 'this url is listed elsewhere in the directory'...

And it doesn't register for an editor that 'this site has 47 listings in the directory' already and that perhaps another listing is, perhaps, unnecessary ????

And who added the 46th listing or the 45th listing ??? And why did they list it again anyway for a url that has 44 listings already ???

Lost...

 

The difference between a page and a site is also very clear to everyone else outside the DMOZ adult editors circle.

I think brizzie was not sure if my description of internal discussion was correct in my previous posting here, I hope he can see now that I am not the only one who feels that way.
Since my last description of topics in internal forum a new topic has been added about the shaved section in free galleries in regard to if it means that it should be pictures of girls shaving hairs from their private parts or should be pictures of girls that already shaved and have no hair there and also how common it is in North America versus Europe to shave or go natural.

 

Dmoz editors are known to have lively discussions on the terminology for many topics, such as Christian denominations, engineering, ballroom dancing, fashion models, minstrels and bards, artists' clay, cancers and tumors, business signage, subfields of philosophy, labor and trade unions, and post-secondary educational institutions. Cultural differences in different parts of the world are frequently mentioned in these discussions, as they affect the editing communities decisions on category names and definitions of category scope.

I you have expertise related to the proper definition or scope of the "Shaved" category, I hope you have posted in that forum topic.

 

That's a lot of words, orlady. None of them address the issues at all, though, do they?

 

The topic of thread is about deep linking practices in adult section and change of adult guideline and not the significance of Brazilian wax in sexual cultures of the world.
But may be shaved girls are "safer" subject to discuss.

 

Huh ? Shaved women ? ...

 

Shygirl - a specific category in Image Gallaries was chosen by an editor to present their idea of what would be considered a quality site for that category in their opinion.

I assume gworld is objecting to either the category the editor chose to disect or, perhaps, to the fact that the discussion is not abstract enough?

 

I object that discussion refuses to address the real issue which is continued abuse of those listings by adult editors. Once the issue of deep links is solved and only real sites (Sites not pages, that also have unique content) are listed 1 time in their niche then you can list sites for shaved/ hairy/ waxed / half waxed or anything else that you like.

 

Or maybe he prefers his women au natural and is just objecting to the content of the category on a personal level...

 

Oh I read the internal discussion, however, I was at a loss as to how it got there with the shaved women thing and apparent interest in this area ????.. and when someone said a line about putting a webmaster head on and looking at it from that angle I lost interest.

I didn't think Dmoz used that angle in any way, shape or form in the justification on what consituted quality sites or why something should or should not be listed.

 

Surreal. And I haven't taken any drugs stronger than a vitimin tablet.

 

Yes, am kind of 'spaced out' myself ... Mabye I should leave these threads for a bit. Both sets of discussions here and there are addling my brain.

 

If you ever decide to come back, I recommend that you ask your doctor for prescription of Valium and Prozac.