Guidelines for adding Multiple listings on DMOZ.

Now, now. You know damn well you can't blame that one on gworld.

 

I can only assume you haven't read that department store post then

 

Don't even try to understand it, you just get yourself more confused.

 

Gworld's signpost theory would have big online stores deeplinked all over the place and small stores confined to one place. Before you know where you are he'll be posting complaints about DMOZ editors being corrupt because editors are deeplinking some shopping sites and not others. Signposts are navigation aids and DMOZ should not do the webmaster's site navigation for them.

 

I was describing the ontology which DMOZ category structure is based on and how you can use the idea behind it, combine it with common sense and form a general guideline that can be used in the whole directory. I can understand that common sense will not be acceptable to DMOZ and instead editors will insist on illogical, the same way that we had a discussion about summer web site awhile back in this forum.
I have news for you, every category name is a signpost, if it wasn't then DMOZ would have no category and all the web sites would have been listed in the root together and the user had to sort through and find what they are looking for.

 

HA! Then you admit we have users, AND that they find what they're looking for!

 

Nice spin, annie.

Are you looking for work? I have a feeling that the Liberal party of Canada could use someone like you to do something with all the negative publicity they've been getting.

 

It's amazing really. According to you gworld absolutely nothing about DMOZ, from editor selection, deeplinking, multiple site treatment, anti-abuse measures, titles, descriptions, delistings, site selections, management, editor removals, promotions, editor intelligence and logic, copyright claims, and so on, nothing at all is right or logical, not one redeeming feature. So how do you explain its apparent success and longevity years after many commentators predicted its demise. If it was as bad as you say it would have collapsed in a heap a long while ago, and been completely dismissed by all and sundry. Your own interest, compulsive interest, presumably indicates that you don't think it is irrelevant at all. What is it about DMOZ you think it actually does well?

 

I could have posted an answer mentioning that other organization with far worse qualities such as Mafia or Enron did survive much longer than DMOZ and in case of Mafia, it is still surviving but what will be the point?

This discussion is not about me, it is about what is happening in DMOZ that can be verified in reality by anyone to different extends and the principals of what is the correct way of doing things. If you have any logical arguments about why everything DMOZ does is the right way and there is no place for improvement, then I will gladly listen to it.
What I am trying to say is that I would prefer to discuss DMOZ and the principals instead of myself since as you might have noticed, the forum category for this section is DMOZ and not Gworld.

 

Not saying DMOZ does "everything" the right way. No organisation is perfect and there are always things one can tweak and improve upon. But according to your posts there is not one even vaguely good thing about the whole project or the way it is run. One might assume from your posts that compared to DMOZ the mafia are a ladies coffee morning club.

I didn't ask for your life history, fascinating though it probably is. Your opinions about what DMOZ does right would be interesting though. That's on topic isn't it? You are ready enough to give everyone the benefit of your moral and legal views on everything you think is wrong after all. I thought you might want to demonstrate some positive balance - all that negativity must be oppressive.

ROFLMFAO I could have sworn it said "Gworld's DMOZ Rants". Did you ask for it to be changed?

 

No, actually it has always been DMOZ but it seems some editors would like to make it about me, so they can ask the mods to ban me.
This is the reason that I don't reply to childish personal attacks, no matter how easy it is to respond and instead try to discuss the actual subjects. I must admit that some times it is very frustrating when the best answer the other side of argument can come up with is: "let's not discuss it."

 

OK, so discuss what you think is right about DMOZ then... or are you saying let's not discuss it?

 

The actual subject of this thread is:

"Guidelines for adding Multiple listings on DMOZ"

and not

"What is good with DMOZ?"

But to make you happy, I can tell you the idea with volunteer organization that tries to make a useful directory for users is good. The guidelines when it is black and white and keeps the mirror sites, affiliate sites and doorway pages out are good. When it becomes commercial, instead of volunteer organization that is run by volunteers, a small dictatorship run by small group that are hinder to the growth of directory then is bad. Guidelines that are hundred shades of gray to make abuse possible are bad.
In short, the idea and the principals are good, execution of that idea sucks.

 

Since when did the title of a thread make any difference to your willingness to go off on a tangent?

What, nothing about the execution is actually good?

Have a look at http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/ where a large number of sites are deeplinks. Don't you think that this is an excellent execution of the deeplinking concepts?

 

I don't understand what is your point? Do you mean that DMOZ should claim credit because there are people in the world that fight cancer and make web site about their work?

May be you mean that because deep linking practices has worked in one section then we should forget about the improper deep linking in other areas?

I think an even better question would be, how much this section would have been better and more useful, if DMOZ had proper procedures that could recruit many editors that are specialist and have a real interest in this field?

 

Nothing probably only I responded to you also half a dozen times and unlike me, you made absolutely NO effort to understand my point of view. Simply stating that I 'mised the point without clarifying and providing examples. I tried at least. Fair play and credit where it's due Minstrel, but I don't think you gave me the same courtesy.

No, I just want one relevant guideline/rule/whatever that is applicable to all sites I exampled :

1) A pre-eclampsia site which has wonderful sections on other pregnancy complications and a general pregnancy forum.
2) A site covering hydro-elecritcity with a kids section.
3) A site that sells Ipods ( no make that 10,000 of them to keep it realistic yes ? )
4) Harvard.
5) A dating site that concentrates on Goth Romance yet has little or no actual members but loads of ads around. It may be the only one of that particular niche around though.
6) A general beauty advice site that has 5 really bad sections, but 1 really good and extensive advice on French manicures.

Bugger the ontology mate, answer what I asked and stop twinkle-toeing around. Show me the one deeplinking guidleine that should be applied to all. That's what you want after all ? So show me what you mean.

And I have to say that the sentence you posted sounded to me, suspiciously like, well, the guidelines in place already ?
"or at least relevant and/or cognitive qualities". Relevant to the category ( ie : Mumps ) and a bit of thought gone into it ( ie : Forrest Gump reviews ).

Big words for very basic concepts. A Dmoz failing I'm afraid, and one I will agree is a hinderance and confusing as it gives too many people points to argue about unfortunately. One of the reasons I don't particulary like the internal forums are the hugely wordy and sometimes very unnecessary over analyising of, well, just everything.

I just want to list good sites thats all. No analysing needed really.

I'd love to take on more categories in every area of Dmoz, but am happy where I am as as far as I'm aware, at the moment ( in really simple terms), I'd probably have to modify what I have been doing in order to cope with a shopping category. But I'd love to help if I could.

Now, if you guys have the answer for me just to make the jump easily from category to category then go ahead. But please, don't keep over analyzing things, just give me one deeplinking guideline for all the sites I referenced above.

No one has so far, and the silence is a bit deafening. I have to say.

P.s Minstrel don't give me shit for this post as well. I conceed if it makes you feel better that you're always in the right, and that I'm really stupid, ( I am actually a member of Mensa btw though I don't personally regard IQ tests as a valid means of quantifying intelligence due to their obvious middle class bias and the sociologial variants which fail to be taken into account across the board by sample members of the public taking them )...
However, you don't actually explain 'why' you disagree a lot of the time finding it easier sticking to disparaging remarks which is very lazy really for a man like you... I'm asking questions here in the I hope they will be answered in the same vein they were asked, curiousity and in the spirit of learning more, there is nothing wrong with that whatever you want to say otherwise. Learning more and debating issues are always good. I've learnt a lot here and I hope to continue.

Anyway, the examples are there. Please see what you can do with them regarding a universal guideline or two.

 

let look at your questions. I am not paying any attention to present categories in DMOZ and instead explain this according to the general example in my previous post.
What is natural choice for a user who is looking for this type of information as the top level of search? a category which is usually called medicine or health. Is it logical to mix this site all other health or medical sites? No, because user can not find it. How about we sub categorize the health category to something that is called women issues? Still probably there will be too many sites that have nothing to do with each other. How about we make a category that is called pregnancy complications? This seems to be a good category for this site. Now we need an input from a specialist. Are different pregnancy complication, so different and so many variation that they need further sub category or not? If it is then make sub categories and list each section as a deep link, if it is not then just list the web site once under pregnancy complications.
The forum is a totally different beast from the medical information and it suppose to be list under category forum/ discussion groups in a proper sub category such as health forum or pregnancy forum.

The site should be listed in hydro-electricity section, I can not answer about the kid section since you have not specified what is the kid section is about.

IPOD is IPOD, idependent if it is yellow, blue or green or if it is made by HP, apple or anyone else. The site listed once in the electronic gadgets section. If there is a ctaegory specific for IPOD or it is general audi category, depends on how many different audio products and sites exist.

Harvard should be listed under university, if there are too many schools and there is sub-category for different type of studies and department then each department in Harvard gets a deep link to that department in that category.
Physics department gets a deep link in physics category under universities.

This should be listed under dating, if there is no sub category for dating, other wise in sub category Goth. This will be a judgment call, is this really the only choice for a web site or can you find another one? Is it really useful or not?

If there is a sub category for French manicures category under the beauty advice section then list a deep link to that section and nothing else.

Always think that the whole purpose of a directory is to help users to find useful web sites and your job is to help them through good categorization, keep that in mind, combine it with common sense and everything will be fine.

 

You don't understand anything that doesn't suit your agenda gworld. Did I say that DMOZ was claiming any credit for the work of others? No, you're twisting again and its obvious for all to see. I gave you an example of where DMOZ concepts and practices in operation work, deeplinking in particular, and provide an extremely valuable set of resouces for people researching cancer on the Internet, weeded, described, and cataloged for relevance. DMOZ does deserve credit for that, or rather the editors who built and maintain the resource deserve the credit.

I am saying give credit where it is due and don't blanket shit on the whole thing. But at least there is a first in that sentence - deep linking practices has worked in one section. Gworld said something nice (sort of). Isn't it conceivable that if it works there it works in most sections? And where you think it is wrong is a relatively small minority of places?

There are nearly 3000 unique and valuable information resources listed. Can you find anything comparable, or even close to comparable in terms of a comprehensive cataloged set of resource links on cancer? You're an editor, how many sites are awaiting review in that section? I've taken an interest in that section in the past and it was usually 0, all submitted sites cleared within 24 hours. I was going to help out but it was all done. Is it beyond you, are you that cynical and full of venom, that you can't say "well done editors"? But I'm forgetting, your procedures would add extra bureaucracy and delay listings - to minimise the risks of cancer research webmasters bribing editors to list their sites quicker - maybe in 12 hours instead of 24. But it would attract more editors and perhaps all sites in the section could be listed in 12 hours instead of 24; all those potential editors put off by the obvious rampant corruption in that section.