Nope, this is the meta named Bob, a very fair and patient guy of the highest integrity. He knows what he's talking about, especially in Shopping.
Before I posted a response to your post in this thread, I checked and still there was 5 doorway listing for phone... editor website, as soon as I posted, 3 of the 5 were removed. I naturally assumed that you have removed it but may be someone else removed it thinking you might check.
One thing that I have observed from this thread is that terms are causing a problem in understanding. Store, Site, URL, Domain, Deeplink, Related. And that even internally it has the potential to cause misunderstanding. Suggestion: a glossary built into the Guidelines so whatever the issue everyone is speaking the same language including editors to one another, and in the Guidelines means available to all - insert link - there you go, in DMOZ "whatever" means ... Your link listed 3 adverts and the primary site = 4 and the search link now returns the original and one advert. But Search does not update at anywhere near the speed you can post at. Search is based on a different database and only updated periodically not at real time. To show a connection you would have to look at the URL logs and see when they were removed and by whom.
I am allergic to looking at the logs that I post about, I let them figure it out. It still doesn't change the main point, sidjf was defending those listings and he is on the record in the previous thread that there was nothing wrong with those doorway pages. We have to draw the conclusions that either he and other editors know about these listings being against guideline and still make excuses to justify and list it or the other conclusion will be that even sidjf who is a senior editor in adult doesn't understand the guidelines.
I'm inclined to give sidjf the benefit of the doubt by assuming he isn't stupid and that he has his own reasons for putting on blinders (hint: personal interest in retaining the multiple listings, perhaps?).
OKAY, you obviously know my business better then me, don't you. Apparently you, Brizzie, Bob want to continue making claims about something that NONE of you obviously have any knowledge about. That something is MY business. I've told you all NUMEROUS times how it is set up. I never have and never would open a store that sells lingerie in one corner and belt buckles in another. Vicious Enterprises is not a store (I'm not really sure how many more time I can say that). I've already asked you guys to drop talking about my stores because you are trying to convince yourselves that you are right by associating wrong information with my stores. You are dead wrong by claiming that Vicious Style and Hustler Panties are the same store. If you feel that lingerie and accessories fall under the same category then you really should let someone know that DMOZ incorrectly puts these "Clothings" in two seperate catagories. I've already stated that I don't care that DMOZ has my listing incorrect. Drop it. I don't give a shit. I'm not trying to get any listing. You can erase my listing from DMOZ and I couldn't care less. It still doesn't make the current listing correct, because it's not. Did you start the business? No? Oh, well I did. My mom is an Oracle programmer, does that mean I know how to program in Oracle? Nope. You're all just grasping at straws and speculating. I know the facts, so continuing this is pointless. If pretending that Vicious Enterprises is listed correctly in DMOZ makes you feel better. Go for it. Just STOP posting that Vicious Style and Hustler Panties are the same store, because I can tell you with 100% accuracy that they arn't.
You have two separate stores! Then quit with the "nobody understands me" routine. They do, but you don't seem to understand the DMOZ Shopping branch and that is all people are trying to explain to you. Whether the policy is right or wrong, it is as it is. There are plenty of DMOZ policies that I disagree with but when you are an editor you have to apply those you disagree with as well as the ones you agree with dispassionately or anarchy breaks out. Policies change - from what Bob says using business names in lingerie categories is a change. Not sure whether I agree or not, I would have to see the arguments for and against. Maybe one day titling and listing policies will change again and match what you think they should be. That is the way it works... No, but I grew up with it, worked in it. And I have started two online retail ventures personally. But all that has zero relevance to DMOZ editorial policies in Shopping. Anyway you are right it has been done to death. FWIW, great sites and every success with them.
If you look at http://www.gap.com, http://www.bananarepublic.com and http://www.oldnavy.com perhaps you will notice that they are run by the same people and they do "answer the phone for each other", so to speak. OldNavy.com: "SORRY, OUR STORE IS CLOSED FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE. We will reopen for business on Sunday, April 9th. We apologize for the inconvenience. While we can't take orders during this time, should you have any general questions please call 1-800-OLD-NAVY." Gap.com: "SORRY, OUR STORE IS CLOSED FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE. We will reopen for business on Sunday, April 9th. We apologize for the inconvenience. While we can't take orders during this time, should you have any general questions please call 1-800-GAPSTYLE." BananaRepublic.com: "SORRY, OUR STORE IS CLOSED FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE. We will reopen for business on Sunday, April 9th. We apologize for the inconvenience. While we can't take orders during this time, should you have any general questions please call 1.888.BRSTYLE."
haha...Don't bother. I'm done p.s. Orlady's response: Tried to give me neg rep with the comments "Get a brain". Haha.