Changing your site listing

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.

 

Tricky, I completely missed that "somebodynamedbob" part. Damn, you got me.

 

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.

 

If you had a clue, wouldn't that disqualify you as a DMOZ Admin?

 

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?).

 

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.

 

VS 2, orlady 0

*getting popcorn*

 

Correction:

VS 2, orlady -1

 

May be, you can buy hers. It is brand new, hardly used.