The ODP primarily promotes itself as being the "largest, most comprehensive". Comprehensive also includes sites that make dvduval feel a little squeamish.
Minstrel let me make this quite clear to you. You either have a problem with 'Horse sex' sites being listed anywhere, because it's morally wrong along with a load of other questionable human conditions. I won't elaborate. OR You have a particular problem with 'Horse sex' etc being listed in Dmoz and only Dmoz. If it's the latter then you are talking out of your bum to be frank. You can't do just one morally. You just cannot. I really wish you wouldn't respond actually. You are so blinkered in your Dmoz hate you can never see basic logic anymore. Oh and you know I'd be far more worried that editors and posters like Gworld are giving little hints and tips ( How to get a listing in 2 days)... about how to hijack and buy a listed domain name and point it elsewhere to a site that is in no way relevant. Just think what someone could do with THAT in an expired Kids and Teens area. Is that morally ok too ?
I was attempting to illustrate the stupidity of the assertion that shygirl's sites would appear on the same page as the extreme porn that we are talking about here. Yes you are correct, it was not intended to be particularly funny, nor were it intended to be helpful.
I think your post is the result of a misunderstanding that can easily be cleared. Do you know what is the difference between a search engine and a directory? Do you know anything about the tools that Google uses to collect the data for it's search result?
No, don't try and pin me down to be in someway stupid about things. If I want Horse sex then I'll search for it. Be it Google or Dmoz. There IS no difference to the searcher or 'troubled individual'.
It is a simple question, either you do know the difference between a search engine and a directory or you don't. If you don't know, then you can ask and learn before joining a discussion that you do not have enough knowledge to participate. If you do know the difference then you must also know that your posting makes no sense. But if you are aware that you do not make sense and still want to continue with some ridiculous defense of DMOZ then be my guest by all means.
Sounds like too many people are having some kind of yoga session before submitting, I always thought the advice given at DP is submit and forget!? shygirl, congrats for that post
So according to you the goal of DMOZ, is not to list the web sites with "quality and unique" content but to be the largest and most comprehensive. If this is the goal then why not list all the submissions without any review? That will definitely achieve the goal of making DMOZ the largest and most comprehensive.
Shygirl, go back and read my previous post and the one by gworld. Now, let me summarize them for you as simply as possible: DMOZ purports to selectively edit out the bad sites and include the good sites. By so doing, they are, whether they realize it or not, endorsing (and promoting) the sites that ARE included and NOT endorsing the sites they do NOT include. Google is a directory whose goal is to index ALL websites, without claiming anything about the quality of those sites and therefore NOT endorsing any of the sites they index. THAT is the difference.
No Minstrel if you want to 'protect' the surfer/troubled individual from unsavory sites or finding them when they perform a search, then you either : Answer this or shut up frankly. If you have a prob with these sites then you have a prob with them in any, way shape or forum listed anywhere ! To single out just one web entity stinks to high heaven of out and out hypocrisy. No matter how you want to play it or crap on about 'differences' between directories and search engines. Morally, a listing is a listing wherever it is.
Nice spin. But it's clear you either didn't read the posts I asked you to read or you didn't understand them. As many DMOZ editors have pointed out in their rationalizations for including pro-pedophilia sites, pro-necrophilia sites, pro-anorexia sites, and a host of other sites promoting injury and death to people, they don't make the sites, they just list them. I'll try one more time to explain it to you: The whole thrust of my argument against DMOZ doing this rests on the fact that DMOZ purports to use human editors to ensure that they selectively list only high quality sites. As soon as ANY person or organization does that, there is an implied endorsement and approval of the sites that are listed. For DMOZ to list those sites tells people that DMOZ approves and endorses those sites. It also provides additional promotion of those sites in search engines. That is NOT the case with Google. If you want to be like Google, DMOZ should be aiming to list every site they can find. They clearly do not do that. Why not? Because they see some sites as better than others. THAT is selective endorsement. I'm not happy about pro-pedophilia, pro-rape, pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury, pro-suicide, and other harmful sites existing at all on the net. I cannot erase them, unfortunately. What I can do is ensure that I don't intentionally or inadvertently endorse or promote such sites. That is called social responsibility. That is what is lacking in DMOZ policies. It's really not a complicated argument, shygirl.
So if the cops decide to arrest one criminal, it will stink to high heaven of out and out hypocrisy because they have not arrested all criminals. Morally, a criminal is a criminal wherever it is. Are you noticing how ridiculous your argument is? If you think that you are defending DMOZ by this kind of argument, you are not.
Minstrel I think you quit reading once you saw the word "quality" The paragraphs after are quite relative here. So, if a site is unique, adds to the category, and is not specifically listed on the DO NOT LIST portion of the guidelines - it should be listed.
That is not true. Google blocks certain searches, bans sites, ranks sites, filters sites and has the ability to tweak search results in a multitude of ways. There is a massive double standard at work here in saying that that the ODP should act as the internet police while search engines can do as they want because they are only machines. Google is very successful at serving up relevant results. They could just as easily turn that technology to preventing certain search results.
Mistrel have you completely gone off your trolley ? I'm asking a simple question. Is a Horse sex/ Smothering site damaging to the troubled individual who may stumble across it on a search or not ? You say it is, undoubtedly and terribly damaging to all who find those sites...yet somehow and very weirdly...not if those sites are found within a Google search , just if it's found listed in Dmoz ? You're not happy about Google but.. sigh what can you do ? I want to laugh really because that is such a silly thing to say and makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sorry but it doesn't. I would maintain that perhaps you should apply the same to other entities you cannot control and have no part in. If you're going to play the 'moral upper hand' card then apply it equally to all. Not just where it suits you to do so. ( I do re-iterate that I disagree with any of these sites listed at ALL, but I don't like obvious crapology and bafflegab).
How do you (hypothetical you) determine that one fisting is more unique than the other one and which ones adds to the category or not? I really like to know the answer to this one.
OK. I give up on you lot. If you believe there is quality and social value in listing the kinds of sites that are being discussed in this thread, you are much too far gone to bother attempting to engage any of you in further in debate. It is abundantly clear that the only people defending these policies are DMOZ editors. Does that not worry you? It should. It is also abundantly clear that none of you have the faintest idea of the distinction between your precious DMOZ "rules" and "guidelines" and right vs. wrong. Carry on... down the slow but sure path to extinction.
Why don't you, Gworld as a morally correct editor, and if we're talking hypocrisy....admit that telling the world how to get listed ( potentially ) in Kids and Teens among other areas in 2 days by buying up expired domains may lead to morally questionable sites being listed in areas that are nowhere NEAR Adult.. yet definiately should be ? Mr 'I have the interests of Kids' at heart ?
I would, if I thought you have any intention to discuss or understand but you suffer from "I must defend DMOZ" syndrome which is usually the result of a promotion.
From http://dmoz.org/add.html Somehow horse sex, forced sex, shit eating and tampon eating sites would relate to the care you put into the quality of ODP. Give me a break! Clearly you are limited top quality sites like horse sex, forced sex, shit eating and tampon eating. So please stop saying that if Google does it, then it is okay. You are not Google. (off topic but relevant to the adult section the controversial "top listed domains") That is exactly what is happening in this thread From http://dmoz.org/about.html So would the sites and categories listed in this thread be considered to be "only the best content"?