I think the correct formulation of above is: Hell, if you have a question, PM it to me and I will post it for you internally and you can read the answers for yourself from people benefiting from the answers. Since you are so involved in adult, may be you like to tell us, how many of those listings are owned by DMOZ editors?
After reading the whole post (and a quite interesting one) I feel that gworld has taken up a genuine issue and as usual the editors from DMOZ are trying to get out of the mess. (the only difference here is that this is not their forum where they can bully around.) And as usual an editall thinks that every place other than ODP forums is just another piece of nonsense. Sometimes non-editors show more sense than editors in understanding the listing policies. And I think you have the degree as mentioned in ur sig that makes you qualified for giving these answers. Its worth a mention that in all these years I have seen DMOZ editors I have come across a couple of nice ones also (who like to listen out and give authentic answers instead of backlashing).
Translation: people qualified to give you the standard DMOZ Adult rationalization, designed to confuse and distract so that no one knows that what they are doing is shoddy, unethical, and contrary to normal DMOZ guidelines. Between the lines translation: Please don't discuss these issues outside of DMOZ - it's embarrassing for all those Adult editors who don't want the attention drawing focus on their lame and illegal editing practices. Edit: I read Max Pain's post after submitting this. Max is right on.
I've asked internally, I've seen the answers, they still appear to be out of synch with the way things are done elsewhere in the Directory. And it appears to be policy developed and implemented by webmaster-editors, i.e. self-serving. Many of those editors have been removed over the years, one assumes for abuse since that is the only reason for removal, but the policy and many of their listings remain. No-one has ever given an answer that is in the least bit credible. Not just from a DP perspective but from an editor perspective too. Simple question. Why is it not OK for deeplinks or multiple URLs coming from the same owner to be listed in adjacent Shopping categories and not only OK but encouraged in Adult image galleries? I'm not a newbie editor, I'm an experienced (retired) editall and I don't get it. I can't post again inside nor could I read the answer. So give it your best shot siddie!
I'm done wasting my breath trying to explain things to people in DP. There's just no point. You guys believe what you are going to believe and that's that. You guys have already determined that you are right and editors are wrong. There is absolutely no answer that I can give, other than "gworld and gang are correct", that will please any of you - so why bother? Of course, the fact that I won't repeat myself for the dozenth time obviously proves that you guys are right, right?
Thanks for understanding, sid. You do realize that brizzie was an editor, right? It's not that we don't understand your words. It's that there's only so much canned DMOZ BS a brain can process per day and you always seem to exceed the normal quota.
Sid, I consider you a friend and I wouldn't consider myself part of gworld's gang. Much of what he posts is nonsense but there are some grains of truth and editors would be foolish to dismiss those grains as the rantings of a demented opponent. The point I am making is that the Adult listing practices are as much a mystery to many if not most non-Adult editors as they are to non-editors. Not just newbie editors, but experienced ones, editalls, metas. Even an Admin has apparently started a thread with one of the goals being to eliminate the appearance of abuse. If there wasn't an appearance of abuse then there would be no need to review guidelines to eliminate it. Why is it not OK for deeplinks or multiple URLs coming from the same owner to be listed in adjacent Shopping categories and not only OK but encouraged in Adult image galleries? It is a simple question but not one I have ever had a convincing reply to, here or internally.
It's easy to create the apperance of a problem when you compare Adult/Image_Galleries to a branch that is so very different, such as Shopping. The two serve very very different purposes. Why not be more realistic and compare Adult/IG to a branch that actually lists sites of a somewhat comparable nature - branches such as Games or Arts. Do the allow multiple URLs and deeplinks? They encourage it heavily! You're comparing apples and oranges brizzie. I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why are people so concerned about the deeplinks in Adult/IG when the domains listed there barely even fall in the top 1,000 for the most deeplinked domains in dmoz? Why is no one freaking out about the tens of thousands of deeplinks in Arts and Games? I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to this.
What is the purpose of Adult/Image_Galleries again? Oh yeah... doorways to lucrative porn sites... One step at a time. The lack of consistency in the application of DMOZ rules is a problem - it's just a heck of a lot more blatant and appalling in Adult.
Sid, I have to agree with brizzie about how hard it is for non-Adult editors to understand the reasoning in image galleries. I'm open to learn but can't get answers that make sense to me. Eventually, it all boils down to the fact that I don't understand the Adult industry, which is true so I can't go on and argue too much about a topic I don't understand. I hate to admit that, especially here where things are often taken out of context, but as much as I respect and admire you, (and you know I do) I just can't understand the how editing in image galleries works, or why. IMO, it would be very helpful to educate more editors in the ways of Adult editing so we can understand the category. You know the type of people we are, and we won't go too far on blind faith, it's just not in our nature. This is true, but I've been a Shopping editor for years. I've never done games because I don't understand the category. I've just begun to edit Arts in the last year or so, and deeplinking was very hard for me to do because of the shopping editor attitude I have. Still, I'm trying to understand it before I form an opinion about the Adult deeplinking. Perhaps the problem I have is that don't deeplink in Shopping because it's a commercial category while Games and Arts are not. I could be wrong, but isn't Adult Image Galleries a commercial area as well? And if it is why do we have such contradictory philosophies about commercialism and deeplinking in Shopping and Business as opposed to Adult?
There is no difference with any other template made affiliate doorway page for any other branch. The purpose is to serve as transient doorway that sends the user to the final site with an affiliate ID number which results in commission for the owner of doorway page.
You completely glossed over the fact that many branches allow and encourage extensive deeplinking. Maybe a better questions is, why is it so hard for Shopping editors to understand that the whole directory is not structured like Shopping. Shopping is not the norm people! Shopping and Business are the only two branches that I can think of, off the top of my head, that make an explicit deal out of "no deeplinks". The rest of the directory is basically indifferent or encourages it. So again I ask, why are there no threads in Games or Arts (or Reference or News or Home - all of which use extensive (more than Adult) deeplinking) trying to "solve" the deeplinking issue? Is it because there are no threads on DP asking about them? I don't know - you tell me. brizzie and annie - why do you only seem to be concerned about the deeplinks in Adult and nowhere else? Because Adult is a "commercial" category? It's just as commercial as a game review site that offers game reviews surrounded by ads. Or an iMDB page with movie info and a bunch of ads. Why do you lump Business in as a comercial category? They aren't allowed to sell anything... The arguement makes no sense. So why just Adult?
I don't understand all of the details of Shopping - but that doesn't mean I question every move they make. And it doesn't mean that I expect Shopping editors to educate me...If you have a question, ask it in the Adult forums, there is a thread just for such questions.
I already answered that, sidjf. I apologize. I answered it in English, which probably confused you. I should have used your native language, bafflegab.
Yes I did and I apologize because that wasn't my intention to do that. I was only talking about why I have trouble understanding it, but I edited exclusively in Shopping for years. I'm not concerned about deeplinks in Adult, I just want to understand it and I'm having trouble. My lack of understanding is my shortcoming, not to be blamed on dmoz. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that.
So to summarize, you are defending a system that no honest intelligent person can understand or justify and no honest DMOZ editor can understand and justify but somehow you still think that there is nothing wrong with this system. They just need to ask adult editors to get the correct answer, I wonder why such geniuses can not make their own porn sites and need to abuse DMOZ to collect couple of dollars from affiliate doorway pages.
I have, and I've also asked adult editors via editor feedback. Responses have been either rude, dismissive or non-existant. The recent cooperation between Adult and non-Adult editors is a nice change and I really hope it continues, but in the past I've found Adult to be less than friendly to outside editors. On the other hand, Shopping editors will freely answer another editor's questions.
You must understand that they don't have time to answer such questions, too busy making pages from the template and listing it in DMOZ.
No, I don't think that's the reason. I could be wrong, but I think it has more to do with the fact that Adult editors are more defensive because they get critized and attacked so much more than the rest of us. My feeling is they assume every question from an outside editor is going to lead to an attack, because usually it does. Sad, but true.