Exactly, I appreciate The unbias responses that brizzy has offered. He has taken the time to address all comments and questions posted...thank you brizzy, I am a wiser man as a result of your views and candid responses. gworld, please don't shoot the messenger.
"Honesty is the best policy. But it's important to remember that, apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy." ~ George Carlin
As a doctor; what would you do with a patient that is so involved in his fantasy world that can not see the reality anymore? Will you let him to live in his fantasies or will you give them a shock therapy to bring them back to reality? Some times a delusional friend can be more dangerous than enemy.
I believe I used a quote from you that didn't omit anything in between but if you want to use selective wording, can I use As a doctor; what would you do with a patient that is so involved in his fantasy world that can not see the reality anymore I thought I was the only conspiracy nut gworld says: As a patient that is so involved in his fantasy world that he can not see the reality anymore I thought I was the only conspiracy nut
While all the "but look at this" is interesting it does not show how cherryboys' content is not unique to their site. And that is the bottom line. UGAS can be in business with a hosting company, but it doesn't mean that all sites that use UGAS as an AVS should be removed from the directory. The hosting company UGAS does business with can provide content, but that doesn't mean sites that are using UGAS get their content from them. What you are saying is all sites using UGAS should be removed from the DMOZ directory because through some twisted route they might have shared content, but you have provided no proof of shared content. An editor cannot use your math to justify removing these sites. What an editor must do is prove "site A" uses content from "source B" in order to delete. I've spent the better part of two days looking for shared content on cherryboys, I can't find it so the site will remain listed. Cherryboys provides image galleries, those images are the content that editors base a listing on. All this other information, while interesting has no relation to what editors are looking at when making a call on listing the site. Give me proof that cherryboys content is available on multiple sites and then there might be a reason to remove the site. Until then, all you have present in this thread frankly doesn't matter. I've spent days looking into this and have found no evidence to justify removal of cherryboys on the grounds of non-unique content. Content is what matters.
So what is Cherryboys all about, can you explain since I really don't want to take the time to look at the images you talk about
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#affiliate Affiliate Reseller Sites (aka Fraternal Mirrors) Fraternal Mirrors have the same basic content, but usually different designs. Fraternal mirrors are harder to spot because the sites are designed and written to appear different, but a careful examination will reveal they offer the exact same product or service as another affiliated company. The are usually set up by merchants as affiliate, reseller, or lead generator sites. For example, sites which sell products or services provided by another company and make a small margin on the sale are affiliate mirrors. In general we do not list affiliate sites unless the affiliate has strong, high quality content of its own that end-users will find really useful. That is as bad a response as gworld's normally are. It isn't a twisted route. If a site uses UGAS for AVS purposes and provides its own content then fine, forget the nonsensensical Adult rules on deeplinking that don't align with other commercial DMOZ categories and makes the branch appear corrupt even if it isn't, it can be listed. But UGAS and the content provider appear to be one and the same and UGAS clearly and straight-forwardly leads members towards free hosting and free affiliate content. If such a scheme existed in the Shopping branch I find it difficult to imagine it being tolerated for a single listing let alone hundreds of deeplinks. What is the difference between this type of scheme and V-Stores? It may well be that cherryboys is unique content, not from an affiliate content provider but that doesn't mean all UGAS affiliate sites are the same. And there were, apparently, 48 cybersexnetwork2 listings. All now gone it appears with some dregs still showing on Google's clone. So, loathsome though it is to say it, within his ranting gworld did have a useful point. So yes it is a good idea to take down all the UGAS galleries, re-review them and relist only the ones you are certain have strong, high quality content of their own that end-users will find really useful. Of course, I would prefer Adult gets into line with general guidelines and stops giving multiple listings to the same Adult webmasters, giving a false impression to all the world including a large number of editors that the branch is corrupt, but infuriating though it is, you can't have everything. When a site is linked with affiliate schemes not dissimilar to V-stores the prudent course is to prove "site A" doesn't use content from "source B" in order to list.
You need a UGAS membership so it costs money too. That makes it doubly difficult for anyone else to check the content against other sites that might duplicate it.
No. It is not the bottom line. Far from it. And the fact that you even claim to believe it is worries me. The bottom line is why is that site (a) listed at all and (b) listed as many times as it is. Until that is addressed and remedied, DMOZ has a serious problem with PR and credibility. You help neither DMOZ nor yourself in that respect by simply dismissing the issue or trying to smokescreen us. You are mssing the point entirely. We are not asking you to justify removing those sites. We are asking you to justify NOT removing them.
Brizzie, I've check the images on these listings, they do not appear on any site I could find. These sites have been reviewed by a number editors and still there is no reason to delete them. If you can point to a valid reason to delete them, please do so... saying, without access to editor notes and editor forum discussion, you are assuming there are similarities to some other situation in a different branch and you personally are not satisfied with the answers, well then, I don't know what to tell you. But let's be real with the progression of events. First, people wanted them removed because there was a claim of under aged models. This was false. Then people wanted them removed because they were redirects. Again, this was untrue. Then people wanted them removed because they were a doorway to UGAS. Not true again. Then people wanted them removed because through some sort of connect the dots way they have some remote association to a company that provides content as one of their services. No proof that cherryboys gets their content from that provider nor are there other sites with the same content that can be found. Now you are suggesting a huge section of the directory be removed until editors can retrace all that has already be done, spend countless hours reexamining these sites until we can once again justify these listings to you. Seems to me some in this thread just want these listings removed. For any reason, whether or not there is justification, just remove them. Most of the people saying these sites should be removed have already declared they dislike DMOZ and would like to see it considered useless. So excuse me if I'm thinking the suggestions they make are not going to improve the directory but will only serve to make the directory more useless, which is, by their own proclamation, their agenda. If someone tells you they want to ruin your site and goes on to tell you what you need to do to satisfy them - to make your site "better" in their eyes (remember, the eyes that want to see your site be considered useless) - you would be crazy to think they are out to help you. These site are listed, at this point their content is not available on other sites listed on the topic that can be found and the content adds to the category. Until there is evidence to the contrary these listings will remain since they are considered listable according to guidelines. They are considered to be listable according to guidelines. They are listable according to the numerous editors that have examined the sites. At this point there needs to be a reason to remove them. So far there is no reason to remove them other than some people don't like the fact that they are listed. This is being discussed so it may very well be changed. No way to tell what the outcome will be at this point. You are really putting the cart before the horse. They provide content to categories that would not have the content they provide if they were removed. According to guidelines, which is, as editors, what we have to follow, these sites are appropriately listed, so at this point it is removal that needs to be justified. If I could honestly say the site was getting content from a content provider and the content provider has given the same images to other sites and these other sites were listed with the identical content, then I could remove the sites. At this point I can't because there is no evidence that these sites should not be listed.
Are you saying that you believe the listings in Adult category "improve the directory"? Can you tell me who, besides the owners of those websites, DO like the fact that they are listed? Exactly. That is the goal. Are you getting it yet? No. I would say what needs to be justified is why the guidelines are as they are and why ALL of the DMOZ editors outside the Adult section are not working diligently to ensure that the guidelines are changed and that such sites are removed.
Brizzie You mentioned that you wanted to get the other side view about this, now you have got it. Are you satisfied now or are you still delusional, bro? DustyG In regard to your answer it is so childish that it is funny. Let me give you an example. A man is seen going to a store, people hear a shoot, the man runs out of store with bloody clothes, a gun in his hand and the money from the store in his pockets. The store owner is found dead in the store and no one else is in the store. The man gets arrested and anyone can connect the dots that the man is guilty of murder. Here enters DustyG, the great lawyer. He argues while there is witness for the man entering the store, exiting the store and no one else was in the store, it is possible that it was someone else since no one actually seen the man shoot the store owner, it is also possible that even if the man shoot the store owner, the store owner died of heart attack a second before bullet entering his body or maybe the store owner decided to borrow the gun from a stranger and commit suicide. Like you said, we can not simply connect the dot, right? UGAS does not offer hosting, except the free hosting and content, in fact in their website they describe for people who are going to have their own hosting what kind of server they can use or not use but you want us to believe that this cherry boys web site for some strange reason has end up on their server and even UGAS provides free content, they will go through trouble of providing their own content. You also want us to believe that while there can be hundreds of thousands gay web site on the Internet, you have looked at all images that these sites provide and decided that cherryboys provide unique content. I understand that you are desperate to stay in the club but you are paying too high of a price in form of personal credibility. Why don't you tell the people who give you these answers to post here that they can post themselves and lose their own credibility?
I think that something has been skewed along throughout this thread. Although the original post did mention cherryboys, many other later posts pointed out sites that offered content that was much much worse, and even illegal. To only focus on one site would be entirely innapropriate, when so many others still exist. Here is the title and description of one I just found. Rape Video - Promotes a site featuring non-consensual activities, provides free content and pays bi-weekly Now notice that it even advertises NON-CONSENSUAL The fact that this site and so many other like it exist, leave alone are endorsed, is absolutely unacceptable. Who cares if once you get to the site, it is only pictures, or only text. Who cares if it is original content. The point is, DMOZ, by permitting such sites and descriptions, is endorsing the site. There should be a massive evaluation of the current listings in the directory, and someone should be held accountable for even listing it in the first place. For whoever did, is a troubled individual, and to list it means that they felt its content added some degree of healthy information to the directory.
Yes. Especially given the stated goals of DMOZ, to list the best of the web, that is exactly the point.
If you read my previous posting about US supreme court decision, these type of sites along with other sites listed in DMOZ are illegal but that is nothing new and instead editors choose to quote sections of criminal codes that is not related to these matters in order to justify such listings but that is only one of the problems with DMOZ. Many of listings are also against DMOZ TOS but that is also ignored by editors such as the site you mentioned. The general idea with these listings is, as long as is profitable for editors; who cares if it is illegal or against DMOZ policy.