DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Las Vegas Homes, if you can bring yourself down to the level of justifying putting a naked preteen or early teen boy or girl in front of the house (or even better, an 18 year old who only LOOKS 12 so you can get by that annoying little objection to breaking the law), you'd probably have no trouble getting the 200 listings gworld mentioned earlier...

/sarcasm (just in case anyone misinterprets this as a serious suggestion)

 

I am sure some realtors won't mind getting naked for links in DMOZ. How about they take naked pictures in front of the houses and DMOZ can start a new category called naked realtors.

After that we can have naked amazon store, naked ebay store,.....

 

Based on most of the realtors that I have seen, I can't imagine the sites getting many hits!

 

But nobody will complain about 200 free links from DMOZ and it's effect on SERP, do they?

 

You lost me after the one about the naked Amazons, gworld

 

I wouldn't object to that

 

This actually brings up another interesting point about DMOZ. How do you know who is who? Who is a submitter and who is the editor?

Before everybody start answering that this is a DMOZ secret and you are not going to tell me about AOL secrets that stops bad bad spammers, I should say that I know the answers but ask yourself do you?

 

I think we can place you under naked doctors.

Are we the only one who can see how ridiculous this whole thing is, or DMOZ editors can see it too?

 

Maybe thats my IN with Dmoz, threaten them if they dont give me a listing I will get Naked..it always works with my wife...

Better yet though Gworld, maybe we should do a calendar and call it Dmoz Editors Gone Wild, we could get it listed in Dmoz and go to jail for supplying kiddie porn, OOPS... I mean pictures of people who supply kiddie porn...

 

This is really really stupid.

Given that the quality of photos on the galleries is not based on whether the body is beautiful or not, which would be highly subjective, only that presumably they are technically good, anyone can, by precedent, take 20 quick snaps of someone in a provocative pose (given some of the content, I don't suppose they even need to be alive) with a good quality camera, even some cellphones these days, arrange those photos around an advert for their business, and get them listed. You don't even need a separate URL, you can use a sub-domain or just a page off your main URL because in Adult that constitutes a "site".

If any editor cannot see how thoroughly ridiculous and improper that message gives then they deserve to be inundated by naked real estate agents sites to review.

Any real estate agent thinking of doing this but who feels less than well endowed can always use images from an affiliate content provider instead provided they get together with others and make sure they don't duplicate. That might increase the hits too.

 

I'm starting the nude DMOZ editors directory as a result of this discussion!

Applications for editors are being passed out now, requirements include being legally blind.

Editors please submit your nude DMOZ editor photos ASAP!

 

I knew those photos of my ex-wife in the bath would come in useful one day. Bids anyone?

 

Now there's an idea for a money-making scheme: exxx-wives-on-cam.com - DMOZ Adult will give it its own Category with 20-50 listings if you work it right.

 

brizzie - I'm not saying that I disagreee with you, but how are we to determine which sites are advertisements and which aren't? The majority of sites listed in Adult/Image_Galleries or 1 or 2 pages galleries with 20-30 pictures. Are we to investigate every one of them to make sure that they don't contain any ads that belong to the same person that owns the gallery?

And I still don't see what the problem is of having a porn gallery that has ads pointing back to some other site of yours.

There is a strong arguement that we should not have these little 20 image galleries at all - but as of right now, we do.

So based on how things are done right now, how can you justify denying a listing to a site that is the same quality as other sites in the same category and has the same number of ads, but the ads point back to their own site instead of to someone elses site?

 

sidjf;

is this an admission that this DMOZ category is just an affiliate marketing tool and therefore doesn't matter who they advertise for?

Why should DMOZ as volunteer organization be in affiliate marketing instead of providing quality content for end users?

If the whole purpose is to benefit adult webmasters then why should volunteers in DMOZ work for free and not charge them for inclusion in DMOZ? DMOZ is doing important marketing work which results in financial benefit for these owners, what does DMOZ gets out of this?

 

The adverstisements are of no real interest to DMOZ. As with all other sites when an editor reviews an adult site he should mentaly block out all advertisements. If after that he still can see enough unique content the site is listable. If you have 1 or 2 banners on a page with 10 images there is still enough to see. If you have 50 banners with 10 images on a page you will mainly see blank spaces (after blocking out the banners), that is not enough. We don't care to whom the advertisements are pointing.
A good argument to not list these sites would be if the images are not unique. That is why adult sites that use their own images are much more likely to be listed than those that have overly used free samples from their provider. For those it is (I think) who comes first will be listed. Bad luck for all others but our users can already see the content somewhere else.

 

We are not talking about a gallery with adverts - most if not all do. We are talking about an advert with 20 images on it. It is an advert.

Sites ... whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory.

Now you cannot possibly be arguing that the word commission is the important part of the guideline so that if the purpose is sales but not commission sales it is OK to list. That would stretching the guidelines to the absolute limit - looking for tiny loopholes to slip through instead of considering the spirit.

 

We are not talking banners or contents or how much advertising a site has. We are talking about affiliate DOORWAY pages, pure and simple.

Now that even you have admitted that these pages are nothing more than an affiliate marketing pages and since there is no real rules in DMOZ for inclusion of sites or how long a "site" stays in "suggestion" line, how can you guaranty that this does not become a "DMOZ editors" only affiliate marketing club?

I previously asked this question in post #1027, would you like to try to answer it?

"This actually brings up another interesting point about DMOZ. How do you know who is who? Who is a submitter and who is the editor?

Before everybody start answering that this is a DMOZ secret and you are not going to tell me about AOL secrets that stops bad bad spammers, I should say that I know the answers but ask yourself do you?"

 

UPDATE:

Age of this thread: 12 days old
Posts to this thread: Over 1,000
Views of this thread: Over 14,000
Number of listings for CherryBoy still in DMOZ: 61
Watching DMOZ editors squirm uncomfortably while trying to bullshit their way out a sticky situation: PRICELESS!!!

 

It's all in how you look at it brizzie. I could argue that the point of every page on the internet that contains an advertisement is just an ad with some content thrown on the page to draw people to it. This, in fact, would probably be true for 50% of the sites listed in dmoz.

I would guess that 95% or more of the websites on the internet fall into just three categories:

1) Sites that are trying to sell you something (or giving you information about something they want to sell you eventually).

2) Sites that are trying to make money from advertising and include content that will lure people to see the adverts.

3) "Non-professional" sites - like personal homepages, pokemon sites, etc...

The sites we are discussing are actually a mix of 1 and 2.

They are providing content to lure you to their adverts that lead to a site where they are trying to sell something.

It's the same as all the other sites, they just combined the two types.

The only way your arguement makes sense to me is if you were arguing to remove all sites that contained advertising or were trying to sell something...

However, if you wanted to argue that, no matter what the purpose of the site, the amount of content barely justifies a listing, we could probably agree.

No, I would argue that the important parts of the guideline are "sole purpose" and "provide no unique content". The point of the guideline is saying that we don't list sites that contain nothing other than advertising. These sites contain pictures in addition to advertising.