No, you're missing the point. If the rules were both clear and consistent, none of the things you're describing would happen because the rules would be the same no matter what category you were editing.
Yes you are losing me. You think all guidelines/rules should be clear and consistent right ? Is that clear and consistent rules which apply to all categories regardless, or clear and consistent guidelines that are specific to each category ? I thought I had just explained why personally I didn't think there could be the same rules no matter where you edited ? Edited : We're at cross purposes. I meant if there was a ruling no deeplinks allowed anywhere, kids would miss out on educational sites in K and T's . Or if deeplinking were allowed in all areas then we'd have 1000's of Gucci handbags and Ipod listings in each Shopping area to keep track of with no 'real' information there for the surfer, just product marketing speil.
No. You wouldn't. Not if the guidelines as to when deeplinking is OK and when it is not were made clear to begin with. Then you just apply whatever the rule is to all categories and all editors and there can be no confusion at all.
I think I know what you are talking about. In practice deeplinks to knowledge and information resources are commonplace, deeplinks to business marketing pages are not. Replace the current "types" with something along the lines of the above sentence and apply it across the board. In effect there would be no change to current practice but it would be clearer to understand. Is that right?
Replace current 'types' ? As in what ? I'm an editor, guidelines in general are easy to follow once you know the basics. But what the hell is that sentence all about ?? I got the bit about deeplinks being ok in some areas ( like I said ), but not ok in sales/marketing ( like I said ). Replace current 'types' and apply what across the board ? Bloody hell, what are you two on about ? 'Types' of what ? ( Minstrel did you just agree with something you're not quite sure about ?. Brizzie I love you, but you didn't explain that there at all well ). Do clarify and justify. And this sort of thinking is just wrong. I think Minstrel you have some sort of idea of all editors no matter how new and inexperienced flitting about from cat to cat perhaps not understanding what guidelines to follow but listing sites willy nilly as the mood takes. You are sadly a bit spoiled here by the notion that editors are completely free to do so..since most editors who post here have or have had those privilidges and can talk about 'maintence issues' and ' well I happened across a neglected category ' and thought 'I'd just'. Those editors have earned that right, but do not represent what it is to be a Dmoz editor in a few small categories. In the main, ( or the 'norm' if you will ) most editors do not have this sort of access, 95% of us probably. I must remind you and ask you to remember that. We aren't all editall's ( yet).
That's why I added "(I think)" to my post. It sounds like brizzie understands what I'm saying - apply the same rules everywhere as to what types of sites or pages can and cannot be deeplinked - regardless of category - the criterion is type of site, not where it is listed. I'm not sure if that's what brizzie meant by "types", though, so after re-reading his post I added "(I think)".
Wel, as long as it sounds ok I suppose it must be right then ? As long as it sounds like agreement with you ? You disappoint me. You should've asked if you weren't clear what you were agreeing with surely ?
Huh??? Brizzie clarified what he thought I was trying to say. I think he got it right, as I said. But because there was an assumption on my part, although I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption, I added my mild qualifier. You then indicated that you were confused about brizzie's post and requested clarification. I provided that clarification. What the hell is there in any of that for you to be disappointed about?
I agree, 'I think ? There are an awful lot of thinks and thoughts there.. I'd say reading back that you had absolutely NO idea whatsoever what you were agreeing to. Assumptions all the way then ! That really disappointed me. You normally do not stand for assumptions, only facts. There were no facts there, only a post in which you thought someone might be agreeing with you. Thats just so NOT like you at all just 'going along' with assumptions like that. You'd never ever let me get away with that sort of thing or any other editor come to that.
Whatever, shygirl. I don't even know what this "argument" or "debate" is about so I'll just step out of it and let you continue solo, OK?
I think your last few posts may have given that away a bit really I just thought you of all people would've stuck to the facts in discussions concerning Dmoz thats all. It was weird seeing you veer off course a bit. I'm off to watch Big Brother now anyway.
I believe I was discussing DMOZ and sticking to the facts in doing so. Somewhere along the line, you seem to have become confused. Brizzie tried to clarify the points for you. Then I tried to clarify those same points for you. The only one who veered off track was you, as far as I can see.
http://www.dmoz.org/newsletter/2001May/deeplink.html Review and replace with something simpler if some people are having problems understanding it.
But it's still relevant. The guidelines and procedures don't change without discussion and when that happens the documentation is updated.
Let's be frank. Not quite. High end editors (or any other) tend to develop their own rules. That newsletter is fairly accurate when speaking of each editor's guidelines.
What do you base this statement on? If an editor were to develop their own rule regarding deeplinking they would be guilty of abuse and should be removed. Do you know of any editors who do this or are you stating an opinion?
Just stating my own opinion. If you won't take my word for it, try to read the other 563246423 threads about this, on the internet.
That is what I meant, brizzie - and note the opening statement quoted above about how confusing the guidelines are, and that this page is NOT a statement of the guidelines but somebody's independent attempt to explain those guidelines. That page goes on to describe types of pages or situations where deeplinking is appropriate and others where it is not appropriate, NOT by category but by type and content of the site in question. That's what I was suggesting. Whether I agree with all of the criteria stated there doesn't matter. At least the guidelines are stated quite clearly and they are intended to apply across the directory in all categories. What I'm starting to understand is that this is the way it should have been all along, but clearly it hasn't been, largely because editors themselves are confused about the rules and because Adult editors were allowed to interpret them in any way they chose and obviously chose to exploit the lack of clarity to their own purposes. Isn't that exactly what happened in Adult, Annie? What makes you so confident it hasn't also happened elsewhere? Or couldn't happen elsewhere?