Help with DMOZ submission

Jam is good. I object to nose picking.

 

That is the national past time for about 90% of editors who are stuck and can not do anything. It is the DMOZ way, you should support it.

 

Spot on answer.

Nothing wrong with a simple but highly accurate answer.

Hate to agree with ishfish but I do.

The site was not a weblog. It was just a straight copy of articles available on dozens of other sites. DMOZ lists the original sources not someone doing a quick cut and paste job onto a blog. It should never have been listed in the first place, an editor made a mistake that was clearly corrected. Bonus time - the site has some free publicity it shouldn't have got, and maybe some distribution to clones that won't update and therefore remove it. Not a bad deal for an unlistable site.

From the "blog" itself

An editor made a mistake. It was corrected.

The first bit is debateable (it is regularly debated here). The second bit it absolutely true for sites of this nature. If you are cutting and pasting material from other people's sites don't expect a DMOZ listing. And do make sure that there are no copyright infringements in what you are doing.

 

If this is the case, how come Digg.com, Slashdot are indexed in DMOZ?

They're clearly copying fragments or articles and listing them on their sites..

How many sites that index news from several newspapers or sources like reuters are listed in DMOZ ?

There are sites in DMOZ that are far worse than this site that "maybe" copies articles from other sites. Your attention should be focused in other areas of DMOZ and you shouldn't wait for Gworld to mention 10 more sites. You have time for discuss, contradict, argue but don't have time to check a porn link.


Oh, and if you have so much time, maybe you editors would manage to spare a little time to look if there are any sites waiting to be added to these pages :

1998 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"1998+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search
1999 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"1999+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search

2000 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"2000+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search
2001 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"2001+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search

2002 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"2002+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search
2003 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"2003+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search

2004 : http://www.google.com/search?hs=65C...date"+"2004+-+edit"site:.dmoz.org&btnG=Search

 

In all fairness mariush, you shouldn't fault brizzie for not checking on porn links, he isn't even an editor.

I have time to check a porn link. Give me the ten now so I can get rid of them as soon as possible please.

 

Be fair to them. I mean it is not like that Internet changes everyday. What could have possibly happened in 8 years that is worth listing in DMOZ?

 

Thank you gworld, I'm glad you understand. Is the casserole ready yet?

 

I was merely quoting Brizzie, I was not "telling" him.

Sorry if it seemed that way and sorry if I was "out of line", it's just that sometimes it's frustrating to see all these arguments and contradictions, nothing is beeing done and only the little guys get hurt. It was really a very big problem to have his site listed, what can I say.. it would have ruined DMOZ's nice, angelic image.

 

lol, of those 70 results, 52 are for category descriptions - not for actual categories.

The next one (1999): 440 out of 440 are for category descriptions.

From 2000: 13,800 out of 13,900 are category descriptions.

Nice try though.

 

Are you trying to tell me that you have checked all 13.900 ?

Anyway, even the fact that there are 100 categories not updated since 200 is bad. I can imagine why you have stopped at 2000.

 

No, I searched within the search results. I stopped because I had made my point. But what you insinuate is most likely correct, the closer you get to the present year, the more categories you will find that have not been updated - that's common sense.

 

Some casseroles go well with beer.

 

They're called hotdishes if you're from Minnesota. (A true Minnesotan wouldn't know what a casserole was.)

 

An accurate observation, ishfish. But the kind of Minnesotan who eats "hotdish" likely would choose some beverage other than beer as an accompaniment.

Anyway, I wasn't thinking of Minnesota-style (i.e., insipid American) beer.

 

I wasn't referring to other sites, only to the reasons why this one site was not listable. I think it helps others to point out why sites are rejected or removed. I don't see how checking a porn link helps the person who had the problem understand why his site was removed. Nor does it matter, without commenting on the specific sites mentioned, if you can find examples of other sites with plagarised content listed. If a site is comprised more or less entirely of stock articles copied from other similar sites then it is not listable - report such sites as quality control issues in Resource Zone.

Some sites such as Reuters have value beyond the content itself e.g. in the way it is indexed or displayed, which make it a valuable resource.

I have done my fair share of checking gworld's porn links and been involved in debates internally to DMOZ and externally in a bid to clean things up. I may disagree with gworld's strategy and solutions but that doesn't mean I am any less concerned with stamping out kiddie porn and pro-pedophile chat rooms - in fact I brought the latter to this forum's attention (it was originally raised internally by an editor). I am not sure I could do much more than I have done in this area.

I do have the time to check a site for someone and explain in more detail than a serving editor can why it has been removed or rejected - as Annie indicated I retired as an editall in December last year.

His very big problem was that none of the work on the site was his own. If he had been the author of all, or at least most of, the content on the site, taken the time to give people the benefit of his knowledge and views, then the site would still be listed. I have no sympathy for him but I have a lot for people who spend weeks, months, years developing and filling sites with information from their own knowledge and experience - they are the ones who are deserving of a listing.

 

It is not text content but all the contents in so called "sites" (in reality affiliate pages) in image gallery section are nothing more than free pictures that are given to affiliates in order for them to market the main site. The same content can be found on hundred of other sites that are affiliates to the main sites.

 

Busted again.

 

Someone said here that DMOZ does not want to offer removal option from their directory because they can not be sure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the site.

In fact this can be solved easily:

1. Create a form that will allow owners to enter information.
2. When information is submitted, ask the person to create a text file or a html file with a random phrase on their site root.
3. Robozilla or whatever bot DMOZ uses can be set to search for that text/html file a few times in a week and if found, it will remove the site from the index.

Pretty much like what Google Sitemaps system does already.

 

That is a duplicate of what you posted in another thread mariush - is there any point in people discussing the same point in two different threads?

 

It was probably aimed at all those DMOZ editors who can't seem to understand anything at all until it's been repeated ad nauseum (defined as > 1000 times). Based on history, you can hardly blame the guy for thinking it might help to say it at least twice.