Rubylane.com is an exception. They are allowed a gazillion deeplinks for each of their ebay store type "stores."
93 is a gazillion? They all look like independent sellers, not affiliates or drop shippers, and it isn't an auction. I don't know if there is a specific policy applying to rubylane. From the Shopping branch FAQs There are a number of companies that offer online stores using templates and selected merchandise. These stores look very similar to one another and often sell variations of the same products. Template-based sites are permitted to be listed in Shopping/ if they contain substantial unique product content. Note for editors - about 10% are dead links - the URL works but there is no shop behind it (based on the first 20 search results). Why would you have been investing "all the work" at Wikipedia adding deep links to your site (I can see the benefit of linking to some DMOZ categories). Apart from obviously not reading DMOZ guidelines, do you not read Wiki guidelines either? Links normally to be avoided A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. How on earth are you still a DMOZ editor?
I'm trying so hard to refrain from posting...But I...just...can't...help it... Sooooo, I was told that shopping websites only get one listing. Including if a company has two completely different stores, only one listing will be included. Remember this thread? Have things changed since then, or am I missing something?
There are some sites that have a ton of listings. Some deserve them some don't. The editors own rings of sites seem to do quite well too
I believe it is called citing sources. If I add some info to Wiki I believe it is proper Wiki policy to state your sources which in my case happens to be my website. It all in the guidelines you just have to read them! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Besides most links I got there were added by other users, I just fix them if I do any change to my website. By doing (relatively) good job on maintaining categories I'm assigned too? There are zero links submitted by public waiting for my approval, mostly because I track them down and add them myself once I become editor of some category it would be nice if I had more free time, there are so many categories and links to add... why don't you help?
Rubylane seems to be lots of different shops by independent sellers. I don't see a problem or any change. If a single seller has more than one shop then alert editors to it. What, so you selectively read those bits that are to your advantage and ignore those that aren't? See the above on external links - you are hardly neutral about your own site so should use the Talk page. I suggest you also read the information on reliable sources and in particular that section that refers to self-published sources (which your own website would be). I think it was 23,000 edits, Runner Up Best New Editor, Best Regional Editor, Best Editall, and one or two others... but you seem to be overly interested in your site whether it be in DMOZ (from your posts here) and in Wikipedia it seems too. Just a personal opinion...
The only difference is that he is honest about it while majority pretend to do it as service to humanity. The editor selection process and DMOZ procedures makes it almost necessary to have other motives than pure interest in subject in order to participate.
It doesn't matter whether you are openly or covertly self-promoting and self-serving, this is not the intent of these type of projects. They are not marketing tools.
I wasn't talking about RubyLane, I was talking about your quote from DMOZ guidelines: I did alert editors to a company having more then one store listed, but they are all still listed. Which seems to be correct according to the guidelines, but incorrect according to you.
Huh if I did that each time I would probably get banned from Wiki for being too annoying. Generally I avoid getting myself into pointless edit wars and concentrate my efforts on articles which are stubs. I don't see what does my personal fillings towards my (cool 1600+ pages) website have to do with Wiki article quality? That would be true if I my site was based on hearsay instead of real research: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/bibliography/ (list is little outdated and missing pille of books around me threatening to bury me) Cool, why did you quit? My site was in DMOZ (and Wiki) long before I joined but I have bad habit of moving my site around constantly changing URL so I decided to join in carried by my "selfish motives". Since I'm also trying to create good link list in order to connect related websites into strong community DMOZ also servers nicely in my "evil plans". I admit my website has turned from hobby into obsession and its is barely paying for its hosting cost - I should really find a girlfriend.
May be you should email the link to this post to some of the senior editors in DMOZ, it seems they don't know this either.
Huh, if I was doing self-promotion and self-serving it would involve something commercial instead, only reason my websites isn't already part of Wikipedia is because of constant annoying edit wars related to topics I'm covering, one day when I'm done I'll probably dump whole thing on Wikipedia but for now I prefer to edit in peace without having to worry about some kids constantly vandalizing work already done while I'm gone. (not to mention the fact that I'm doing Multilanguage site with content in English, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian... which would literally beg to be vandalized if it was on Wikipedia) Edit: Wikipedia also lacks depth to which I would like to go in my research - hey I'm obsessed remember.
Definition of gazillion from Wikipedia is "Indefinite and fictitious large numbers" so the above usage is probably correct (and may also apply to other posts) Personally I prefer 93
ViciousSummer, It is ok to have template stores as long as they offer unique content and are owned or operated by deferent companies. The key is unique content and not owned by the same person. If I see a template site that is offering the same thing that others are offering, I wouldn't list it. It's not to say i can't list it. Some editors are more lenient than others. The ODP is subjective up to a point. I think that is one of the difficulties for all. Even editors. It is a learning process and editors make mistakes. Hopefully, the good listings far out way the bad ones. I hope that answers your question.
Sorry Summer - it may be that the wording is causing some problem. I was quoting in direct reference to Rubylane. There are a number of companies, such as Rubylane, that offer a service for sellers in the form of template stores that can look similar. The important thing is that the stores are operated by different and independent sellers and if they meet the other criteria for listing the fact that they sell via a Rubylane (or other) template store operator should not affect whether or not they are listed. Rubylane (and its ilk) are considered hosts rather than the store owner. It isn't suggesting that it is OK for a company to split its products (the ones it sells direct) amongst different sites and get each listed separately. There are some exceptions which generally only apply to the very big trading groups where each of their major retail brands may get a listing. Looks like photofox will take up any quality control issue you have noticed if you want to notify it again. Like a site with copious GoogleAds and affiliate links. I don't know which Wiki pages you have cited your site on as a reliable source but as I pointed out there are some quite detailed guidelines on what a reliable source is, and self-published material is not that reliable. It doesn't sound right to me at all and from the way you talk it sounds like you are using Wiki and DMOZ to promote your own research (doesn't have to be commercial). Plus you don't appear to have the credentials for Wiki to consider your research as a reliable source. But as I said, it is only a personal opinion. There are subjects on which I would consider myself to be an amateur expert and have written one or two articles based on research of acclaimed academic experts. *Their* works are citable and reliable sources, published by University presses, but my articles are way off being authoratative and if I cited them in a Wiki piece it would be plain wrong, though it might get some traffic to my site. Ditto if I had used DMOZ and my editall powers to start deeplinking my own articles around informational categories - it would have been wrong, and an inappropriate use of powers. In my personal opinion. There again your views on those with psychological illnesses as being stupid who don't deserve protection (survival of the fittest) don't inspire confidence that what you say on any other subject has any credibility. The choice of publication for your Amazon affiliate link on your personal site - Make Easy Money with Google - also indicates a commercially orientated mind rather than one driven by a desire to provide good informational content. Sorry if I am misjudging you but the content of some of your posts make me feel very uneasy about your Wiki and DMOZ involvement.
Money makes the World go around, remember? If you provide me with free hosting service I will gladly remove ads. And if it wasn't against Adsense rules I would gladly send you my Adsense stats to see how pathetic they are, I have yet to pass monthly check minimum payout so that tells it all. I wouldn't put too much fate in University presses and I do consider myself much bigger expert on certain topics then some dorks with PhD: Oss & the Yugoslav Resistance, 1943-1945 (no reason to be sacred its not affiliate link, it has my review of a book which is based on authors doctoral dissertation - seems to be really easy to get one) I totally agree with you if I wanted to abuse my powers I could have simply created tons of gaming section at my website add few screenshots, trailers, write a preview, review to each and my pages would be in perfect DMOZ guidelines as are IGN and other big sites but that would be below my games modification maker honor and only gaming links (grand total of 3+1 in test) from my website featured at DMOZ (or anywhere else for that matter) are ones with unique content - gaming modifications I've created or worked on. My personality sucks no argument there but you don't have to marry me or even like me as long as I do my job properly everything is fine. Now you have missed the ball completely, IvanBajlo.com isn't even listed at DMOZ (I got zero content in English so that would be really difficult get into any category ) and I only have one little link on Croatian Wikipedia. I'm quite familiar of commercial nature of that website that is why I only use it when I'm lazy to write half a page of text to questions asked a million times (how to use Sitemaps, submit to Google) on Croatian forums and newsgroups, pasting link is much simpler and if I make few cents... Website in question is Vojska.net, 1600+ pages multilanguage monster - plenty of content for deeplinks there don't you think? No hard filings, as you were editall you probably have much more experience with problematic editors but is it better to have some annoying S.O.B. as long as he gets the job done properly or no editor at all?
As long as you put that thought on hold when editing in DMOZ or Wiki. Self-promotion (commercial or not) is incompatible with either project and whether you intend to or not, this is the impression you are giving to me. And no doubt setting off alarm bells elsewhere. That is why I asked earlier on how you were still a DMOZ editor - it is not something I have seen much tolerance of in the past.
Argh, out my entire post you attack single sentence... If I didn't do that I would be long gone. I have to say I disagree, there is nothing wrong with self-promotion as long as it is FULLY following guidelines/rules and it is not done at expense of competitors. If we take money factor out there will probably no longer be Wikipedia or DMOZ and probably most of the Internet. So what you are saying I should resign as a editor so I don't get into conflict of interest and simply limit myself to submitting my links to appropriate categories/wiki talk pages and come to this forum ask why is it taking so long for links to be approved/updated even if they are in perfect accordance to guidelines? Actually not a bad idea then some of my links could get cool status since if I did that now I would be instantly banned.
Don't mind brizzie, he is little naive when it comes to real life and believes what ever BS the "senior" editors in DMOZ tell him. DMOZ is full of financial interests and while I have mainly exposed the adult section because of the listing of illegal sites and underground porn, the gaming section, gambling and pharmacy are other areas that financial interests play a big role in listing of the sites.