Basically, because of the volatility of the shops and the large percentage that are also listed through the auction venue, editors are reluctant to start listing ebay stores. They all can be accessed here http://editors.dmoz.org/Shopping/Auctions/Search_Engines/ and inversely maintained by ebay.
But nevertheless a small number of ebay stores are actually listed... and I can't find anything in the public guidelines banning them...
So what is the difference between ebay stores and rubylane. Could someone not lame editor define this.
A small number of ebay stores are actually listed... and I can't find anything in the public guidelines banning them. Ditto for rubylane. What difference is it that you are looking for?
There was a discussion on this some time ago - I forget what the conclusion was. The general idea is that each Rubylane store is an independant operation actually selling goods. eBay stores are for the most part a mixture of auction and store, and probably are not listable. eBay stores tend to be more volatile in their content. I think that an eBay store that is set up like Rubylane could be alllowed.
Your new. Anyway if ebay has deeplinks and is allowed is it not applicable to rubylane too or vice versa. Or is it supposed to be the standard rule for a site listing ?
Popotalk - you have been an editor so you should know the answer. Every site, which includes rubylane and ebay stores, should be treated on its merits. In most cases, for one reason or another, ebay stores don't get listed, usually because they are unstable or have insufficient unique content. This doesn't mean that they are banned, period, simply for being a store hosted on ebay. Obviously some ebay stores have been deemed suitable and have been listed. Obviously some rubylane stores have been deemed suitable and have been listed. Ebay stores and rubylane stores have no doubt been rejected - for such things as insufficient unique content. I don't see where the inconsistency is. There is no automatic acceptance of any store regardless of where it is hosted, it is all down to unique content.
You can get to the Rubylane stores from the main Rubylane url (rubylane.com) far easier than you can get to the ebay stores from ebay.com. By that criterion, you might want to list ebay stores, but not Rubylane stores! It is not true that there is no ban on ebay stores. It's not a ban per se, but if a meta or senior editors finds one, it will be removed because it's been deemed unlistable by the powers that be. I don't think the editors should decide not to list ebay stores because "they tend to die." That is also true of Rubylane stores. And by their own guidelines, it should not be the editor's business to decide what tends to die and what does not. Nothing about that in the guidelines. I've said it before, I am not in favor of listing ebay stores. But in dmoz's decision to favor Rubylane with deeplinks, and deny the same privilege to ebay, forgive me to detect the cheap perfume of corruption.
i would be happy to have one listing in dmoz..lol maybe someday why does dmoz let porn sites even in ? but they block some of my sites with original content ?? weird
Not only that. It is the inconsistencies that their guidelines "per se" needs evaluation. That is why listings sites that are appropriate cannot be listed because of these inconsistent clap guidelines. Its confusing to the foot soldiers then the senior editors and admins will teach you to circumvent the guidelines.
Normal sites = Free so you have to wait. Porn and illegal sites= generates dinero and immediate without guidance compliant.
Ahem! I was COERCED in listing a good proportion of the current Rubylane deeplinks. I actually defied the senior editors by NOT listing several Rubylane stores that featured fewer than 25 items. I reviewed a great deal of Rubylane stores, in categories that were already crowded with other sellers of junk, baubles and trinkets. Having many deeplinks was very, very good for Rubylane.com. If there are ebay stores listed, they are listed in error, a few slipped in. It's not because they have been carefully screened and deemed more worthy than the many others that were systematically denied listings. Yes, ebay stores are deemed unlistable. That is what I was told by a few metas. maybe you ought to double-check. When you say that every SITE should be treated on its own merit, you are forgetting the main point of the discussion, which is DEEPLINKS vs. SITES. No one would disagree that Rubylane.com and ebay.com each deserve a listing for their main URL. We are discussing unequal, SYSTEMATIC differential treatment in allowing deeplinks.
As I said, rubylane would be considered a form of specialised host and the stores would each be considered a site for DMOZ purposes. Not a deeplink. The sellers are all independent and from my perusal of some of those listed the products seem unique. No problems. There is no guideline ban on ebay stores but I have never personally come across an ebay store I would consider listable. I don't think there is unequal or systematic differential treatment other than the normal differential treatment of sites based on content. You can't defy anyone by simply not listing a site - no editor is obliged to list any site they don't want to. You can defy a meta by rejecting a listable site and that is going to get you into trouble.
If Rubylane is a specialized host with independent stores, so is ebay. Yes, I rejected a large number of Rubylane stores with fewer than 25 items for sale. I stated this as the reason with each rejection in the editing logs. Was I wrong? You said: "In most cases, for one reason or another, ebay stores don't get listed, usually because they are unstable or have insufficient unique content." I did not list many because of what I considered insufficient unique content. I'll never know whether that was the actual reason, but this happened just before my editor privileges were suddenly removed. Coincidence? I cannot know. That's another whiff of corruption that leads me to think that there is some payola involved with the Rubylane listings. Rubylane listings seem to be very close to the hearts (and wallets?) of a few metas and seniors.
It is not only this, there are so many examples of such practices in porn, shopping, online pharmacy or casino section. I don't think that there is any point for you to try to convince brizzie about this, his usual response to any kind of proof lately has been , I keep my eyes closed, therefore I don't see any corruption and that is the reason that there is no corruption in DMOZ.
Circumstantial evidence, not proof. I have never said there is no corruption in DMOZ. I have said that DMOZ does itself no good by allowing the legacy of removed abusive editors to remain because, in part, it feeds people like yourself. I do deny the existence of widespread or systematic corruption as I believe that would be beyond credibility for reasons I have given numerous times before.
For all I know I did not abuse my category. Maybe I abused the Adult, Corrupt and Lazy Editors section by voicing out what is true(Randy Escalada for example). That don't interest me anymore whatever floats their boat they can stick it anywhere they like. Because DMOZ is one-sided I will be up to challenge.