I could live with that as long as editor names are hidden... I don't want someone reading that compostannie said not to list their site because of whatever reason... it's too late for me to go back in time and hide who I am. I've never hidden my identity.
No, I can't. We're never allowed to change our editor names for any reason so if you become an editor, choose your name wisely. It's more permanent than marriage.
An external alias. Like an email alias. One email address can appear to be many through the use of aliases.
Now there you go using techie talk Ryan... most editors wouldn't know how to do that. I sure don't. Editors aren't web professionals, like most posters here at DP. We're just normal people, no giant computer enhanced brains.
OK, my apologies. I will try my best to explain: Dan can also be known as Fred (perhaps a stage name), most mailservers can be instructed that fred@acting is really dan@home. So all emails to fred@acting end up in the dan@home inbox. Email sent can appear to be from fred@acting when in fact Dan is sending it from the same email client that he uses to send dan@home emails. Dan just selects the identity he's preferring to use. Email was just an example of how aliases can work. Although it's only 12C outside it's 26C inside... so what better way to cool off?
ooooh, sneaky... I didn't know you could do that. I still wouldn't know how but I do understand. Thanks for dumbing it down for me.
Aren't the corrupt, spamming webmasters already editors in adult section? What do you call people who list hundreds of deep links to their own affiliate doorway pages? Senior Editors in DMOZ Adult.
Are we talking Adult image galleries? I assume so. Some editors want to keep the status quo - a large majority do not. Want proof - ask for a secret poll and see the result. Of course there won't be a poll because the result is already known. Without a poll you can pretend more or less universal support but pretending don't make it so. That may be what it is supposed to be but in practice it is nonsense. Claiming otherwise demonstrates an acute lack of understanding of editing or a forlorn hope that there's a mug born every second. I know it is the "spin" some editors prefer but an organisation never solved its problems by spinning to itself. My current employer is actually sending everyone on training on how not to spin and since they introduced a no bull policy about 10 months ago they have undergone an almost impossible transformation from a perception of being lower than a slug to winning awards for excellence. Interesting thing is, though I never subscribed to the spin is good theory in the first place and always ignored instructions to tout a what problem, there is no problem official line to every issue raised, the training sessions show you exactly how obvious it is when someone is talking bull and how counterproductive it is. From a reply I made in the last DMOZ fun thread: Where Adult varies is this. In Shopping if a garden furniture site splits itself into 15 sites each with 15 photos of products in a particular category then there will be 15 rejections, red URL notes attached, and someone might if they are so inclined look for an umbrella URL they will list. If they listed all 15 domains they would be very lucky to keep their editor account. In Adult not only would such activity not be met with the same response but it will be rewarded with 15 listings. There is no possible valid excuse for ignoring the guidelines that make the Shopping branch response the right one according to the hundreds/thousands of editors who edit in that and other non-Adult branches. The fact that common practice in the garden furniture web sector is to split URLs to make things sooo much easier for a user trying to find decking without having to wade through parasols would be laughed out of the internal forums and the editor suggesting it would be watched very closely. But in Adult? No-one has ever satisfactorily explained why Adult should have any exemption from the same rules that apply to garden furniture or any other kind of commercial product. Or even the works of artists come to that. The fact is there isn't any exemption for Adult but they do it anyway. As far as I am concerned in breach of guidelines. All that ever comes back is "you don't understand the Adult web industry" (I do, it is to make money via aggressive web marketing same as the online garden furniture site). Or "all you want to do is remove the whole of Adult for moral/personal/other motives" (No, I want Adult to fall in line with Directory guidelines and follow the same rules as everyone else). Or "the way we classify is of benefit to Adult site users and we are here to serve the users" (so would splitting decking from parasol pages on garden furniture site be of use to gardeners but that isn't acceptable because, it is ruled, that would not add value to the project by common consensus). No, it isn't - Adult has its branch guidelines, some of which are unwritten, and which appear to many to contradict Directory wide guidelines, which, as you will know, always take precedence over branch guidelines. The question is why guidelines that appear to many to contradict Directory wide guidelines continue to exist and support the appearance of corruption. There is actually an answer that would also preserve Annie's anonymity - a tick box system defaulting to "Pending". Spam can be checked to always return "Pending" to an external check. Otherwise rejections would be shown as "Duplicate", "Insufficient unique content", etc. In RZ of old there was absolutely no prohibition on telling enquirers their site was rejected and why. It was unwise to give such information to spammers so they would often get a bland useless reply. The demise of the RZ status check never changed what could be given as information to submitters - it was an RZ decision only and RZ is not an official arm of DMOZ. This attitude towards webmasters, viewing virtually all of them as dishonest and corrupt, is a real problem - you need to separate spammers from the rest and deal with each group on their merits. I'm not being funny aquarius but if you do not clearly understand editorial guidelines and the editor community, it is probably best not to quote what you think are the correct canned responses here - they don't enhance the DMOZ reputation in any way - stick to giving what you really think yourself. Even if people disagree with you at least you will get respect for your views. What if a "site" IS an advertisement? An ad for a phone sex line with 15 very similar photos of a porn queen forming the advert? There is a difference between a site that provides content and has an ad on it and an ad with some photos on it. And define "site" please - in non-Adult it is generally understood to be everything under the same ownership on a domain or linked to from a domain and that contains similar material.* How do you explain that in Adult image galleries a "site" has been redefined as a single gallery of images? I know no-one except a handful of Adult editors who have ever attempted such a terminological redefinition (and expected to get away with it). * allows a single domain that acts as a host to contain several sites, and overcomes the issue of webmasters splitting their site onto several domains and claiming a listing for each.