More fun with DMOZ.

All of your references to the Gworld Zone would suggest otherwise.

Additionally, the fact is that gworld has quoted what he says are DMOZ's own guidelines. If he's misquoting, tell me where. Those guidelines, as gworld says, seem to make the pages in question illegal listings. Your answer to that has been to redefine things like "doorway pages" to make them "less illegal" but it doesn't answer the question of why they are there. They are in violation of the guidelines by any reasonable definition of doorway pages. You don't help the situation by trying to establish an idiosyncratic definition as the correct one.

It's like the exchange between the Mad Hatter (I think, or possible the Doormouse) and Alice in Alice and Wonderland:

Alice: The question is whether you can make a word mean anything you wish.
Hatter: The question is - who is to be master? Me? or the word?

That's humorous, of course, because the Mad Hatter has it all wrong. If that's what DMOZ is trying to do, they also have it all wrong.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=736104&postcount=90

 

It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.

Once again, they are not in violation of the guidelines by the ODP definition of doorway pages.

If you want to argue that the ODP definition is not reasonable, then argue away.

There are two different arguements there - don't mix them together.

 

A few comments, but this thread sadly seems to be degenerating into personal slating...

I don't know anything about him *shrug* but I DO know that any editor within Adult who started deleting off (or 'fixing' if you like), numerous listings in there would be jumped on quite quickly. I don't think consequently asking him to 'fix' anything in there is possible.

No , I don't hold you reponsible in the slightest. Gworld ? I've never spoken to him I don't feel the need to get together with anyone thanks.

This comment is way below the belt and uncalled for. You missed my posts in the , in fact, no I'm not even going to justify myself.

Oh sid...I think that just about brings us back to square one with the 'thats how it is and thats that' type thing. I thought this whole thread was about WHY these guidelines were there in place in Adult, not that they exist in the first place.

Oh and no, I won't be bringing this up in the internal forums, I was considering it (thanks to those who pm'd suggesting I do so) but certain red reps I've recieved have convinced me that it would be a complete waste of time.

 

Don't believe everything you see in the "red reps" - anyone can sign their name. Look back at that huge thread and see where portprophecy attacked me for red repping him. I never did - and I had a PM conversation with him about it.

When you rep someone - the name signed is hand typed in there, not attached by the computer. Any red reps should be taken with a grain of salt - if that much.

 

I'm not saying "That's how it is and that's that". I'm saying "That's how it is". I'm very open to discussions about whether Adult guidelines and definitions should be changed, so "that's not that".

That's not what I have understood from any of gworld's posts here. He's not arguing that the guidelines should be changed, he's arguing that they say something that they don't say.

 

*sigh*

Pathetic. Sid and lmocr are like the ultimate DMOZ toadies.... just reciting the DMOZ catechism.

 

No sid, I took this thread to be all about the guidelines.

He asked about the multiple listings/doorway pages/affliate links etc for one "site".

But I guess I looked at the bigger picture and applied the whole thing across the board ? I took it that hundreds, mabye thousands of these ( questionable to me anyway ) sites exist in Adult. The guidelines currently permit them to be there as you said.

I took that to mean that the current guidelines as they stand certainly seem a bit 'iffy' if they can be manipulated and so wildy misinterpreted either way.

A) Those convinced that many, many of the sites listed, sometimes numerously, according to the guidleines as they stand, are illegal listings and shouldn't be there. Examples of doorway pages, affliate links etc being the reason behind the illegality.

OR

B) Those who insist that the guidelines as they stand permit these listings legitimately, and who dispute that these sites are simply doorways or affliate links and think they do provide real content in their niche.

Either way, folks are reading what they want to see into them, and from the looks of it, these guidelines are also extremely easily manipulated as you said yourself, by webmasters wanting to make a quick buck.

So, for me, I'd say there needs to be a bit of a rethink and things certainly need to made a LOT clearer as to what consitutes a 'site' a 'page', a 'doorway', a site which 'primarily drives traffic' and what might also be good is a cap on the amount of times the same url is listed.
It's not fair on the rest of the directory who abide by much stricter rules regarding it.

 

Lol, well, at least I don't have to bother with the thread anymore now that I know for sure that this has turned from a discussion to just a couple of people wanting to troll and argue. I've made my position excruciatingly and repeatedly clear, but you choose to ignore everything I say and respond with the standard DP troll responses. Oh well.

 

Exactly my point. You are discussing the way you think the ODP should be. And I agree with most of what you just posted.

Gworld is claiming that these sites violate existing dmoz guidelines, and they don't.

The difference is that you are saying the sites should violate guidelines and gworld is saying that they do violate guidelines. That's a huge difference.

 

shygirl, you have it right.

sid, that's just more bafflegab and smokescreening, as you know. You have no intention of addressing any real issue. I think your decision "not to bother with this thread anymore" is an excellent one.

 

Discussions about changing guidelines should be held in the DMOZ internal forum. And the discussion about deeplinks is already running.
If editors need explanation of some of the guidelines they should also ask in the DMOZ forum.

BTW The guidelines for adult are not different from the rest of the directory. There are special adult guidelines but they don't replace the overall guidelines.

 

Shygirl - and any other editors reading - if you're concerned that making comments in any internal threads will make you the target of personal attacks, you are welcome to email me your comments and I will make them available in the thread you desire as an "annonymous comment". This offer is limited to comments that conform to the ODP Communications guidelines.

 

Explain to me how quoting the ODP guidelines in context is bafflegab or smokescreening.

One last time, just to make sure it's clear, I agree that the qualifications for a listing in Image_Galleries SHOULD be stricter. Again, how is that bafflegab or smokescreening? Please explain.

 

No, If you read most of my posts in this thread, all along I was hoping for some justification as to why things are as they are...

But you said that was a different discussion. I was hoping for a bit more than that.

And so this entire thread seems to be a heated debate on when is a doorway page not a doorway page, or what consitutes content on a page v's driving afflliate traffic.

We are debating different interpretations of the way things are. And those different interpretations are causing a LOT of confusion as to what violates what.

 

Fair enough. This is what the guidelines have to say about doorway sites (bold mine), interpret it how you wish:

 

That is EXACTLY the point.

Let me know if there's anything there you didn't understand, sid, and I'll try to explain it.

Hint: Trying to tell us that those sites fit within DMOZ guidelines because you or anyone else chooses to re-define "doorway pages" is bafflegab and smokescreening.

Do you see shygirl being attacked here? She is the only one of you who is actually addressing the issues.

Translation: The DMOZ Admin is unhappy about having the incoherence, fallacies. and contradictions of DMOZ policies being discussed in public and is warning editors that they had better watch out.

Many of your editors have said otherwise. Many of the listings in Adult say otherwise.

 

And you choose to interpret "nothing more" and "absolutely no content of their own" to mean that if you add a few images that are widely available elsewhere and/or appear on the site the doorway page is constructed to point to that makes it no longer a doorway page.

THAT is bafflegab and smokescreening, sid, in case you needed another example.

Well, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there, I suppose. If it isn't intentional bafflegab and smokescreening, it's mere stupidity. You tell me which it is.

 

Sorry, wrong guess. I'm not an DMOZ Admin.
My advice was only given because of the fact that internal discussions will not be hindered by people like you. A second thing to remember is that people here, although they might be DMOZ editors, do not represent DMOZ in any way they can only give their own opinion. But they are ofcourse allowed tot explain the current DMOZ guidelines (although I doubt anyone is willing to listen as you seem to be preoccupied by you own interpretations of good and wrong).

Although internal DMOZ discussions may be tough I doubt anyone needs to be afraid to become the target of personal attacks. This in contrast to DP, where personal attacks against DMOZ editors seem to be the norm.

 

That's nonsense, aquarius. I don't attack "DMOZ editors". I attack bullshit. The apparent correlation is the result of a majority of DMOZ editors posting repetitive bullshit.

"Hindered"?

These particular discussions wouldn't even be occurring without forums like DP. Or are you another DMOZ toadie like lmocr who is going to deny that?