1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

More fun with DMOZ.

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by gworld, Mar 20, 2006.

  1. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    You don't expect me to answer this question, do you? I wonder the same thing, I have no answer.

    All I know is that different branches have their own guidelines in addition to the main dmoz guidelines, so it's not unusual to have variations among branches. I don't pretend to understand the Adult guidelines. This is why I'm asking gworld the vague question of which branch he edits. I'd simply find it easier to discuss if I knew which nuances he's most familiar with. For me, it's Shopping. ;)

    Gworld, tell me in a pm, no one will know you sent it and I promise not to tell.
     
    compostannie, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #62
    My 14 year old son recently passed on some advice based on his experience so far in high school: "Never tell a woman anything."

    No personal slight to Annie is intended (I think quite highly of her, actually). I just thought it only fair to pass on my son's advice to gworld before he responds. :eek:
     
    minstrel, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  3. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #63
    You know minstrel, that's actually quite brilliant! If we make a rule that women never tell men anything regarding odp and men never tell women anything about odp, that will cut our work in half and double our accomplishments.

    But you should be able to tell from my picture that I'm a dog, and dogs are the most trustworthy creatures ever. ;)
     
    compostannie, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  4. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #64
    Or... we could just shut down ODP... problem solved. :D

    (that dog looks shifty to me...)
     
    minstrel, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  5. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #65
    For some people it is very simple, you buy a domain for $8, get a $10 hosting/year, make 30-40 "Affiliate doorway" pages (actually the porn companies supply you with templates and pictures) and you list it 40 times in DMOZ.

    Are you still confused about it? ;) :D
     
    gworld, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  6. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    I looked through the sites mentioned by gworld in his first post in this thread.

    I'm not sure how to reply because his repeated claims that the sites "have no content" just aren't true. Every one of them has 2 or 3 image galleries consisting of 15+ free pictures. Is it a lot of content? Not really. Is it quality content? Well, how do you define quality when looking at an image gallery? The pictures are of a good resolution and the models, for the most part, are attractive IMO. Is it unique content? Surely not in the sense that the pictures are probably available elsewhere on the web, however, we do try not to duplicate content in listed sites (although it does happen).

    So, it's hard to answer further questions when your initial claim and premise is incorrect. The sites have content that is appropriate to the categories they are listed in. Comparing this to a site with pictures of an ipod does not make any sense as we do not have a category for ipod pictures. If we did have a category called ipod/Image_Galleries, then yes - a site that had pictures of ipods would be listable.

    I agree that the content of the almightyzeus sites is limited, but I still have trouble understanding why you consider there to be a difference between adult sites with affiliate links/ads/doorways (whatever name you want to give them) and any other site with ads. It all boils down to the same thing in the end.
     
    sidjf, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  7. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #67
    It seems to me the criteria shouldn't be all that difficult to evaluate.

    First, I think part of the question is, again, why do sites like this warrant multiple listings? (I could also ask why they warrant ANY listing at all but let's leave that for now.)

    Second, whether or not a "photo gallery" page contains pictures or how many pictures should not be either the sole question or even the first question. If indeed these pages link into larger sites, are the images on the (multiply) listed pages unique or are they merely random samples of images within the site and perhaps even available on other sites?

    You seem to answer that question yourself:

    So why are those sites there? I'd say probably for the reason gworld suggests - to link to the larger "mother" sites. If so, they are "doorway" pages.

    I don't pretend to have a directory the size of DMOZ but I get sites submitted with RSS feeds and "article pastes" that are obviously designed solely for AdSense "content" and links to other sites owned by the webmaster for the "doorway site". These are pretty easy to spot - it's really not rocket science. I can spot them. Gworld can spot them. Google can spot them. Why can't DMOZ spot them?

    It's almost laughable that editors can talk about listings in the Adult category and debate whether or not one should be there on the basis of "quality".

    So did/do the "affirmative views" sites that were removed. In all other categories, merely having content relevant to the category is not even close to a reason to list a site. Why is it different for Adult?

    Why do you NOT have such a category? Why are there "image galleries" in Adult and not elsewhere? Why are the Adult editors not required to follow the same rules as the editors in all other DMOZ categories?
     
    minstrel, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #68
    These clearly show that these pages are affiliate pages, isn't this in contradiction of DMOZ guideline? :rolleyes:

    Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory. "

    Nice of you to mention 15+, isn't the so called "DMOZ ADULT GUIDELINE", 20 images? This pages are not even according to a simple rule of 20 images.

    Very interesting question, so in your opinion there is no difference between a doorway/affiliate page and normal site, are you sure about this? ;)

    Let's look at what DMOZ OFFICIAL adult guideline says about this:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. "

    Are you still going to claim that these sites are according to DMOZ guidelines? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  9. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #69
    Probably because no editor has the interest to create such a category. Or maybe because image gallaries of IPODs don't exist?
    There are other image gallery categories.
    Each branch has guidelines unique to that branch. That doesn't mean that those guidelines can't change or that they aren't up for discussion. The adult editors have to follow the same basic guidelines as all other editors, which are supplemented by the branch specific guidelines.
     
    lmocr, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  10. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #70
    unofficial Adult guidelines must be very different from DMOZ official guidelines since according to official adult guidelines these sites can not be listed. ;)

    Let's look at what DMOZ OFFICIAL adult guideline says about this:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. "
     
    gworld, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  11. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #71
    2 x 15+ = 30+
    3 x 15+ = 45+
    Meets the FAQ for appropriate content
     
    lmocr, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  12. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72
    20 pictures is a guideline, not a rule. Some of the almightyzues sites were under 20, some were over.
     
    sidjf, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #73
    Really... this lmocr + sidjf defend-the-pornography tag team is becoming reminiscent of some of the more farcical scenes from Ghostbusters... :rolleyes:

    "It's not really a rule. It's more of a guideline." ~ Bill Murray
     
    minstrel, Mar 21, 2006 IP
  14. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #74
    I don't consider myself "defending" anything here - explaining would be a better term. Pointing out written guidelines, written FAQ, and existing categories?

    The word "defending" brings to mind all those icky defense attorneys on "Law and Order" and how they twist the truth and attack the witnesses.

    Wow - that reminds me of someone (I just can't quite figure out who) :rolleyes:
     
    lmocr, Mar 22, 2006 IP
  15. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #75
    This is not what is stated, it should be 20 image in the page as sidjf tried to cover up the problem in the next post after you and call it guideline and not a rule. :rolleyes:

    But none of you tried to explain this section of guideline and explain why this site is listed:

    Let's look at what DMOZ OFFICIAL adult guideline says about this:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. " ;)
     
    gworld, Mar 22, 2006 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #76
    Uh-huh... you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the language, lmocr.

    You're not defending current policies regarding the DMOZ porn industry. You're merely explaining why you feel there there is a need to have multiple listings for pornographic doorway pages... why the fact that pro-pedophilia listings existed for who knows how long before David Duval began his DMOZ child porn thread had nothing to do with the Admins discussing the issue for over a month and finally making a few cosmetic changes... why and your friends in Adult feel that editors like gworld should just shut up, back DMOZ policies, and support the party line regarding outside (or inside) criticism...

    :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Mar 22, 2006 IP
  17. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    Who here is surprised at the road this thread has taken?

    1) DPer asks question
    2) Editor answers question.
    3) DPer repeats same question while emphasizing various parts.
    4) Editor again answers question.
    5) DPer attacks editor for being corrupt/abusive/stupid/a pedophile/etc

    I'm starting to wonder if some of you really can't tell the difference between someone answring a question and someone defending a policy. Are you that dense?

    gworld asked why these sites were listed. It was explained to him why and how these sites are listable. Then personal attacks start. gworld did not ask if any of us agree that these sites should be listable (in fact, lmocr, compostannie, and myself have all stated that we questioned whether sites like this *should* be listable) - he asked if they are listable (or something like that).

    Since the end result is the same no matter what answer is given to your questions (unless you kiss DP ass like a couple of questionable editors that post here - which is sad considering the only thing to be gained is the approval of random and semi-annonymous people on the internet), I am going to start making my answers up. It should be much more entertaining. :D
     
    sidjf, Mar 22, 2006 IP
  18. CReed

    CReed Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,969
    Likes Received:
    594
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #78
    Let's get past the subjective content issue and look closer at the sites primary focus - it's not about providing visitors with free images - it's about enticing visitors to follow the breadcrumbs and click the affiliate links.

    And it's clearly defined in the editorial guidelines:

    Sites consisting primarily of affiliate links, or whose sole purpose is to drive user traffic to another site for the purpose of commission sales, provide no unique content and are not appropriate for inclusion in the directory.

    The repetitive claims and justifications that the content is more than sufficient to warrant a listing is rather tiresome. It doesn't all boil down to the same thing in the end.
     
    CReed, Mar 22, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  19. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    Actually, it does.

    Wrong, the sites primary focus is to make money - the method used to accomplish this is affiliate links.

    I'd think you guys would know how this works - apparently not.

    Internet 101:

    1) Offer a service/product/content that people want.
    2) Place ads on your site (affiliate links, pay-per-click, etc - they're all the same in the end).
    3) People come to your site, you make money.

    Examples:

    Google.com - offer a great searching tool and then sell ad space.

    sudsreport.com - write some articles about health related stuff and sell ad space via DP forums.

    gentlemenscafe.com - create a forum about "man stuff" and put up some adsense ads.

    random adult website - put up some free nudie pictures and place affiliate links next to them.
     
    sidjf, Mar 22, 2006 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #80
    Are you saying DMOZ OFFICIAL adult guideline that states:

    "Image Galleries

    Sections for groups or galleries of pictures, listed by category and type: membership, AVS, or free.

    Doorways and affiliate sites are not accepted. "

    is just bunch of BS that nobody should care about? ;)

    We are not discussing if advertisement or capitalist consumer oriented society is good or bad, we are discussing the DMOZ guidelines and what sites can be listed according to those guidelines. ;)
     
    gworld, Mar 22, 2006 IP
    CReed likes this.