Yes, I think there is a point there, one or two listings don't really make much headway when you're trying to debate something which extends a lot further. Lets get this completely clear, I am not 'enlightened' or have suddenly turned 'rogue editor'. Overall I will defend everything I've said here regarding Dmoz and it's Non-Adult sections to the hilt. Don't mistake that. However, the 'affirmative view' thing shocked me to the core, and I still have absolutely no idea despite this entire debate WHY Adult has such 'loose' guidelines compared to the rest of the directory. I don't want to know how it is and thats it, I want to know why ? And the justification behind it. Porn sites with 30 or so listings compared to an informational, educational site that can only ever hope for 2 at most... I cannot see the logic behind it, editor or not. I play by the guidelines set down to me. I also understand why there are a few differing 'do's and don'ts' concerning the various areas I edit in and in other sections. But come on, I personally feel like a complete fool when I hear about these 30, 14, 67 or blimey sometimes in the 100's listings in Adult. And that's even discounting the fact these listings may be shoring up doorway's to affiliate pages. The rest of the directory doesn't and would never entertain it, and certainly NOT just for shoving up 20 pictures of something in their particular niche. Could someone, please 'enlighten' me there ? Editors especially defending the staus quo would be good as I'm a bit worried I've denied sites additional listings on the basis they are listed elsewhere, usually quite close I have to admit in genure or functionality. But fab little info pages nonetheless. And yes Gworld, I don't really hold any illusions that anyone really important internally would listen to me. Better than me have tried, and resigned over this sort of thing.
I would REALLY like to hear the answers to those questions, too, shygirl. And please... NOT the usual Resourceless Zone answers, the ones where you say "that's just the way it is - they are within the rules", but a REAL answer?
I'm not going to try justifying the adult listings (because it's pointless here), but I do want to point out an error you've made. You are comparing two different things. Many sites have multiple pages listed throughout the ODP. Most pages are only listed twice (at the most) though. To say it a different way, one single page will usually not be listed more than twice - once in topical and once in regional. However, many times a site will have many different pages listed. Examples include encyclopedia sites, game review sites, movie review sites, image gallery sites, and news sites. Just because DPers only discuss the adult examples doesn't mean the other ones don't exist.
I specifically asked you NOT to do that, sid. Look at this list: http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html Now tell us why there is such a massive preponderance of worthless Adult sites in that list. And one more time: Please... NOT the usual Resourceless Zone answers, the ones where you say "that's just the way it is - they are within the rules", but a REAL answer?
What root url v's seperate pages ? I was under the impression I listed deserving sites ? I do understand that in areas such as Kids and Teens the guidelines ARE slightly more lienient in order that children using Dmoz can find the information they're looking for more quickly. But I search and list sites in the main, not pages. I'd be listing many, many more if it was just pages I was looking for.
First, I don't read RZ, so there's no way for me to know if my answers are "the usual Resourceless Zone answers" or not. Second, I wasn't trying to answer shygirl's question, only pointing out a fallacy in her statement about multiple listings. Third, http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html - I don't even see an adult domain in the top 100...
I'll give you a point for part of that, sid. That list, to my surprise, actually has changed quite a bit since I last looked at it. I'm not sure it's changed for the better (I still cannot understand the huge numbers given to certain sites, Adult or not - why do they need to be listed that many times? This is a question asked many times before and never satisfactorily answered), but it has changed. Maybe this is indeed a testament to some of the worst offenders being cleaned out of Adult, which would be a good thing. Or maybe it's a trend to more multiple listings or "deep listings" in other Dmoz areas, which i don't see as a good thing. But flip forward a couple of pages, starting about here: and or page 5 or 6 of that list and they start to crop up with more frequency.
I didn't say you were editing wrong, I said your statement about multiple listings was incorrect as you were comparing two completely different things. I would suggest asking editing questions on the dmoz forums as you will get much more diverse answers than from the few editors who post here. I don't necessarily have an answer for you either. Some of the multiple listings make sense to me and some don't. For example, we list individual movie reviews with each movie category. This makes sense to me as it makes the information more accesable to people browsing the directory. We also list individual entries to a couple of online encyclopedias. This doesn't make as much sense to me, but it's the same principle as the imdb listings. We also list individual news articles from cnn. This makes no sense to me at all. I'm not denying that some domains are extensively linked to in Adult/Image_Galleries. And I'm not defending the multiple listings either. I guess my question is, why are you so much more concerned with the Adult listings than the hundreds (almost thousands?) of other domains that have more multiple listings than the adult domains? If you could explain that to me, maybe we could see more eye to eye on this issue.
I'm not actually more concerned - I'm equally concerned. When I last looked at that list (and admittedly I just posted the bookmark in this thread without rechecking, so once again there have been changes), it was definitely dominated after about page 2 by Adult sites. Now, I still wonder why DMOZ feels the need to have the Adult categories at all - was there a perception somewhere that anyone who cared was having trouble finding enough pornography on the net and needed the help of busy, overworked DMOZ editors to point them in the right direction? ? But equally I wonder why any site needs to have AT MOST more than 2 or 3 listings, let alone 100s or in a couple of cases 1000s.
I can respect that. The same reason we have any other category I would suspect. I would ask this question of categories such as http://dmoz.org/Society/People/Personal_Homepages/ before I would ask it of Adult/Image_Galleries (I'm sure you just mean Image_Galleries and not all of Adult as there is much more to Adult than just porn). I think this question is a lot more legitimate that the random postings of adult domains with a couple dozen listings that some people like to make.
How many of personal home pages are affiliate doorway pages that only serve the financial benefit of the domain owner? These Doorway pages are against both DMOZ and Adult DMOZ guideline and you are well aware of that but everything must stay as always has been, right? I have an idea, may be we should check who edits the adult section for spanking and humiliation fetishes and if the editor has personal interest in those fetishes, we can ask him to remove these kind of listings. This way when he gets spanked and humiliated for removing these listings, it will be just pure pleasure for him.
No need, I think all non adult DMOZ editors know by now what it means. The only ones who don't have a problem with breaking DMOZ guidelines and listing such sites seems to be you and imocr. In your case, may be afraid of getting spanked and in imocr case, she agrees with anything the masters in DMOZ decide, no matter what.
Yes gworld, you've hit the nail on the head yet again! Is it hard to ignore reality or does it come naturally to you...?
Well, your definition of reality changes as it is shown in this post, as the need for justification and excuse for multiple listing of such pages increases. It is funny how the reality of majority of people including DMOZ editors is so different than your reality. This is the reality of DMOZ adult guideline: "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. " What is your reality?
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of repetition, a dimension of mis-quotes, a dimension of lies. You're moving into a land of both shadow and misdirection, of silliness and fantasy. You've just crossed over into the Gworld Zone.
At least, your way of trying to insult someone is more imaginative than that moron Hutch but both serve the same purpose, not to discuss the real questions. How can pages that are in direct contradiction to DMOZ guideline be listed? It seems to me you and imocr are the only one who see the wisdom of DMOZ disgracing itself in order to profit adult webmasters but may be the rest of us who don't see your reality are more concerned with what is best for DMOZ and not what is best for affiliates of the porn sites? The logic is very simple: 1) Are these pages affiliate pages? YES, it is shown and anybody can check. 2) Are these pages doorway pages? YES, it is entrance to the main porn site 3) Is this type of listing permitted under DMOZ adult guide line? NO, it is not. DMOZ adult guideline: "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. " 4) Are these pages listed in DMOZ? YES. WHY?