Sure, if you must.... I will bring that to someone's attention - thanks very much. That I will agree with you. And we appreciate any help given to spot them. I admit that there are problems - I always have. I will criticise DMOZ where I feel it is necessary, and have. I don't get thrown out, I try to make a difference. You are entitled to your opinion on the ODP listing porn - I have mine - there are many editors who feel that it shouldn't be done, but then there are some who feel like the ODP shouldn't be listing religious sites at all, and that they are objectionable... or sites about drugs... The ODP tries to list what is on the internet (with some exceptions) that editors have chosen to list. If you don't like the Adult part of the directory, please just don't look there. It's like the TV - if you don't like what is on - turn it off, don't complain to the government and expect them to do something about it. I don't edit in the adult sections for a reason....
Oh Boy - yet another DMOZ sucks thread. I think there are about 1000 threads like this on here already - thats not counting the various other forums. --- Here is my simplistic take - Some editors at DMOZ are good -- Others are not good -- Some are corrupt -- Some are non existant -- However - The true problem is management. Someone should be watching the activity of editors, checking on complaints, etc. If an editor isnt editing, then boot him/her. They arent doing any good anyway. If someone says - My site hasnt been listed in 6 months - check into why, and correct the problem if possible / appropriate. DMOZ is DMOZ. Some editors are good, others are not. Know that going in. Reality is, they've heard all the complaints. There have been many. If they choose to ignore the complaints and do nothing to fix them, then thats their choice. Complaining more wont help. As far as im concerned, DMOZ has been pretty good to me overall and I have no real complaints. I have a bogger problem with Google drawing its directory from DMOZ. Google should rely on a directory that has listings that are so arbitrary.
Please show me a directory out there which is comparable in size and scope and not biased towards the needs of website marketing. My guess is that although there are issues, ODP is still the best out there, from Google's perspective.
What answers? With all due respect, Alucard, the kind of answers I've seen, such as the one macdesign gave earlier, don't address the question at all. As much as my personal opinion about porn sites is that DMOZ should not be listing them at all, that's not the issue here. The issue is why does a porn site merit over 200 listings in DMOZ? No one has ever given me a rationale for that that makes the slightest sense.
My point earlier was - that posting angelfire as an example of corruption misses the point. Posting about recipe sites also misses the point - we intentionally give multiple listings to recipes. We list single pages in these sites e.g. http://dmoz.org/Home/Cooking/desc.html If your site features recipes or articles pertaining to cooking, the url of that article or page may be submitted for review to the appropriate category of Home/Cooking. However porn sites are probably a good point; personally, I'd just as soon DMOZ did not list them, I think that other editors are less likely to cross check them and find abuse. I did check one of the examples dvduval posted and it clearly should not be listed based on the current content, it's duplicate content under differnt URL's in multiple categories and a clear violation of editing guidelines - I would have remvoed all of them on the spot, but I don't have that ability. The editor who listed them was removed some time in the past - presumably for abusing his editing privileges. However, after looking at that one example, I have no desire to look at any more porn sites. As alucard says post them in http://resource-zone.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12 where they will be dealt with.
OK, then I will give the answer again that I thought I gave before. There are certain types of sites which are very commonly deeplinked within the ODP. These include hosting, news, recipe, scientific/research articles and certain types of sites providing "adult" content. That is not an exclusive list - those are the ones I can think of now. You may not agree with that decision, (and I am not saying whether I do or don't), but that was the decision. Some of these sites belong to editors, most don't. These decisions reflect the style of the directory - I don't think that "rampant corruption" can be deduced from those decisions being made. This, by the way, is the reason that this "problem" won't be "fixed". That's not to say that some sites aren't listed more than they deserve to be due to problem editors - those are the ones I (and other editors) are interested in hearing about. But please, can we stop trotting out that same old list when the discussion turns to whether the ODP is corrupt or not? So I did as promised, and got an adult editor to look into this (the cybersex thing), and they got back to me just now. While the three sites belong to the same company, and they have an identical homepage, the content listed on each of the sites are not available on the others, so the sites are not identical mirrors.
Alucard, the point I'm trying to raise isn't necessarily one of corruption. It's one of... inefficiency perhaps? structural problems? DMOZ guiding principles? My personal major criticisms of DMOZ have been based on flawed structure and flawed operating principles. But this doesn't answer the WHY part of the question. It just says, "Because that's the way we do things". Why DO those pron sites deserve 200+ listings? Why does a scientific article require more tha n at most 2 or 3 listings, maximum? Why on earth does a hosting site need more than one listing?
As has come up so many times, the top listed domains list published on whois.sc needs to be gone thru with a fine tooth comb. It took me 10 minutes to find 3 examples (which actually involved no less than 15 "sites"). How many would you find if you went through them all? If you want to gain some credibility, do something about the list, and then let us know what happened. They are also e-commerce sites. Are you saying then that I can submit a page for every product on my ecommerce sites too?
Yes, but not identical, apparently - different content. No. As far as I know, none of these multiple listings were from submissions. The guideline for submitters is to submit a site once to the best category. Editors will decide whether: a) The SITE should be listed in more than one category b) THe content is such that individual pages of content (deeplinks) can be listed. And I don't think that ecommerce falls within any of the areas I noted above where it is common to deeplink.
And I am saying these porn sites are selling their services on each of the listed pages, meaning we have an ecommerce site with multiple listings for multiple products, so there is a double standard here.
No, you are not, but that is where others on this thread were, and using this as an example - that comment wasn't directed at you. OK, and you are most definitely entitled to your opinion on that one. If I were the God of the ODP then I wouldn't do things 100% the way they are done either. I think you have seen a comment from MacDesign that is similar. The ODP is a joint effort and, as such, requires that editors are prepared to reach joint decisions which, as inidicuals, they might not agree with. OK, you are mixing "site" with "article". One at a time: Hosting - Geocities is an example - it would be a disservice to the directory to only list the root - you can't navigate to the individual users' pages from there, and each user effectively has a "subsite", so each one of those is eligable for a listing. News, research articles and recipes - the decision was made that in that part of the directory individual pages would be listed because of the diverse nature of the information - the idea is that there would be a category for Chilli recipes that would contain a list of inidividual recipes for the dish. Now, that isn't to say that each PAGE gets more than one listing - in these cases, you list the page once in the category that it best fits. There again, there may be an exception to that too. Let's say there is a research article about chicken flu in Hong Kong. You might well link that PAGE in the Science area because it's about Chicken Flu and in the Regional Hong Kong section because it is relevant to the country. Adult sites - the editors that build that part of the directory feel that certain Adult content are like recipes - you are looking for something specific to "fulfil your needs', I guess, and so content is categorized by those preferences. On this one, I am only the messenger, though - I am not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of the ODP listing Adult sites.... I am just telling it the way it is from what I see. See, this is one of the guiding principles of the ODP (and at the same time one that leaves it open to such criticism) - there are no "rules", really - there are guidelines. If you as an editor, feel they should be ignored for good reason (and that does not include that of promoting your own site over any other that is listed) and you can get all interested editors to agree with you, then it can be done. The examples I gave show how that is done.
Alucard, your explanation tells me why you might want to list a page or site 2 or 3 times, maybe. It doesn't explain why it would require several dozen or several hundred listings. It's not the fact of more than one listing that affronts -- it's the sheer number of l;istings that some of these sites have.
Minstrel, once again you are confusing PAGES with SITES. No SITE (root URL) is listed more than a handful of times (most once or twice). No individual PAGE is listed more than a handful of times (most once or twice). There might well be certain sites (those that are in that list you and others have provided) who have several thousand pages listed. And that is for the reason I gave - the individual pages are deemed to have listability in that specialised area.
I agree that Something as huge as DMOZ wud take some time to show the changes if they were happening. and I am not saying that it is a fact of cource it is my opinion. and in respect- And in my opinion this doesnt justify the issue- but again it is an operating process of DMOZ, while many other big sites like google do have a strict guideline for porn sites DMOZ has a liberal way.
I agree that the stance the ODP takes on Adult sites is more liberal. I think it is more liberal than the stance taken on non-Adult sites in the ODP, too. For some users it is too liberal, for others it is too conservative. You're never going to please everyone. You make a very good point!
Not really. I have a site listed in DMOZ. Not counting subdomains/folders, the main site alone has over 100 pages. The site COULD reasonably be listed in 100+ categories since each of those pages references a different and to a large extent unrelated topic. How many listing do I have in DMOZ? 1. Just 1. And the category selected by the editor is appropriate for only 1 of those 100+ pages. So why one rule for people like me and another rule for recipe sites, porn sites, game sites, etc., etc.?
Because a large team of editors reached a concensus that those types of sites would be listed in that way. You use the word "rules" - I know you may think this is splitting hairs, but there are no "rules" - they are called "guidelines" - and for a very good reason - stay with me, here. The idea of the ODP (and the reason a lot of people get frustrated) is that because you have the humans involved, making decisions, you don't have to stick to a rigid set of rules - you do what you feel makes the directory more worthwhile. Remember this is not one editor - they can't just decide to not follow the guidelines without getting hauled over, if found. If you want to do some editing that will go against the guidelines, because you feel that there is a legitimate exception, then it needs to be brought up in the editor fora and discussed. Many ideas are proposed, only some reach concensus. Some actually cause the guidelines to be changed, others just become exceptions to the guidelines, based on the needs of the directory. Editors who deliberately go against guidelines and "go their own way", even though they may honestly believe it's the best thing, tend to have trouble, to the point of being thrown out for not being a team-player. I think now I am starting to understand why the level of frustration is there about these sites.. I was scratching my head trying to work out why you guys, who don't run porn sites (that you admit to, anyway ) are so concerned about that branch. Now I see you are feeling that your site is being treated differently from others. The thing is that from an ODP perspective you aren't comparing like with like - you see CNN as have so many listings, and you can barely get one if you are lucky - that isn't fair! Now, let's say you are a web hosting company and you see your rival having 20 listings for similar content and you with one. I'd say that was unfair, and needs to be looked into to find out what they have that you don't. If nothing, then it needs to be resolved. Roaming all over the directory looking for places where "the rules have been broken" in stuff like this will only lead to more frustration, for reasons stated.
The problem is that, to anyone other than DMOZ, the rules seem arbitrary and unfair. I understand your explanation but it makes no sense to me -- I get that the decision was made by and agreed to DMOZ editors but the logic escapes me. I see a game site -- okay, it provides information about different games. Maybe give it separate listings for PS2, Xbox, GameCube, PC games (possibly - I'm not sure I'd even agree with that but it would make some sense). Why does it need 50, 100 listings, presumably for individual games? Makes no sense. The same with recipe sites. If you're going to do that for certain types of sites, do it for all. Because it's NOT done for all, there is a perception of unfairness and bias, especially when on top of that you find some of the multiple-listing sites associated with DMOZ editors. Do you see my point? What I see are DMOZ editors repeatedly either asking "why do people hate us?" or "the only people who hate us are disbarred editors or disgruntled webmasters". This is a big part of the reason. It comes back to my point about transparency. (I'm really not talking about my sites here, by the way, because I don't care about that - I'm doing fine without DMOZ.)