stevesliva

I'd probably try something with an xml parser that allows tree traversal, but then I'd probably run out of memory.

Re: DMOZ policies on advertising ? Content, Content, Content-- We have affirmative content policies instead of negative ad policies. A site with both lots of ads and lots of content may be listed, but a site with all ads and no unique content will not be listed. Also related is the policy against listing sites that are exclusively affiliate links. These sites are merely ads for other sites that mirror content, instead of offering additional unique information.

See the Bugs and Features forum... we're hoping for an update very soon.

Most editors will in fact try to be helpful when they get polite email, but it makes sense to be wary. Here's an excerpt from an email I recieved from an editor the other day: "I have been having a problem with a person. This has been going on for sometime ... She has filled up my mailbox with some pretty strange rantings about "editors raking in millions" and "taking bribes". In the past 2 weeks alone she has emailed me over 30 times."

Re: Editor Application Status ? I just took a look at your application, but I can't review it because I don't speak German, nor can dozens of other metas who normally would have reviewed it by now. It looks like we currently have about seven meta-editors fluent in German, and the time to review obviously can be a bit more varied with only seven people able to review your application rather than over 100.

Well, heck, if they meant Unicode, why didn't they say so? And why throw in -8 when the big deal about Unicode is the transition to 16-bit characters from 8?

It's "only" been running for three or four days now. We've got our fingers crossed. Here is a example of the character set nightmare referred to above, although I think it's gotten a bit worse. I've read a lot about transitioning to UTF-8, whatever that is.

It's still there. (Added later) Your application happens to be to a category that has been "abused" in the past, and we tend to tread cautiously in such circumstances.

nuthin, I agree that new features allowing submittors to track their submissions would be a great idea, but they would rank very low on the priority list of tasks for the engineering staff. Something like a tracking number, rather than a published "new!" icon... but don't hold your breath.

There is a large unreviewed queue in that category. (It's under-edited) Your site is still waiting for review.

Perfect altruism, of course.

<< And your authority to answer for decisions made for the Home Page is >> As good or better than anyone else here. What is linked on the front page has absolutely nothing to do with the hierarchy, is not reflected in the RDF. Why do you care? Google does it differently at http://directory.google.com -- They put Alternative first. The also boldface the largest subcategories of any category... Buddhism, Christianity, Pagan for Religions... That's Google's perogative. The front page has absolutely nothing to do with the hierarchy and everything to do with looking neato. It's modified by staff, with input from the editors. It's not reflected in the RDF data at all. You're talking to editors here, bud. We CAN change the hierarchy, but you've got to grasp the fact that we make objective decisions, and size and popularity don't count. If you want to talk about Health/Alternative, create a new topic. I don't think you care, though. If you want to continue to debate the Religion hierarchy, feel free to continue here. You're not going to convince anyone, though-- and we're not going to change your narrow mind. Goodbye and thanks for all the flames.

<< 42,000 compared with 22,000 is hardly the same as comparing 61,000 with 9. >> It is when the categories logically belong at the same level. They're just numbers, and we don't classify things based on the number of sites for that topic. Just because Rock music has 7,500 sites and Polka has 41 doesn't mean they both don't belong in Music/Styles. Just because Christian music has far more sites than Jewish doesn't mean Christian music is under Styles when the others are under Religious, no matter what MP3.com or Amazon.com do. We don't care about popularity. Trying to incorporate the number of sites for Christianity versus other religions, denominations, sects, etc. into your argument just won't work. We don't make popularity decisions. If it behooves a data user to to so, they can. You can get your own copy of the RDF and put Christianity wherever the heck you want to. Feature it on the front page of your site if you want. Similarly, if someone wanted to lift the "popular" artists out of bands and artists and ignore the thousands of unknown, that's their perogitive as data users, but not ours. We're no more likely to link Christianity from the top than we are to link Britney Spears from the front page.

Why don't we just make an "Important Countries" category while we're at it? It will include the US first, followed by Japan and Taiwan, in that order. Nobody will get upset, especially not the PRC, which we'll put in the "Undeveloped Countries" category along with Rwanda.

Editors can edit in any of the subcategories of the categories they have editing permissions for. None of the Blackjack categories have a large unreviewed queue, so we can assume some editor is fairly active there, even in the subcategories.