5url dot subportal dot com
- Thread starter web
- Start date
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
Well, can you first tell us what categories you have considered and your thoughts on their applicability or lack of same?
Well, can you first tell us what categories you have considered and your thoughts on their applicability or lack of same?
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
>>Category Suggestions?
Nowhere. I would classify the site as being unlistable as the content is not unique but is merely a selection of content supplied by iBoost along with a lot of affiliate links and banners.
>>Category Suggestions?
Nowhere. I would classify the site as being unlistable as the content is not unique but is merely a selection of content supplied by iBoost along with a lot of affiliate links and banners.
D
Dajuroka
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
Which raises the question of what is not classifiable as a site. It is a URL, its content is mainly links though I haven't looked at them all. ODP should have a classification for such sites as they are unique but possibly content free, though that makes google and possibly ODP in the same family and many other sites. If the URL author were to make some comment on each of the links then it would no longer be content free. Mind you finding an editor who would spend their days looking at such sites would be nigh impossible! A site such as that could have some unique scripting of note as for some people the source is a valuable as the content displayed.
Interesting issue.
Which raises the question of what is not classifiable as a site. It is a URL, its content is mainly links though I haven't looked at them all. ODP should have a classification for such sites as they are unique but possibly content free, though that makes google and possibly ODP in the same family and many other sites. If the URL author were to make some comment on each of the links then it would no longer be content free. Mind you finding an editor who would spend their days looking at such sites would be nigh impossible! A site such as that could have some unique scripting of note as for some people the source is a valuable as the content displayed.
Interesting issue.
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
We're not interested in listing all URLs in cyberspace. We're only interested in indexing the sites (not just webpages) with strong content of their own.
We don't list affiliate sites. That's the way it is. We don't want or need a classification for them.
---------------
Disclaimer: This post constitutes an unofficial, personal opinion not necessarily shared by other ODP editors, the university, or my cats.
We're not interested in listing all URLs in cyberspace. We're only interested in indexing the sites (not just webpages) with strong content of their own.
We don't list affiliate sites. That's the way it is. We don't want or need a classification for them.
---------------
Disclaimer: This post constitutes an unofficial, personal opinion not necessarily shared by other ODP editors, the university, or my cats.
D
Dajuroka
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
I understand your point of view, but what is one person's content free site is another's creative efforts. I know you don't want to list all the URL's on the web - you have bugger all chance really - but by definition an Open Directory should be open, not necessarily with comments from Editors on each but in time you could create an automated submission point where anyone can list in something like Computer>Internet>On The Web> Unclassified URLs. Make megahuge RDF!!
That gives everyone "open" ability to list their site and thus a chance of being part of the OD without much if any editorial overhead. You would need a disclaimer about acceptable content as undoubtedly every porn site would arrive there. The site could automatically strip out title and other metadata if present. Anyhow I can see that is unlikely in the current life of the Editors but maybe one day in its evolution.
I understand your point of view, but what is one person's content free site is another's creative efforts. I know you don't want to list all the URL's on the web - you have bugger all chance really - but by definition an Open Directory should be open, not necessarily with comments from Editors on each but in time you could create an automated submission point where anyone can list in something like Computer>Internet>On The Web> Unclassified URLs. Make megahuge RDF!!
That gives everyone "open" ability to list their site and thus a chance of being part of the OD without much if any editorial overhead. You would need a disclaimer about acceptable content as undoubtedly every porn site would arrive there. The site could automatically strip out title and other metadata if present. Anyhow I can see that is unlikely in the current life of the Editors but maybe one day in its evolution.
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
But what would be the point? It wouldn't be useful to anyone to have a list of millions of URLs the ODP hasn't and won't classify. Remember, our purpose is to classify unique content so users can find it, not to classify every URL for the benefit of the webmaster.
Sometimes I wish we could have categories like "Rip-offs of Someone Else's Stuff" or "Yet the same Crap for Sale Again" or "Scams Designed to Steal Your Money". I think this would be far more helpful to people new to the internet, but, well, it would be rude.
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
But what would be the point? It wouldn't be useful to anyone to have a list of millions of URLs the ODP hasn't and won't classify. Remember, our purpose is to classify unique content so users can find it, not to classify every URL for the benefit of the webmaster.
Sometimes I wish we could have categories like "Rip-offs of Someone Else's Stuff" or "Yet the same Crap for Sale Again" or "Scams Designed to Steal Your Money".
I think this would be far more helpful to people new to the internet, but, well, it would be rude."If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
It is hard for a beginning editor to understand the depths of depravity that lurks in the heart of some webmasters. If you haven't spent an afternoon tracking down and deleting 200 URLs for the same no-content site, or spent ten minutes trying to figure out which hotel-reservation program yet another "best-hotels-in-xxx-paris.com" site was pulling its content from, or whether it was actually unique; or spent an hour trying to scroll through hundreds of auto-generated hotel reservation sites to find some actual unique content for Podunk, New Jersey (multiplied by the number of little towns in your home state/province/duchy/emirate/whatever) ... you can't really comprehend how valuable a service NOT listing these sites is. Well over half of the site submittals to the ODP, and a significant minority of the sites submitted, reflect this kind of non-content.
If you're thinking "personal sites", I agree with you--creativity is in the eye of the creator. But our big problem is not those -- it's all the marketing/promotional/doorways/affiliates/etc. that not only contain no information, but actually conceal information that would have been visible had they not been there. Every time we exclude such a page, we raise the sum of human knowledge.
It is hard for a beginning editor to understand the depths of depravity that lurks in the heart of some webmasters. If you haven't spent an afternoon tracking down and deleting 200 URLs for the same no-content site, or spent ten minutes trying to figure out which hotel-reservation program yet another "best-hotels-in-xxx-paris.com" site was pulling its content from, or whether it was actually unique; or spent an hour trying to scroll through hundreds of auto-generated hotel reservation sites to find some actual unique content for Podunk, New Jersey (multiplied by the number of little towns in your home state/province/duchy/emirate/whatever) ... you can't really comprehend how valuable a service NOT listing these sites is. Well over half of the site submittals to the ODP, and a significant minority of the sites submitted, reflect this kind of non-content.
If you're thinking "personal sites", I agree with you--creativity is in the eye of the creator. But our big problem is not those -- it's all the marketing/promotional/doorways/affiliates/etc. that not only contain no information, but actually conceal information that would have been visible had they not been there. Every time we exclude such a page, we raise the sum of human knowledge.
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
Don't forget porn. Apparently a lot of people like to look at adult pictures of Indian women (from India). Fine and well, but then the jerk pornmakers figure out what are some high-traffic phrases with the word "indian" in them, buy thousands of domains unrelated to porn or even Indian women such as "www.american-indian-genealogy.com," and put up the same pornography page on all of them. I've learned to be VERY careful sorting unreviewed queues when one of my children is in the room!
Does the Internet really need more than one copy of this skanky adult site? Even if the wallpaper and keywords are different on each of them? No. In my opinion, the Internet would be much, much better with only ONE copy of this adult site, with only the appropriate adult keywords, where 12-year-olds investigating their family tree won't bump into it.
In my opinion, that's part of why it's good for us to be spending our time sorting things in the first place. (-:
Don't forget porn. Apparently a lot of people like to look at adult pictures of Indian women (from India). Fine and well, but then the jerk pornmakers figure out what are some high-traffic phrases with the word "indian" in them, buy thousands of domains unrelated to porn or even Indian women such as "www.american-indian-genealogy.com," and put up the same pornography page on all of them. I've learned to be VERY careful sorting unreviewed queues when one of my children is in the room!
Does the Internet really need more than one copy of this skanky adult site? Even if the wallpaper and keywords are different on each of them? No. In my opinion, the Internet would be much, much better with only ONE copy of this adult site, with only the appropriate adult keywords, where 12-year-olds investigating their family tree won't bump into it.
In my opinion, that's part of why it's good for us to be spending our time sorting things in the first place. (-:
D
Dajuroka
Re: http://5url.subportal.com/
I have been an Editor now for a few days and my whole view has changed. I think I understand... give me a few years and I will be on a seek and destroy mission!! Thanks I will not be continuing my philosophy! I think I was illinformed! Thanks.
I have been an Editor now for a few days and my whole view has changed. I think I understand... give me a few years and I will be on a seek and destroy mission!! Thanks I will not be continuing my philosophy! I think I was illinformed! Thanks.