Just earlier today there was content in it. Now, it doesn't even exist.
Try searching for: Chip7, Vobis or Loja 21. Could anyone give me an explanation?
Try searching for: Chip7, Vobis or Loja 21. Could anyone give me an explanation?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
I think this is the category you're looking for: World/Português/Regional/Portugal/Negócios_e_Economia/Compras/Informática.
I think this is the category you're looking for: World/Português/Regional/Portugal/Negócios_e_Economia/Compras/Informática.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
Now I feel silly.
I saw the page, later on forgot the complete location, searched it, found it but the result was missing...
Nevertheless it's weird.
Thanks for your reply.
(moral: think & post, don't post & think)
Now I feel silly.
I saw the page, later on forgot the complete location, searched it, found it but the result was missing...
Nevertheless it's weird.
Thanks for your reply.
(moral: think & post, don't post & think)
Re: A whole directory vanished?
The whole games>gambling>directories cat vanished.
What happened???
NAN
The whole games>gambling>directories cat vanished.
What happened???
NAN
Re: A whole directory vanished?
The Games/Gambling/Directories category has been removed from the directory by the consensus of meta editors.
The Games/Gambling/Directories category has been removed from the directory by the consensus of meta editors.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
Very Explanatory!!!
Orca
Very Explanatory!!!
Orca
Re: A whole directory vanished?
Well, actually, much of the rationale appeared first in, um, these forums. There were questions raised about what constituted a useful website, and anyone could see that the answers we tried to give here, didn't match what was plainly visible in the Directories category. It is a kind of roundabout way of contributing to the directory, but we thank you all. Outside review is good.
But as a general principle, the ODP doesn't expose its internal workings. It exposes the results. When the results are good, we could be creating them by polynomial-skip Torah Codes--for all anyone should care; when the results are not good, we need to fix the results--by whatever procedure works. (This case fit neatly into the "Not Good" category, so we're trying to figure out which variant of the twelve-tone system works best, and which canonical text of 'Enuma Elish' we should be using it on. If our experiment works, you'll see better results shortly.)
Well, actually, much of the rationale appeared first in, um, these forums. There were questions raised about what constituted a useful website, and anyone could see that the answers we tried to give here, didn't match what was plainly visible in the Directories category. It is a kind of roundabout way of contributing to the directory, but we thank you all. Outside review is good.
But as a general principle, the ODP doesn't expose its internal workings. It exposes the results. When the results are good, we could be creating them by polynomial-skip Torah Codes--for all anyone should care; when the results are not good, we need to fix the results--by whatever procedure works. (This case fit neatly into the "Not Good" category, so we're trying to figure out which variant of the twelve-tone system works best, and which canonical text of 'Enuma Elish' we should be using it on. If our experiment works, you'll see better results shortly.)
Re: A whole directory vanished?
A whole category with almost no content vanished. Not a big loss.
A whole category with almost no content vanished. Not a big loss.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
hutcheson wrote: "There were questions raised about what constituted a useful website, and anyone could see that the answers we tried to give here, didn't match what was plainly visible in the Directories category"
Thank you so much ... /images/icons/smile.gif
Its depressing but the Guides category isnt much better! /images/icons/frown.gif
kctipton - Im sure the owners of the sites who have been deleted will see it as a major loss.
hutcheson wrote: "There were questions raised about what constituted a useful website, and anyone could see that the answers we tried to give here, didn't match what was plainly visible in the Directories category"
Thank you so much ... /images/icons/smile.gif
Its depressing but the Guides category isnt much better! /images/icons/frown.gif
kctipton - Im sure the owners of the sites who have been deleted will see it as a major loss.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
gypsy, ODP doesn't exist for the submitters. It exists for the users, the searchers.
Those people who run gambling directories sites can easily buy listings with Overture and Looksmart with those 5- and 6-figure earnings per month I've heard about.
gypsy, ODP doesn't exist for the submitters. It exists for the users, the searchers.
Those people who run gambling directories sites can easily buy listings with Overture and Looksmart with those 5- and 6-figure earnings per month I've heard about.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
"ODP doesn't exist for the submitters. It exists for the users, the searchers."
Exactly... They have the right to choose what to see or not, don't you think???
"Those people who run gambling directories sites can easily buy listings with Overture and Looksmart with those 5- and 6-figure earnings per month I've heard about."
It seems like people outside like to bet on sports, therefore, aren't they users or searchers because they like to gamble???
Don’t take this personal, because is not, but people have to change their business criteria, you guys need to be open minded… The money is outside as well as customers; just remember that.
ODP is a free Directory, probably DMOZ important on the web, nevertheless, needs traffic to survive.
NAN
"ODP doesn't exist for the submitters. It exists for the users, the searchers."
Exactly... They have the right to choose what to see or not, don't you think???
"Those people who run gambling directories sites can easily buy listings with Overture and Looksmart with those 5- and 6-figure earnings per month I've heard about."
It seems like people outside like to bet on sports, therefore, aren't they users or searchers because they like to gamble???
Don’t take this personal, because is not, but people have to change their business criteria, you guys need to be open minded… The money is outside as well as customers; just remember that.
ODP is a free Directory, probably DMOZ important on the web, nevertheless, needs traffic to survive.
NAN
Re: A whole directory vanished?
kctipton wrote: "It exists for the users, the searchers."
Thats exactly right, but editors dont realize this!
Most have attitudes and enjoy playing god ... who are they to tell end users what they should or will find useful? Let these end users decide whether or not a site is useful for themselves.
Its obvious from the sites that were listed in the Directories category and the ones listed in the Guides category (let alone other cats in the entire directory) that many editors are not qualified enough to index sites that the greater percentage of end users will find useful.
If this directory is truly for the end users then let them decide what they want to see - dont tell them "hey this is what were giving you, if you dont like it tough!"
Sites in the Guides category are no different that those that were in the Directories category - why havent they been removed yet? I think prior to making drastic changes in the gambling cats and in other places in the directory - editors and staff need(ed) to make huge changes in their public relation practices.
kctipton wrote: "It exists for the users, the searchers."
Thats exactly right, but editors dont realize this!
Most have attitudes and enjoy playing god ... who are they to tell end users what they should or will find useful? Let these end users decide whether or not a site is useful for themselves.
Its obvious from the sites that were listed in the Directories category and the ones listed in the Guides category (let alone other cats in the entire directory) that many editors are not qualified enough to index sites that the greater percentage of end users will find useful.
If this directory is truly for the end users then let them decide what they want to see - dont tell them "hey this is what were giving you, if you dont like it tough!"
Sites in the Guides category are no different that those that were in the Directories category - why havent they been removed yet? I think prior to making drastic changes in the gambling cats and in other places in the directory - editors and staff need(ed) to make huge changes in their public relation practices.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
Absolutely Agree!!!
NAN
Absolutely Agree!!!
NAN
Re: A whole directory vanished?
>>I think prior to making drastic changes in the gambling cats and in other places in the directory - editors and staff need(ed) to make huge changes in their public relation practices.
I think you'll find that editors often have a more expansive vision than you're assuming. Deleting one spam-filled category that had proven useless for our audience is not "drastic": we've ALWAYS got MUCH bigger improvements than that under discussion!
And I strongly suspect that the agreement between Netscape and the editors may have relinquished to Netscape insufficient control over editors' speech to implement the sort of "Public Relations Practice" you envisage. Even this forum is a strictly volunteer project.
Quality issues like the Guides and Directories categories really do take a high priority -- even above "building a comprehensive directory," much less "listing submitted sites promptly," and FAR above "making changes in public relations practices." But there's hardly anybody in here but us volunteers, so hardly anything you don't do gets done as quickly as you could want it to.
>>I think prior to making drastic changes in the gambling cats and in other places in the directory - editors and staff need(ed) to make huge changes in their public relation practices.
I think you'll find that editors often have a more expansive vision than you're assuming. Deleting one spam-filled category that had proven useless for our audience is not "drastic": we've ALWAYS got MUCH bigger improvements than that under discussion!
And I strongly suspect that the agreement between Netscape and the editors may have relinquished to Netscape insufficient control over editors' speech to implement the sort of "Public Relations Practice" you envisage. Even this forum is a strictly volunteer project.
Quality issues like the Guides and Directories categories really do take a high priority -- even above "building a comprehensive directory," much less "listing submitted sites promptly," and FAR above "making changes in public relations practices." But there's hardly anybody in here but us volunteers, so hardly anything you don't do gets done as quickly as you could want it to.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
Editors make decisions based on our interpretation of what users want. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Frankly it's irrelevant.
No one is putting a gun to the head of John Q Public and forcing them to use the directory. Period. If users can't find what they want, they'll turn to an engine that will deliver. That is the way Adam Smith's "invisible hand" works.
Editors make decisions based on our interpretation of what users want. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Frankly it's irrelevant.
No one is putting a gun to the head of John Q Public and forcing them to use the directory. Period. If users can't find what they want, they'll turn to an engine that will deliver. That is the way Adam Smith's "invisible hand" works.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
apeuro wrote: "Frankly it's irrelevant .... No one is putting a gun to the head of John Q Public and forcing them to use the directory. Period."
Ive heard more times than I care to mention "this is our directory - we will do what we want!"
This is the exact godly attitude I was speaking about. It’s this editor mind-set that can hurt public relations and jeopardize the directory as a whole! Maybe Gerald Levin, the CEO of AOL Time Warner would like to be notified about these undesirable relations and other recent related/unrelated events. I'm absolutely positive he wouldn’t agree or side with your statements.
Wise up - editors need to understand that they are representatives of the directory and that anything they do or say can affect the directory as a whole. Sure the directory states that editors do not speak for the directory, but when numerous editors conduct themselves in similar manners that protection clause is rendered useless.
Have a wonderful day
apeuro wrote: "Frankly it's irrelevant .... No one is putting a gun to the head of John Q Public and forcing them to use the directory. Period."
Ive heard more times than I care to mention "this is our directory - we will do what we want!"
This is the exact godly attitude I was speaking about. It’s this editor mind-set that can hurt public relations and jeopardize the directory as a whole! Maybe Gerald Levin, the CEO of AOL Time Warner would like to be notified about these undesirable relations and other recent related/unrelated events. I'm absolutely positive he wouldn’t agree or side with your statements.
Wise up - editors need to understand that they are representatives of the directory and that anything they do or say can affect the directory as a whole. Sure the directory states that editors do not speak for the directory, but when numerous editors conduct themselves in similar manners that protection clause is rendered useless.
Have a wonderful day
Re: A whole directory vanished?
A couple of observations:
We do make choices like this. I would trust the metas' judgement on this. After all, if most of the sites in the directory, as observed both in this thread and in other threads here do not conform to the guidelines, and that there are few/none that do, why we need such a category is not known to me.
To make a good directory, remember we must make sensible choices. Doing it based on individuals' personal vested interests is not exactly the right way. I'd re-read kctipton's commentary above. Short, and to the point.
Such things have been discussed adequately, and remember, how DMOZ runs itself is its own business - no-one elses. The results of the work are open, but the processes leading to the results is our business.
A couple of observations:
We do make choices like this. I would trust the metas' judgement on this. After all, if most of the sites in the directory, as observed both in this thread and in other threads here do not conform to the guidelines, and that there are few/none that do, why we need such a category is not known to me.
To make a good directory, remember we must make sensible choices. Doing it based on individuals' personal vested interests is not exactly the right way. I'd re-read kctipton's commentary above. Short, and to the point.
Such things have been discussed adequately, and remember, how DMOZ runs itself is its own business - no-one elses. The results of the work are open, but the processes leading to the results is our business.
Re: A whole directory vanished?
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>kctipton wrote: "It exists for the users, the searchers."
Thats exactly right, but editors dont realize this!<p><hr></blockquote>
We do, but you don't seem to realize that editors are ALSO web surfers/searchers so we can take decisions as to what we want to include and what we don't want. In fact, those decisions are called the "guidelines" and our job is to review all sites we receive with those guidelines in mind. But with more than 300,000 categories and about 8,000 active editors, it can take some time before we spot things that need to be changed.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Most have attitudes and enjoy playing god ... who are they to tell end users what they should or will find useful? Let these end users decide whether or not a site is useful for themselves. <p><hr></blockquote>
Well, like I just said, DMOZ editors are Internet users/searchers too and I don't know of any search engine or directory that has this directive to "accept every submissions" as part of their algo or guidelines. Search engines have their spam filters and directories have their editors with guidelines to follow. There's no gods involved but feel free to apply as an editor if you think you can become a God by doing that... /images/icons/wink.gif
Regarding the Games/Gambling/Guides category. I said in my previous post that this category is currently under review. There were 99 sites in it 2 days ago, now there's 88 sites left and this number will continue to go down in the next days. We cannot just delete the whole category because there's some good sites in there that deserve to be listed (unlike the Directories category). Please be patient, we are all volunteers with real lives too! /images/icons/wink.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>kctipton wrote: "It exists for the users, the searchers."
Thats exactly right, but editors dont realize this!<p><hr></blockquote>
We do, but you don't seem to realize that editors are ALSO web surfers/searchers so we can take decisions as to what we want to include and what we don't want. In fact, those decisions are called the "guidelines" and our job is to review all sites we receive with those guidelines in mind. But with more than 300,000 categories and about 8,000 active editors, it can take some time before we spot things that need to be changed.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Most have attitudes and enjoy playing god ... who are they to tell end users what they should or will find useful? Let these end users decide whether or not a site is useful for themselves. <p><hr></blockquote>
Well, like I just said, DMOZ editors are Internet users/searchers too and I don't know of any search engine or directory that has this directive to "accept every submissions" as part of their algo or guidelines. Search engines have their spam filters and directories have their editors with guidelines to follow. There's no gods involved but feel free to apply as an editor if you think you can become a God by doing that... /images/icons/wink.gif
Regarding the Games/Gambling/Guides category. I said in my previous post that this category is currently under review. There were 99 sites in it 2 days ago, now there's 88 sites left and this number will continue to go down in the next days. We cannot just delete the whole category because there's some good sites in there that deserve to be listed (unlike the Directories category). Please be patient, we are all volunteers with real lives too! /images/icons/wink.gif
Re: A whole directory vanished?
yklaw wrote: "We do make choices like this. I would trust the metas' judgement on this. After all, if most of the sites in the directory, as observed both in this thread and in other threads here do not conform to the guidelines, and that there are few/none that do, why we need such a category is not known to me .... To make a good directory, remember we must make sensible choices."
Think about what you just said and then ask yourself who added all those sites in the first place? LMAO
Your theory sounds great and I agree to an extent - but as I stated before some editors are obviously not qualified. They are the ones that added those sites not john q public, and many of the sites were added by metas! So whats that tell you?
As for the Guides category being reviewed - I'm sure there are sites that deserve to be listed - just as there were sites that deserved being listed in the directories category!
Oh and add another instance of that godly attitude I spoke about. Ohhh boy - good luck.
Take care
yklaw wrote: "We do make choices like this. I would trust the metas' judgement on this. After all, if most of the sites in the directory, as observed both in this thread and in other threads here do not conform to the guidelines, and that there are few/none that do, why we need such a category is not known to me .... To make a good directory, remember we must make sensible choices."
Think about what you just said and then ask yourself who added all those sites in the first place? LMAO
Your theory sounds great and I agree to an extent - but as I stated before some editors are obviously not qualified. They are the ones that added those sites not john q public, and many of the sites were added by metas! So whats that tell you?
As for the Guides category being reviewed - I'm sure there are sites that deserve to be listed - just as there were sites that deserved being listed in the directories category!
Oh and add another instance of that godly attitude I spoke about. Ohhh boy - good luck.
Take care
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.