Multiple listing of same site

Hi,
if you check this category:
http://www.dmoz.org/World/Italiano/Regionale/Europa/Italia/Toscana/Provincia_di_Pisa/Localit%c3%a0/Pisa/Turismo/Hotel/

There is the same website with different url (http://www.pisaonline.it/), I am wondering if it's allow to have a site listing 10 times for just different links.

Regards

There is no easy answer to that question. Read our Guidelines on what is called Deeplinking for more of an answer.

it now has 20 listings and is a directory of hotels in Pisa with booking links to what is possibly an affiliate scheme.

taking one of the hotels and typing it in google gives a site for that hotel:
http://www.hoteldistefano.pisa.it/
(the most/more appropriate site for that hotel I think)

in any case I am surprised this sattisfies the rule to make an exception:
"Deeplinks should offer content that is unique and extremely useful to a particular category."

why is this not actioned when reported here? more importantly why does it not prompt an investigation of who added them - what else they added and future monitoring?

I am now an editor and whilst i quickly sorted all outstanding work for the category I was given a unsure how much time I want to devote to this site, if any. Unactioned questions like this which as soon as I look at it looks like deliberate abuse for PR advantage do not encourage me. It is a contrast to the obvious devotion I see from many editors who post in the editor forum discussions.

PS As an editor I also posted an abuse report (two related sites cooled) from the editor control panel which 3 weeks later still shows as newly received, should I better post this here/somewhere else?

PPS How can I post here under my editor ID?

If you are an editor this is not the place to bring this up. You can file an abuse report or editor feedback a Meta editor. We take abuse seriously - very seriously.

PPS How can I post here under my editor ID?

Click to expand...

Post in the "Member to Editor V" thread in the Member Lounge and ask to have your status changed.

Thanks, I will pursue the abuse report that I submitted that way. Not sure exactly what other parts of this you were telling me to take to private forums?

This abuse report appears to me as a web-dmoz-user and on the basis of public available guidelines to be justified. As an editor of a low entirely unrelated category I have no more info - ability to do something about it than the OP. It isn't my abuse report nor one I plan to spend further time on. If I could sort it fully, I would do so.

Since it was made here by another user, should it not be answered and reported on here in the interests of dmoz good name? I am just surprised (disappointed) that the previous response is all the OP got.

My personal opinion and thoughts on how much I am prepared to donate time to dmoz is not something I would choose to restrict to a private forum anyway. AFAIK that isn't a requirement on me as an editor.

Abuse reports and the actions taken on them are held in confidence. They have to be. Would it astonish you to learn that sometimes an abuse report is filed where no abuse exists? So, rather than risk smearing someone who did no wrong, we investigate quietly.

The other advice you were given above is good. There are advantages (over and above the openness it shows) to having your status in this forum changed to editor by posting a request in this thread.

You can also learn quite a lot about the culture of dmoz by browsing in the internal forums.

Allegations of abuse should always be done through report-abuse.dmoz.org or the report abuse link on your editor dashboard, or perhaps through discussion with a meta editor.

The TOS of these forums explicitly states that you shouldn't post about it here. You should also not make allegations of abuse in the internal forums. It's too easy to smear the name of an editor who has actually done nothing willfully wrong.

For instance it seems to me at first glance that the deeplinks in the category in question add value to the category. I personally don't have a problem with them. So I think there is room for conscientious and well meaning people to disagree about this subject.

A discussion about the appropriateness of a large group of deeplinks is better carried out in the internal forums because there is a much wider cross section of editors who monitor those forums than there is here.

Noone's trying to be the thought police. But I would contend that public fights between editors about angels on the heads of pins is not good for the directory, the editing community, or submitters. It merely serves to obfuscate rather than inform.

Well thanks for all the info, I will certainly refrain from discussing specific abuse here again since it is against the TOS for this forum as you say.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that and the OP was carefully worded not to be an abuse report I notice now.

Abuse Reports can of course (and frequently are) made on usenet with total freedom to discuss and give opinions.

Without discussing specific cases, my impression so far is that abuse handling is inadequate. Still hope to have that impression changed.

1keytools said:

Abuse Reports can of course (and frequently are) made on usenet with total freedom to discuss and give opinions.

Click to expand...

There is an official channel and policy in place to report abuse. People who elect to air their opinions about ODP categories and editors on newsgroups are not reporting abuse. They are griping to their peers.

Editors are removed for abuse. In fact, some editors who have been removed for abuse are some of the most ardent detractors of the ODP, and are possibly the same people who are posting in these newsgroups. I'm not asking that you think exactly like me. Just do your own independent research. When someone makes an allegation of abuse on a newsgroup ask yourself "can I independently confirm this allegation?" By this, I mean are there enough specifics (Category, correlations between sites seeming to have been given preference) to confirm that it looks fishy.

As an editor, you have tools at your disposal to research these cases (more than you apparently realize.) Additionally, you have access to the internal forums where you can find in depth discussions of exactly what is and is not abuse along with reasons and interpretations of the guidelines.

I challenge you to, (as I and many others have) go out and find a current abuse allegation that seems fishy to you, and actually research it by checking the edit trail, researching the sites, reading the guidelines and interpretation and using the tools that are available to you as an editor. If it's actually a case of abuse, and it's reported through the proper channels, I have no doubt it will be taken care of appropriately.

The system doesn't always work quickly, but I have a lot of faith that it does work.

Some but not all of the abuse allegations posted on usenet are backed up with urls and a fair-mined independant view based on the info that is publicly available often suggests they are valid. Personally I base my opinions on what I see not what is suggested by others.

You are correct - I didn't know that I can look at logs for pretty much anything and looking at logs has moderated but not totally changed my views. Thanks for that info.

I find it difficult to continue a discussion without breaking the TOS here by discussing specific cases. If there is a space where such a discussion can be held without breaking any rules, could we take the discussion there?

I also posted a question under ODP culture in the editors forum where I also ask whether discussion of specific possible abuse is allowed there. That question so far unanswered but I suspect the answer is no.

We could discuss a specific case freely on usenet but would then be unable to discuss anything in the edit logs I assume. A general (on topic for this forum) comment raised by this thread is that if an open discussion of possible abuse is not allowed, it makes the detection of an abuser very much more difficult.

There is also another issue perhaps which is that if it appears to a non-editor who cannot see logs that there is abuse does that in itself not greatly undermine the value of the directory?
I.e. If listings are hugely to the advantage of some person/organisation and appear to be against the guidelines of dmoz, that will always look like abuse even if the seperate listings were each added by differrent novice editors who had all made genuine mistakes.

I'm not sure that I'm understanding the issue here. It's a hotel category with deeplinks from a hotel directory web site. That's not unusual. We have hotel listings from directories all over the ODP. These are not a problem. That's how we list hotels. And if we have the real URL for the hotel we will list that instead. Is there something we're missing here?

For the record, I asked one of the Italian meta editors to take a look at the Turismo/Hotel category and we decided to clean it up a bit