No Consistency

I would really like to know why some editors APPEAR to be biased here, they say my site is not unique in content in a post from a couple of months ago. (I finally agree with that in some aspects) But 90% of the sites do not have unique content for the category ringtones and logos UK.

Can you simply tell me why the other sites get away with it in the directory and I dont? I bet you can't. The official ruling of my site not being in the direcory is that the content is not unique. There are multiple sites in there from Stealthnet and MMS3 which provide the ringtones for these affiliate sites.

I'd love to get in, but I reckon by now its blackballed, I'm sure it would of helped the google PR, although Dmoz is said to be less important in the last two updates of Google PR.
Still would of been helpful.
 
D

dfy

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
2,044
Assuming you mean 'biased', they're not. What they are doing is applying the current rules to all new submissions. There may well be some sites already listed in the category that breach those rules, but that's because they were listed before the rules came into force. We don't have a small team of editors for every category, so we can't go through every single listing whenever the rules change. These sites will be removed as and when editors come across them, but until someone points them out to us, we have more important things to do.
 

Yes biased, thats the 1.
Its not a case of when they have time, its already been reviewed, removed mine and a couple of others, just not the other 30 odd.

Its also not a case of these sites being old, some of these sites have been added whilst I have been out of the directory so I don't buy that excuse.

Unconsistency is something which can ruin a reputation. It's like being sacked for not wearing a tie to work, but the other 35 staff that continue to not wear a tie to work are still there. How crazy is that?

Thanks for the reply anyway, just seems that there are questions which will always go unanswered.
 
A

apeuro

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
1,424
If you post a list of the sites you are talking about, I'm sure a good many editors will go over it with a fine tooth comb.
 

[ edited for content. This forum isn't for flogging individual editors or individual sites in public. All such complaints should be forwarded to the meta editors or to staff@dmoz.org ]
 

Well I apologise sincerely - makes no differce to my points though.

I do wonder who removed my site if it wasn't the editor, but that doesn't really matter anyway.
 
G

giz

Member
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
3,112
Any editor in any of the categories above that one, and anyone who is an Editall or a Meta can edit in there. Well over 200 people can probably edit in that category.
 
chillysnow

chillysnow

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
80
Let's not forget that each category can legitimately have ONE site listed which represents the content from each affiliate provider.

So, for instance, in

United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Industries/Telecommunications/Mobile/Services/Ring_Tones,_Graphics_and_Logos/

there is

ringtonesnokia.co.uk containing mms3 material

and

ringtonesnstuff.co.uk containing stealthnet material

But, as far as I can see, there are no others within this cat, unless you can see something I can't (please note that I am not looking at or crossreferencing with any other cat here)
 

I don't think your statements are true about being allowed one affiliate site per category, I have heard your only permitted one affiliate site for Dmoz on the specific affiliate program.

Maybe someone can confirm this or not.

There are more than you think, I was looking over both cats so my results are obviously different.

I'll post a few up in the next couple of days, just got to get this essay out of the way for uni then I'll do what I can.
 

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't going mad chillysnow.

Just checked the cat that you say has only two sites affiliating, I just clicked one randomly, RingtonesUK and they have content from Stealth.
This is clearly evident from the animated screensavers.

Got to get some sleep, I will make a list soon.
 
chillysnow

chillysnow

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
80
I can't see the evidence that RingtonesUK.com uses Stealthnet material. Comparing it with ringtonesnstuff.co.uk, which is the listed Stealthnet service, there appears to be no corellation.

Could you elaborate?
 

[ edited for content. This forum isn't for flogging individual editors, categories, or individual sites in public. All such complaints should be forwarded to the meta editors or to staff@dmoz.org ]
 

[ edited for content. This forum isn't for flogging individual editors or individual sites in public. All such complaints should be forwarded to the meta editors or to staff@dmoz.org ]
 
chillysnow

chillysnow

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
80
Thanks for pointing this out Marisa and Ringtonesearch, it has now been attended to.

Ringtonesearch, I've been through your list carefully. You'll find that six of them were deleted in a clear out several weeks ago. The public side has been a bit slow in updating of late but it appears to be up to date now, try hitting refresh on your browser.

Of the remaining eight, neither of the two mirrors you point out are listed. Two others of course are valid entries for their respective providers, which leaves four remaining.

I will certainly have another look at the remainder but even if they do have some stealthnet/mms3 elements, such as animated screensavers, they may have been listed on the basis that there is other relevant unique content.

If there are any more that you've located, please let me know, but in the meantime thanks for your input.
 

Hi Chillysnow - Ok well thats good. That was just a list from one category. I don't know what you mean about saying its been updated! I know there are delays with the DB but I have refreshed and the category still shows 72 sites and all of the sites I mentioned are still in there, with respect to your reasons for some sites remaining in the directory. Do you have a smaller number of sites that 72 showing up?

Note to meta who edited this post, please be consistent with other editors. When one meta tells me to post the sites, I find it insulting you telling me otherwise, with complete disregard to the previous metas post.
 
chillysnow

chillysnow

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
80
There should now be 71 sites: items 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 from your list are not listed.

Is this what you see?
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top