What exactly constitutes an "adult" site?

I recently applied to become an editor for Society: Subcultures: Gothic: Nightclubs: North America. I suggested these URLs in my application:
http://www.draculasdaughter.net/
http://www.knoxgothic.com
http://www.raleighunderground.com

I was rejected, and the reason given was, "Sites for Adults only belong in the Adult section of ODP, http://dmoz.org/Adult".

I double-checked the sites, and didn't find anything I would consider Adult. I reviewed the information here:
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/adult/adultgeneral.html
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/site-specific.html#adult
http://dmoz.org/Adult/faq.html

I plan on reapplying, but in the interests of not wasting anyone's time, I'd like to see if I could get a little more feedback. I assume there's something on one of these sites that I'm missing, and I suspect it might be one or more naked pictures on http://www.raleighunderground.com (since they have a very large picture gallery). But I've gone through dozens and dozens of their pictures, and not found anything of that nature.

Any help here is appreciated. I would honestly like to contribute to the ODP, and am interested in finding out more about these policies.

Getting back to the more general subject of this post, I'm curious about how much adult content a site can have before it's put in that category? Is a single explicit image enough? Does it make any difference if such content is buried in the site? A strict interpretation of the guidelines I've seen seems to suggest to me that any adult content would qualify.

Thanks,
Nareau

Feedback

I am not an editor or ODP rep, but my advice is to use good judgement. If the site contains material even remotely not intended for childrens' eyes consider it adult. The raleighunderground.com had some explicit picutures on the first left column not intended for children. Not something kids should see. Regards, Eric Bland

> If the site contains material even remotely not intended for childrens' eyes consider it adult.

Not true.
That would be true in http://dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/ though.

> The raleighunderground.com had some explicit picutures on the first left column not intended for children.

I at least cannot see or find those now.

Like, Eric, I am just a member, but the category you mentioned:
http://dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/ is a category specifically for kids and teens, but that does not mean that kids and teens can only go to this part of the directory. They have access to any part of the ODP Directory, except for the Adults Section. And it is my understanding ODP is very strict about what kids have access to. I am a grandmother, and you can most definitely color me old-fashioned. But regardless of what may or may not be considered adult on this site,
http://www.raleighunderground.com/
It is not a site that I would want my 8 year old grandson surfing!

On the application you put "18+" after every description. If the site requires someone to be an Adult then it seems to me it belongs in Adult. If that wasn't the intention of your notation then you shouldn't put that notation.

The link at the bottom of the left column that says "hosting provided by Naughty Goth". That site might have caused someone to raise their eyebrows

We are talking about category Society: Subcultures: Gothic: Nightclubs: and I doubt there is anything that is meant for 8 year olds. Usually people of that age are not that interested in nightclubs.

> On the application you put "18+" after every description.

Right. That is something that should not be done anywhere in this directory. That might have got attension of person who reviewed application.

> The link at the bootom of the left column that says "hosting provided by Naughty Goth".

I see...

nareau, If that adult thing was the only reason, maybe you can make new application and consider finding another example than http://www.raleighunderground.com. (even it can be considered to that category, but safe is always the best bet.)

Ah, the 18+ thing could be it...although if I were reviewing an application like that, I would probably reject it with an "improper site description", not "it belongs in Adults only". But obviously I've never done this stuff, so I'm not one to argue. I'll try and resubmit my application with (mostly) the same urls, but without the age requirement.

The 18+ was describing the goth nights, not the site. Many venues are 21+, and very few are all ages, so it's useful to know what the age requirements for a club are.

Although if this *was* the reason for rejection, my brow furrows. Did the reviewer even look at the sites? Or did they reject them out of hand because of the 18+ description?

Thanks for the feedback.

And it is my understanding ODP is very strict about what kids have access to.

Click to expand...

Check out the links I provided in my first post. You'll see that ODP is not very strict about "what kids have access to." Indeed, there is a very limited scope of "mature" material that fits into the "Adult" category. While it's totally understandable to want to protect an 8 year-old from lots of stuff, reducing the content of the ODP to an "8 year-old safe" level would cripple its usefulness.

Nareau

It's often tough to decide what to abbreviate in a description. Something that you understand, and that will be understood by people with the same interests, may be completely opaque to the general public. I knew what "18+" meant in that context, but only because one of my daughters used to hang out at Goth clubs all the time before she traded her slinky black dress for a pair of combat boots.

My suggestion: reapply.

Reapply, and instead of putting an ambiguous "18+" at the end of the description try "Club for adults only" or something like that. Make it clear that club is for 18+, not the site.