More ODP nonsense

[John Scott]

http://resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Number=54423

[Jazzee]

That's ridiculous.

[John Scott]

Yup.

[John Scott]

This is a great example of the abandonment of common sense within the ODP meta editor community.

Quality-Web-Hosting.net offers hosting - not Internet marketing, not web design.

Internet-Marketing-Research.net offers Internet Marketing and web design - not hosting.

For any person with the slightest modicum of intelligence, this is as clear as day is from night. It never becomes as issue.

But because of the jack-assery and paranoia of the ODP meta community, they can't help but assume some evil intention. And the last thing you want to do is argue with them. It would be like arguing with someone who believes that the moon is made of cheese. If common sense has no affect on their thought processes, it's a lost cause before it's started.

[Pimpen 2010]

Thats messed up

[Thanol]

I don't see why that guy's making such a fuss. The content is different, the domain is different.

Also if hosting is an auxillary service to web design then why isn't inside of the web design catagory, a symlink isn't even present?

[hatchet]

I call that "blatant surreptitious paranoia brought on by a lack of sufficient sexual intercourse" - and that's an official diagnosis. Just kidding on the blatant part.

[Jazzee]

Originally Posted by hatchet

I call that "blatant surreptitious paranoia brought on by a lack of sufficient sexual intercourse" - and that's an official diagnosis. Just kidding on the blatant part.

I'll agree with that

[I, Brian]

I find it hard to understand the decision to regard both sites as the same. Only the owner is the same - the brands and services are completely different.

[John Scott]

I would call into doubt the suggestion that web hosting and Internet marketing are "related". I think they are no more related than house building and diesel engineering.

Most marketing professionals know nothing about web hosting. And server administrators know nothing about marketing.

It's a much simpler matter - who is associated with the URL's in question? John Scott, ex-editor.

You'd be hard-pressed to find an ODP editor with the balls to come out and say what is obvious to most everone.

[edbarton]

To put it simply :: They are crazy

[evilmeta]

You'd be hard-pressed to find an ODP editor with the balls to come out and say what is obvious to most everyone.

I'll say it. <flame snipped by PhilC> - but that's not a reason to avoid listing your sites.

Assigning each service to its own domain just isn't an approved tactic - you're creating vanity deeplinks of one not-that-content-rich business. The advice you got to submit one nice page/site pointing to all of your other sites is the best you're going to get. If you don't want to do that, fine, but you aren't likely to get everything listed that you want users to find.

[PhilC]

If that's a meta, then s/he really didn't have balls to make the case openly, but prefered to hide behind a mask. You were right, John.

The problem with directories is that, unless they list each distinct topic within a site, they can never provide what users are looking for because, as long as there are sites that cover different topics, the directories will always give users an incomplete list of websites for a topic. If the users had a choice, they would want to see all that is available on the topic they are looking for. Directories have always been like that and have never been useful as a complete search facility.

DMOZ is like the other directories in that they don't list all the distinct topics from each website and, presumably, they have come to a decision that hosting and web design a different faces of the same coin and, therefore, they treat them as one when they occur in the same website. In my view, that's a bad decision because the directory is not making any attempt to provide users with a full range of the available hosting and web design services. Instead it seems to be directed at keeping website owners from having multiple listings, and that is the wrong emphasis. Suppose the very best web design service and the very best hosting service just happened to be on the same site? DMOZ users would be deprived of the very best of one of those services. It doesn't make sense.

If they not are going to list distinctly different topics from the same website, then it does make sense not to list those same different topics when the website owner places them on different websites. So it's not that they won't list them when they are on different websites that's bad - it's that they will only list one topic per website/person that's bad for users.

Having said that, there are many sites that have multiple listings in DMOZ. I knew of one that had hundreds of listings - accommodations in hundreds of different locations. I've just looked again and that site is down to 9 listings, but it has another 39 listings under a different domain name. (That the two domains belong to the same company is very well-known - almost as well-known as the fact that av.com and altavista.com belong to the same company)

There's nothing wrong with multiple listings in a directory - it gives users a much better service. But in this case, it isn't consistant throughout the directory. Hosting and website design are totally different and should be treated as such regardless of whether ot not they are on the same site.

The active people at DMOZ genuinely believe in what they are doing. They work hard at it and try to produce an excellent directory. But at times they give the impression of building the directory for the sake of building the directory, rather than building the directory for the sake of the users. It's a shame.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by PhilC

There's nothing wrong with multiple listings in a directory - it gives users a much better service. But in this case, it isn't consistant throughout the directory. Hosting and website design are totally different and should be treated as such regardless of whether ot not they are on the same site.

There you have it, from a DMOZ editor nonetheless. And it's true, of course. A directory, to be useful, should not have a problem listing a site in categories where the user would find it useful, no matter whether it's listed elsewhere, or another domain owned by the same people is listed elsewhere.

Originally Posted by kctipton

I'll say it. <flame snipped by PhilC> - but that's not a reason to avoid listing your sites.

Assigning each service to its own domain just isn't an approved tactic - you're creating vanity deeplinks of one not-that-content-rich business. The advice you got to submit one nice page/site pointing to all of your other sites is the best you're going to get. If you don't want to do that, fine, but you aren't likely to get everything listed that you want users to find.

Mr Keith Tipton,

I apoligize for the flame-snipping. Usually we don't allow immature flaming, but in your case - and because I intend to be less than polite - I'll ask the moderators to not moderate this thread. Feel free to put your childish quackery back in the original post.

First, from the other post -

Originally Posted by kctipton

http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1598

Title: "More ODP Nonsense" (referring to this thread here)

Also, this review of ODP is quite a fun read. Wrongheaded and bassackward, but fun.

To which I replied sarcastically:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Thank you for that highly intelligent rebuttal, and the insightful comments, KC.

And then you replied cluelessly:

Originally Posted by kctipton

Why thank you. Calling a spade a spade is my trademark.

No, KC, your trademark is not straight-talking. Your trademark is childishly stalking me, and attaching editor notes to websites you assume I am associated with. (Some of which I never even heard of before they ended up in the category you maintain for listing sites owned by me.)

Your trademark is bad spelling and capitalization.

You are often called a troll, and the general consensus is that you are a troll. For example, here.

You known not just here and at other forums as a troll (someone shits over the board and tries to call it intelligent conversation), you you are also known within the DMOZ community itself as a paranoid and extremely petty man.

More than one DMOZ meta editor described you as an insecure man who flies off on sissy fits - evidently you went around in a panic and said claimed hysterically that I was a DMOZ editor again using a new login - and you saw DMOZ editorship as a path to greatness.

DMOZ editorship isn't - listen Keith - it isn't greatness. It doesn't put food on the table. It doesn't improve your daughter's future. It doesn't do anything for the household of the Tiptons. Those edits you do today, they will be obsolete in a couple weeks, a year or 3 years. That's the nature of the Internet.

Only a very petty man - one inclined to beat his wife because she didn't have dinner ready at exactly 5 PM - would spend the amount of time you do stalking me.

A healthy outlook on editing requires you understand it's just a hobby. Something done for fun. Something done because you enjoy the online friendship of others in that online community.

--------------


As for the content of my sites - it is unque and deserves to be listed. I mean, hell, look at some of the crap you got listed. If that crap gets one listing, I should get 500 listings.

Calling a spade a spade is my trademark.

No, your trademark is cowardice and pettiness. You want to come in here and say, "Hell yeah, I block your submissions because I don't like you, John Scott" - then you'll be a straight talker. You want to come in here and say, "Yeah, I attached a bunch of stupid notes to URL's which I thought were owned by you." then I might think you're a straight talker.

But you go around posting in the editor notes, hoping I'll never see the comments, and going into a sissy fit when I do. That's simple cowardice and not something a grown man should be doing.

[AnnaKitamura]

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...ointforums.com

One site, 8 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...bdeveloper.com

One site, 19 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...asterworld.com

4 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...rchengineworld

8 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=devshed

21 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...h=highrankings

5 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...bsitepublisher

10 listings.

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...rchenginewatch

31 listings.

www.clickz.com - 7 listings.

The list goes on and on. One site has over 300 listings in DMOZ.

[Jazzee]

If kctipton wants to call a spade a spade, then he needs to start by calling himself a hypocrite. Many websites have multiple listings in the Open Directory, and John's articles are more useful than most of those.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Jazzee

If kctipton wants to call a spade a spade, then he needs to start by calling himself a hypocrite. Many websites have multiple listings in the Open Directory, and John's articles are more useful than most of those.

Originally Posted by PhilC

If that's a meta, then s/he really didn't have balls to make the case openly, but prefered to hide behind a mask. You were right, John.

Yup. He's a lying little coward. Why didn't he use his own username? From the email address and his IP, it's obviously kctipton, but he uses the username "evilmeta". Coward.

And when some sites have hundreds of deeplinks - like Internet.com and all its topical domains (searchenginewatch/ clickz.com / htmlgoodies.com/ etc) have over 500 listings, you might as well tattoo "LIAR" on Keith Tipton's forehead.

[evilmeta]

Your disclaimer at registration implies that personal data won't be shared with third parties... unless the server is hacked. This sure doesn't look like a server hack, and it does look like personal data is being shared.