17 online casinos waiting for submit

Hello,
I work as the seo for a company that owns a total of 17 online casinos and poker sites of which only 1 of them is listed in the DMOZ.
I have tried to submit some of the other domains but have been waiting for many months. I have a feeling that maybe the guys before me have submitted too many times and the domians are being ignored.
all the casinos have been around for many years and are all well known in the business so i can not see why they should not be in the ODP.
Can anyone help me what my next step should be. I don't want to resubmit as i am aware of the pain it must be for the editors.

Thank you all for your help
SEO-JP

What you have described is what we call "17 related sites". You can read what OUR next step is after you submit related sites -- it's described in the "submittal policies."

The "honest business that wants people to know the full extent of its activities and expertise" approach would be to link all the domains together, so that anyone who finds one will find them all, and will know that the owner's reputation applies to them all (and, incidentally, will find that one ODP listing will serve to introduce them all to surfers.)

The 17 sites are not realted sites. They are individual businesses own by the same company. (basically, we started with one but over the years we have purchased another 16 from other operators) So each casino is registered with it's own license.
As you probably already know the majority of all casinos are powered by the same softwares, but i can see in the directory that pretty much all of the listsings are powered by the same softwares. Regarding the software platform we use i see many of our competitors in the DMOZ listing.

quote: so that anyone who finds one will find them all

Each of our casinos have a unique content and themes and are build up to cater to different clienteles. And all brands are market different in-house.
So to sum it up. We are a very big company that manages 17 individual casino operations. And i wouldn't be right if we can not list more than one site because we own all of them.

I hope it makes sense.

Thanks for your quick response.

businesses own by the same company. ... We are a very big company that manages 17 individual casino operations. ... we own all of them.

Click to expand...

In ODP terms, this is precisely what makes them related.
The main company site would be the only one eligible to be listed, and it is up to that company whether or not to provide links to the casinos it owns. If we were a listing service or a business directory, then perhaps individual listings for all your subsidiaries might be justified. But we aren't. We are a directory offering surfers the chance to find unique sites, and our definition of "unique" is explained in our publicly available guidelines.

makrhod said:

In ODP terms, this is precisely what makes them related.
The main company site would be the only one eligible to be listed, and it is up to that company whether or not to provide links to the casinos it owns. If we were a listing service or a business directory, then perhaps individual listings for all your subsidiaries might be justified. But we aren't. We are a directory offering surfers the chance to find unique sites, and our definition of "unique" is explained in our publicly available guidelines.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if we are on the same page. We are the group that manages (and owns) the casinos, but the casinos are all unique sites.
Just to give a non-gambling related example:
Carnival cruises own and operate several cruiselines (cunard, costa, princess, seabourn etc) however the companies are individual and unique, but carnival owns them on paper.The same goes for us. There are of course 1000's of examples this is just one to give you an idea what i mean.
I understand the gambling related category is tough but i find it strange that actual individual registered casinos can not get listed when we provide unique gaming experiences and content for surfers. And it wouldn't work to have one domain that refers to the individual sites as we cater to completely different clientele (ex. international, blackjack, free play etc) So in my opinion that would be confusing the surfer instead of giving them what they are searching for.
Am i explaining it right or does no one understand what i mean?

I think we understand perfectly what you are saying.

The problem is that apparently you are not understanding what we are saying: under our rules, we define what you have as a nest of related sites. At best one site is eligible for listing; at worst, none.

It is as simple as that.

What, you might ask, is the differentiator between best and worst: repeated submission of all of the sites might, eventally, lead us to decide that that the entire nest of sites constitues an abusive relationship -- leading to a ban of all the sites.

realy ?
when?
<URL deleted: the Forum TOS against sigs should be understood to mean pseudo-sigs also>

I know we aren't on the same page.

We understand what you mean, and we've seen 1000's of examples, without even going offline. In addition, we've had to deal with the problems of ways in which the ODP editors could be manipulated, and ways of protecting ourselves (and the ODP) from such attempts. That's why our guidelines are so specific and rigid in this respect.

I know a lot of people think surfers will be confused by information. And maybe that's true of some surfers. But, if you like, think of the ODP as the site for surfers who AREN'T confused by information: in fact, for surfers who are looking for information, and welcome being overwhelmed by it. And then your own instincts will lead you to approach that unique audience in a unique way.

You'd think something like this: "suppose I had only one crack at this audience: one ODP listing? What kind of information would I want to give them, to make sure they got everything?"

Then you'd consider this: "Suppose I take some OTHER approach than what I just figured out was the ideal approach to the ODP user? Suppose I hid and fragmented my information? What would the editors consider fair? Would they reward my deliberate hiding of information by giving me more listings, or would they consider it fair to make sure I had fewer listings as a result?

"Since the number of listings must be non-negative, and there is only one non-negative number less than one, how many ODP listings would the alternate approach give?"

That's how we think. It's likely to change, slowly but inexorably, in the direction of an increasingly harsh crackdown on "multiple-e-business companies."

And yes, some of these rules that we HAVE to have, to make what we do possible, sometimes eliminate possibilities that might theoretically be better for someone. But better an ODP that can be built by humans, than an theoretically ideal construct that (in our experience) simply can't.