Gambling Category changes - unresponsive

Thanks for the comments, Helper. Becoming an editor is not necessarily my objective - getting the category looked after is.

I wish to point out that on the application, it says to provide 2-3 sites - 2-3 samples, for that matter. I did all three. That is what it says in both the first page of the application and the application itself - and therefore that is not a legitimate excuse for refusing the application.

The application further calls for

(The title that appears on the site, rendered in title case)

Click to expand...

and

(A concise and objective overview of the site)

Click to expand...

and all of these criteria were also met.

For reference, the three descriptions (not including the titles nor the URLs because they are not relevant to the point I am trying to make - since the titles came directly from the websites themselves...)

1. Popular online gambling resource features timely articles, honest reviews, contests and free message boards.

(that happens to be an accurate description of the site in question, which does indeed appear in the Gambling category).

2. Player advocate site features radio broadcasts and message boards designed to provide assistance to online gamblers.

(again, accurate, but this time the site is not listed in the directory).

3. Didn't copy it LOL.. can't find it, but it basically said "Online gaming news site provides daily articles and roundups of industry news, events and happenings" or something similar. Again, this site is not yet listed in the category.

Having gone over the guidelines, they hint - repeat, hint - that perhaps we should be writing our own titles.

The title should identify the site, not describe it. It should be both informative and concise.

Click to expand...

However, the description posted above clearly asks for "The title that appears on the site, rendered in title case".

Now, if any of the descriptions above appear a bit too "spammy" for the reviewer, well I guess there's not much I can say - but they are accurate descriptions using carefully-selected words, rather than "site provides gambling news and information" if you see what I mean.

Like I said, the point is not to become an editor - the point is to get the category straightened out and useful to visitors, and to apply the same criteria fairly and in an even-handed manner.

1. Popular online gambling resource features timely articles, honest reviews, contests and free message boards.

Click to expand...

"Popular" and "honest" are subjective words, you have to avoid such words in descriptions. What seems honest or popular to someone might not be seen as such by someone else.

"online gambling resource" is useless, I would have started the description with "Features...."

Player advocate site features radio broadcasts and message boards designed to provide assistance to online gamblers

Click to expand...

"player advocate" is the name of the site, try not to repeat the title in the description.

"site" is a word to avoid in description (because it's obviously a site!). However, "official site" is permitted.

Gambling categories have their own set of guidelines to complement the general ODP guidelines. In these gambling guidelines, you'll see some information on the titles.
Here's a quote from the gambling guidelines :

Note : To facilitate the detection of mirror sites, it is strongly recommended that you use the URL as the title of the site. That means onlineblackjack.com and online-blackjack.com would have the same title.

Click to expand...

One last thing, I saw your application and I suggest you choose another category to apply for at first. The one you applied for is a spam magnet, it's unlikely that a new editor would be accepted there (except maybe with a perfect application!?).

Hope this helps

I am sorry but I am not a meta editor and cannot comment on why your application was denied. Possibly it was the sites themselves that were thought to not have met the guidelines. I don't know, I am just guessing.

As I said before, it is my opinion that the Gambling webmasters are going to have to become editors if they want to do anything with the Gambling categories. Editing in Gambling is not what I signed up for - so I am not going to do it. I think alot of other Games editors feel the same way.

I mean come on, you are in the industry and you are not even that interested in editing the category - why do you think someone not in the industry would want to?

Hi arkoid!

Popular and honest are both correct - they are not overstating what I know to be fact. Words like Best, Most and the like are definitely subjective.

Maybe I have unfair knowledge of the site LOL - but I assure you the description is correct. Not that I don't understand what you're getting at, mind you, but I believe there is a distinct line between fact and hype.

Grant you "Features" instead of "Online Gambling resource". Fact is, I had to resubmit twice - and got a bit frustrated. But that's no excuse for not choosing a better description.

Player advocate is not really the name of the site - it is descriptive of what the site and the operators are trying to do. But it is pretty close to "onlineplayersassociation" LOL. And even then you'd have had to know what the URL was to figure that out... and I haven't given the URLs in any of the posts...

There is a site called Player's Advocate, as well as Casino Player's Advocate - neither of which were sites that I had considered.

Distinction between "site" and "official site" I suspect comes from specific experience, and not guidelines <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

As for the spam magnet... LMAO... you are NOT kidding! But I'm used to it, quite naturally I might add. I spend about 12 hours a day online doing research and working on projects so in all this time I myself have sort of become a spam magnet...

My specific expertise is in this area. And while I can probably help out with other areas, I'd not be able to do a third as much as I can do in this unwanted category.

However, to prove a point - would you not agree that a banner exchange is of no use to people visiting the Gambling category? Perhaps a subcategory for "Webmaster Resources" or something...

Not really looking for comment LOL. I just want to see a category that can be useful rather than be a waste dump.

As for not wanting to edit? I'm happy to edit if I can meet the criteria. All I said is that the main objective is to get the category better organized - whether or not I am directly involved in this activity, or even whether I get listed or not, is completely secondary.

If no one wants to do the Gambling categories, then what next? Something really ought to be done... I appreciate the fact that there are far more categories than there are editors - but that's no excuse to leave any one category to rot - volunteer or not. And I'm not saying it's necessarily your job either - but those who are listed as editors really ought to try and do something...

Now that I know who you are and your site's name, I'll tell you that you did not write to me (rather, I didn't get anything from you). The site _does_ seem listable to me in its current form.

Thank you, KC. The site design has not changed in some time, with very, very minor edits - at least 7-8 months, I think - I suppose I should go and look at the Wayback Machine.

However, I did indeed mail you - in fact, I have copies of all my emails (non-spam, that is) since 1997 with the exception of a two-week blip in 2000. Sent to the email in your profile, unless I've obviously missed the fact that the email address is not valid?

I can send them to you again if you like but really there is no point now that you have actually looked at the site, unless you want to see what I wrote in the emails LOL.

Indirectly, you forced me to edit a mistake in one of my reviews LOL <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now what next? Will you consider the site for listing? And, regardless of whether or not the site is listed, do you editors want another editor or someone you can just bounce questions off? I am willing to help either way.

The site design is not what makes the site listable. It is the unique content. Your articles and reviews (the ones you did) are why you qualify. The affiliate links and the way the site is designed with almost all affiliate content in the center of the site where content normally goes probably counts against you. However, most of us joined ODP to add sites and not try and find reasons to exclude them so we tend to overlook that if there is content hidden somewhere in the sidebar or at the very bottom of the page.

Congratulations on having some unique content - you are one of the few - proud - listable in Gambling sites <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;Popular and honest are both correct - they are not overstating what I know to be fact.

This may be true: but neither fact is something that could be deduced from a website review. So -- a _website_ reviewer shouldn't mention it.

This is a problem that we frequently see with new editors very knowledgeable on a _subject_ but (unsurprisingly) not experienced in writing website reviews. It's very hard for them to write a website when they have so much to say about its owner, its visitors, etc. In your example, for example, "honest" is about the website owner and "popular" is about (the size of) its audience.

You all can help by thinking about suggested descriptions from that point of view. So many times they start out "We are dedicated to..." -- Look, we don't care whether you're a dilettante or obsessed enough to be a menace to society. Just tell us what you've provided on the website. And they end with "for neophytes, experienced widget-twiddlers, or anyone else interested in ..." Again, if you put the site on the web, by definition your audience is self-selected without any concern for your ideal criteria. Leave all that stuff out.

[This public service announcement
by the author of internal ODP forum threads "Sheer Dreck I: The Search for Hype" and various sequels chronicling the eternal war against the dark side of the linguistic force.]

Hutcheson speaks truth.

Really, we do leave out anything that can be considered as hype, something subjective but which appears from description alone to make one site better then another; however there are a few categories where editors either do not know this, or choose to ignore it. If you see one please email a Meta editor, and it _will_ be sorted.

Thanks, Helper.

As for design, I was actually referring to the style in which stuff is presented - in other words, not moving content around, etc. The only changes made this year involved color and logo, plus moving navigation from top to side because people seemed to miss it at the top. The basic front page design hasn't changed in a year or more, I think - so it wasn't a matter of making changes, rather that the unique content does not seem to be above the fold, so to speak.

I do want to make some design changes soon, though, because I kind of get bored after a while. At that point I will see about reorganizing the content so that it is easier to get to. Will probably be adding more content in the future but I'd rather be picky and choosy than just taking anything that's offered, if you know what I mean.

Yes, I thought about that. Point taken...

Now, how can I, or others, help to get the category cleaned up?

Hi Spearmaster - some members of these fora have taken to posting problems they find within ODP categories here. (More specifically, in the General ODP Issues forum). This only refers to problems with existing listings that contravene the Editing Guidelines. If you or other Gambling webmasters who don't want to become editors (or want to, but there's too much affiliation), you can do something like that when you have a free minute.

Obviously it would be ideal if an editor signed on who understood the guidelines and was interested in improving the Gambling subcategory, and ultimately the ODP. The affiliation bit is the smallest of concerns as long as the editor is willing to take off their 'online gambling affiliated' hat and put on their 'conscientious ODP editor' hat while logged in. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Spearmaster, as furiosity suggests, you're welcome to post corrections to existing listings here in R-Z, and someone will take a look and try to get things resolved. This would be a good faith effort on your part.

If you ever *do* feel like attempting to join as an editor again, it will be easy enough for us to point out your efforts here to other metas. Heck, you yourself can include a link to this thread in your application reason field. I've seen quality editors who have submitted 2-10 (no kidding!) increasingly improved applications before acceptance early in their editing "career". Your good faith effort *may* win you a few bonus points, depending on the reviewing meta. Notice that only your first description was picked apart by everyone - that's pretty darn good odds!

Best wishes whatever you decide to do. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

PS - Not all of us avoid spam-magnets, but we do tend to work on them in smaller pieces. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I promise that I will start doing this soon - but in fact I am off in less than 12 hours to San Francisco, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Vancouver.

I will only attempt to join if there is a specific need for an editor LOL - in other words, if some of you ask. But you can just ask me questions and I will be happy to answer them anyhow.

My only immediate comments are that Gamble Swap, the banner exchange in the Gambling category, absolutely does not belong there because this certainly is not what people are looking for when they go looking for gambling - and that WinnerOnline and Gambling Times are certainly okay. I will take a look at the other listings either when I get back, or perhaps when I get to Los Angeles and have a little time on my hands.

Then I'll go through the Gambling/Guides <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> And thanks for your suggestions!

For some reason I thought I had replied to this - I guess not <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

As I said to MNGolden above, this is what I will do either when I get back or when I get to Los Angeles in between conferences. I'd actually do it now because I really want to - but I'm outta here in 12 hours, and it's also my daughter's birthday (read: huge party with 30 kids and 30 adults).

Thanks for the comments <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Spearmaster wrote "Then I'll go through the Gambling/Guides "

Glad to see someone else is as interested as I once was. Maybe your status in the industry will get you a bit further who knows? I do know all my attempts to resolve differences in this category were futile!

Approximately 3-4 months ago I reviewed each and every site in the directories (now deleted) and guides categories. I provided substantial proof that a great percentage of the sites did not meet the guidelines set forth by the editors at dmoz. I then suggested that if sites were going to be excluded for certain reasons - then it would only be fair that sites already in the index, which violated those exact reason's should be deleted as well. All my research and volunteering as a non-editor was a waste of time as all my suggestions and detailed proof fell upon blind eyes and deaf ears.

All these sites that did and do not meet the acceptance criteria are still listed - why? It seems that the editors of this forum have communicated a true concern for the quality and management of the directory and this category, yet nothing is done. Maybe they are in need of assistance &amp;#8211; all I would like to see is that the submission process is fair for each and every submitter. I would like to see the subjectivity minimized and for the doors to either be reinforced or widened. This is a great directory, but it can be made better and at the same time fairer for all!

My research was based on acceptable sites and the guidelines which they must meet - below is the proof which I had provided meta editors. Please note that I have nothing against any of these sites and that I acted and reviewed each of the sites solely on they guidelines for acceptance.

============================================================

*** Aces Guide to Gambling - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Site contains about a dozen articles all by industry authors = NOTHING UNIQUE!

http://www.acesguidetogambling.com/general/baccarat_easy_game.html
About The Author John Grochowski
FOUND HERE &gt; http://data.detnews.com/casino/columns/grochowski/details.hbs?pubdate=20000907

http://www.acesguidetogambling.com/roulette/wheel_bias.html
About The Author Al Krigman
FOUND HERE &gt; http://www.casinocity.com/krigman/

http://www.acesguidetogambling.com/roulette/zeros.html
About The Author Michael Shackleford
FOUND HERE &gt; http://www.thewizardofodds.com/game/roulette.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Bet Tips - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Site contains little content - rules for 6 casino games - THATS IT!

Exact same rules found on numerous sites ...

http://www.abaco-online-gambling.com/baccarat.html
http://www.win4real.com/preview/baccarat.html
http://www.global-online-casino.com/baccarat-rules.html
http://www.onlinecasinopro.com/strategies/blackjack.html
http://www.playersoffshore.com/help_bjack.html
http://www.realmoneycasino.com/help/blackjack.html

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Bigwinclub - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Site contains little content ...

http://www.bigwinclub.com/baccarat/ also found at

http://www.casino-info.com/gambling_tips/baccarat.html
http://www.gamblerslane.com/casino_guide/baccarat.html

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

http://www.bigwinclub.com/videopoker/ also found at

http://www.4videopokertips.com/
http://www.casinoresources.net/vpoker_rules.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Casino Expert - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Site contains ripped content and a search directory filled with affiliate links!

http://www.casino-expert.com/craps-rules.htm also fount at

http://www.craps-hangout.com/m2.htm
http://www.casinofaves.com/crapsguru/2.htm

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

http://www.casino-expert.com/poker-rules.htm also found at

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/poker/poker2.html
http://www.internetgamblingsite.com/poker.html

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gamble.co.uk - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

http://www.gamble.co.uk/archive.htm &lt;--- this is the article archive

content is syndicated and found on hundreds of other sites ...

The site contains "gaming zones" regarding casino games ALL this content is ripped ...

http://www.gamble.co.uk/channels/bac_howtoplay.htm also found at

http://www.aboutbaccarat.com/
http://www.werankcasinos.com/baccarat.html
http://www.thebettingpalace.com/baccarat.html

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

http://www.gamble.co.uk/channels/roul_how.htm also found at

http://www.rouletteadvice.com/roulette-wheel.html
http://www.gamblingtheory.com/roulette_basics.html
http://www.gamblerzone.com/rulesroulette.htm

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!


I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** The Gamblers Edge - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Affiliate link farm !!!

Most content is syndicated ...

http://www.thegamblersedge.com/GameMasters/index.html

Above content is supplied to webmasters by http://www.gamemasteronline.com/indexa.shtml

http://www.thegamblersedge.com/buzz/sbsrecent.htm .... article reprinted

http://www.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm .... article reprinted

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gambling Palace - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Content is not unique ...

http://www.gambling-palace.com/Blackjack/blackjackarticles.htm articles all reprinted

http://www.gambling-palace.com/Blackjack/blackjackfours.htm reprinted Alan Krigman

http://www.gambling-palace.com/Blackjack/Blackjackcardcounters.htm reprinted GamblingAndTheLaw.com

http://www.gambling-palace.com/Blackjack/Cardcounters.htm reprinted GamblingAndTheLaw.com

http://www.gambling-palace.com/Slots/multilineslots.htm reprinted Alan Krigman

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gambling Systems - CONTENT NOT A GAMBLING GUIDE!

This site is NOT a gambling guide its only purpose is to sell their "product!"

http://www.gambling-systems.com/order.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gambling Theory - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

This site is an obvious front created by a casino group ... content is not unique!

http://www.gamblingtheory.com/blackjack_tips.html also found at

http://www.national-casino-resource.com/casino_Contests.html
http://www.online-blackjack-center.com/blackjack_Link_us.html

http://www.gamblingtheory.com/craps_rules.html also found at

http://www.allcraps.com/siterules.htm
http://www.casinogoldbook.com/craps.htm
http://www.d.umn.edu/~tbacig/mindmath/mathles10.html

http://www.gamblingtheory.com/poker_hierachy.html also found at

http://www.casinocity.com/rule/poker.htm
http://www.bogwomen.com:8080/rules.html
http://www.elpasoentertainment.com/fe/Gaming/gamingtips3.asp

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gambling Tool - NO CONTENT!

Site clearly states on index page "THIS SITE FOR SALE!"

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** The Gambling Wiz - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Affiliate link farm!!!

http://www.gamblingwiz.com/gamblingpsych.html also found at

http://www.zmfact.com/fouraces/tip8.htm
http://www.aaa-casino-gambling.com/gambling.htm

http://www.gamblingwiz.com/moneymgmt.html also found at

http://www.goldencoastcasino.com/money.html
http://4charitygamblingonline-casinosbingoandsportsbetting.com/gambling101.htm

http://www.gamblingwiz.com/gamblingtips.html contains tips for the regular games all ripped!!!

http://www.ineedtobet.com/gambling-strategy-tips.html
http://www.thecornersaloon.com/Gambling%20Tips.html
http://www.atlantic-city-casinos.net/gambling_tips/blackjack.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Gaming On The Internet - VERY LITTLE CONTENT REGARDING GAMBLING - Just a few paragraphs!

This site should be in a general gaming category not Gambling Guides !!!

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** House of Odds - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

http://www.houseofodds.com/psychology.html also found at

http://www.zmfact.com/fouraces/tip8.htm
http://www.aaa-casino-gambling.com/gambling.htm

http://www.houseofodds.com/houseadv.html content ripped from www.thewizardofodds.com

http://www.houseofodds.com/tablegames.html rules of table games found on hundreds of sites!

http://www.100-best-online-casinos.com/battle-royale.htm
http://www.bettorschance.com/rules/
http://www.casinoonair.com/viewourgames/gamesh/caribbeanh.html
http://www.winnershill.com/casino/stud.html

http://www.houseofodds.com/machinegames.html rules of table games found on hundreds of sites!

http://www.007casinohouse.com/videopoker.html
http://www.deluxecasino.com/help/javagames/videopoker.php
http://www.energyfrog.com/howto.shtml
http://www.catcino.com/vphelp.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

The first list I sent you contained A-K and the sites above ... I will now review the remaing
sites J-Z and provide you with proof that they are not appropriate.

============================================================

*** Learn How To Play - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Site contains information on popular games all ripped from other sites.

http://www.bestblackjacktips.com/mainpage.html
http://www.onlyblackjack.com/history.htm
http://www.phrack.com/show.php?p=43&amp;a=9
http://www.gambling-casinos-online.net/history.htm
http://www.playonlinecasinogames.com/craps_history.html
http://www.internet-casino.ca/i-craps-history.htm
http://www.online-gambling.ca/html/roulette.html
http://casino.caucasus.net/casinos/roulette/roulette5.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Netbet - 1) Site is not a Gambling Guide 2) VERY little content 3) Content is not Unique ...

http://www.netbet.org/faq01.html also found at

http://www.gamesville.lycos.com/html_gtg/gtg_features_gambling_guide.htm
http://www.bettingtowin.co.uk/FAQs.htm
http://www.mystiquecasino.com/faq.htm

http://www.netbet.org/faq02.html also found at

http://www.internetcommission.com/faq.asp
http://www.peelworld.com/articles/guides/gaming.htm
http://www.ags.ca/busplan21.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Online Gambling Guide Web - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE

Site contains information on popular games all ripped from other sites.

http://www.online-gambling-guide-web.com/Craps.html also found at

http://www.aboutcraps.com/
http://www.allcraps.com/siterules.htm
http://www.aboutonlinegambling.com/

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

http://www.online-gambling-guide-web.com/Poker.html also found at

http://www.casinodudes.com/poker.html
http://www.poker-hangout.com/p2.htm
http://www.101poker.com/poker2.htm

+ dozens and dozens of others !!!

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Video Poker Help - NO CONTENT!

Site clearly states - "This Site is a Work in Progress!!!!"

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** VidPoker - CONTENT NOT A GAMBLING GUIDE!

This site is NOT a gambling guide its only purpose is to sell their "products!"

http://www.vidpoker.com/best_shot.htm

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Virtual Casino - CONTENT IS NOT UNIQUE!

Casino News = syndicated
Game Rules = found on numerous other sites ...

http://www.absoluteblackjack.com/
http://www.go-wincasino.com/baccarat.htm
http://www.blackjackplaza.com/rules.html
http://www.blackjack-hangout.com/b3.htm
http://www.ildado.com/slots_rules.html
http://www.velvetpickle.com/advice.html

Site pushes a free Casino software which probably will push a real money purchase!

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Wincards - CONTENT NOT A GAMBLING GUIDE!

This site is NOT a gambling guide its only purpose is to sell their "product!"

http://www.wincards.com/Order.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Winning Bets - CONTENT NOT A GAMBLING GUIDE!

This site is NOT a gambling guide its only purpose is to sell their "product!"

https://secure.ntbz.com/bizbrowsers/winningbets/esorder.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

*** Winning Roulette Systems - CONTENT NOT A GAMBLING GUIDE!

This site is NOT a gambling guide its only purpose is to sell their "product!"

https://secure.ntbz.com/bizbrowsers/winningbets/esorder.html

I DONT THINK I NEED TO GO ON ANY FURTHER WITH THIS SITE !!!

============================================================

I think the above information will provide you with plenty of proof that these sites are not
appropriate for the DMOZ directory as they all break numerous guidelines. I'm confident that you will find my research was non-biased and quite conclusive.

The major problem here is that the gambling categories haven&amp;#8217;t changed in several months - ie nothing is being done about the inappropriate sites and no new sites are being added. If these sites are appropriate then by all means it appears the door has widened and one might expect to see more sites getting in. If these sites are not appropriate then that same wise man would think they would all soon vanish. What&amp;#8217;s fair for one is fair for all.

Good luck spear - I hope you can get this issue sorted out! Lets make this category and the entire directory a better one for all!

Wow! That's one heck of a list! It might take some time to go through it, as I'm sure it took you a while to look at all those sites. Thanks, it might prove useful to my future efforts elsewhere on the Web. <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hi authority!

Having had a look through your list, I'd have to agree with every one of them - with the possible exception of The Gambler's Edge, which has been on the Net for a very long time, and has a directory which was unique at the time it was created. But it is true that there isn't any new unique content.

On the other hand, there are surely some instances in which content from other writers, perhaps syndicated content, could be acceptable. If nothing is unique at all, then I'd agree with you - but if there is a reasonable amount of uniqueness, and the site provides useful information to visitors, then I'd be less inclined to argue.

You'll notice that now the Gambling category itself only has eight sites - but I think only two or three of them have any right to be there. Realistically, however, it seems to me that none of them belong in the main category, and instead should be placed in sub-categories.

If you then go in the Gambling/Guides section, though, there is a long list of sites there, of which I'm sure many really don't belong. The only question is, if you or I provide information like you did above in the past, will the editors take action? If not, I am certainly not inclined to waste anyone's time, including my own. If, however, I am sure they will act accordingly, then naturally I will be happy to make recommendations.

This, of course, assumes that the editors have determined that you or I are being impartial in our recommendations.

This, of course, assumes that the editors have determined that you or I are being impartial in our recommendations.

To me this is one of two vital points. The second is that sites are evaluated on a case by case basis and if an editor is unsure there are internal discussions regarding how/whether to list sites (and, indeed, categories) that can help you make that decision.

To delete a site requires even more checking than listing a site - how would you feel if a competitor could just say 'xxx.com is going out of business, please remove' and it got done. Discussions on categories can take months, on sites weeks.

All I can say is that the sites will be checked and evaluated. Your input will help make determinations, but don't be surprised if the outcome is not always what you expect.

This is one of the main reasons that becoming an editor will help you understand what is being done in a particular case, as well as have some input. Note that abuse allegations are not available to general editors, but are handled by a concensus of senior editors. Hovever the question of what sites should be listed, and where is part of editorial discussion.

The only downside to doing things out here is that details of what occurs internally cannot be posted outside the ODP. So you may get an update saying 'check out the changes in xx/category', but you won't get details of what/why the changes occured and who was involved.

Please come join. Pick a sub category that is small (software is a good size, guides is borderline too big but may be OK), prove your impartiality and editing skills there, and then take on bigger categories. Point to this thread in your (well written) application.(Don't forget to be upfront about your affiliations).

<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />