Gambling Category changes - unresponsive

Please note that I am now posting with a new username ..

"You have been banned from making any new posts or sending private messages. The reason for this ban is: Removed per meta concensus."

LMAO - They deleted my post for authority2 (new nick above) - These people are so amusing! They asked me to post the information and then ban me! SOMEONE must truly be afraid of something coming out!

I am reposting under authority3 - I bet it will be deleted too!

=========

Spearmaster wrote: "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."

I had initially presented the above research to numerous "meta" editors more than 4 months ago - as you can see most if not all those sites are still in the Guides category, so they have chosen not to take any action. Either they were offended by me presenting such research i.e. no one is going to tell us how to do our jobs or they have personal reasons for indexing the inappropriate listings.

I know several editors, including a few senior editors who agree wholly are in part with the latter. Having personally seen past editorial logs I know who added what and when - I can not however say why with certainty - I can only assume -this is something I will not do in a public forum. You may also wish to consider me being banned for presenting undeniable proof as to what some of these editors are up to. Ask yourself what are they afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why are they choosing to index inappropriate sites and/or leave them in the directory?

As far as my research being non-biased - I think that should be pretty clear as I have provided evidence that can be very easily verified by visiting the sites. It only took me a few hours to collect the evidence so I don't quite understand why nothing was ever done.

All one has to do is to grab a paragraph of text and run it through Google. This of course does not necessarily establish the originator of the materials, but will permit one to ascertain uniqueness and consequently suitability with regards to the Directory Guidelines.

Like you I do think some sites which may utilize syndicated materials are still worthy of being indexed. Furthermore, I don't think 100% uniqueness of material should be used as a means for exclusion. The manner in which the material is presented (Quality of site) to the potential end user of the Directory should be considered.

I like you also think that of the few sites listed in the parent category only a few are worthy of being indexed - either in that particular location or others. Moreover, I believe there are numerous sites not currently in the directory that are very deserving of a listing. What I was and am trying to get accomplished is to see that the submission/acceptance process is fair for each and every submitter.

It really is that simple - Have a wonderful day.

I believe there are numerous sites not currently in the directory that are very deserving of a listing

Click to expand...

True

What I was and am trying to get accomplished is to see that the submission/acceptance process is fair for each and every submitter.

Click to expand...

False.

You may also wish to consider me being banned for presenting undeniable proof as to what some of these editors are up to.

Click to expand...

False. Being banned is proof that you were trolling, as you are now.

Why not admit what you are really "up to"? You wanted your site listed, it wasn't (and it's public knowledge that no site is guaranteed a listing) , and now you are obsessed with "fairness."

If we wanted to list every site which was submitted, then we'd no longer need _any_ editors -- but then we'd be a really awful "directory" and nobody would submit their sites to it any more.

Obviously I do not know all the details behind this, so I'm going to stand clear. I am in the middle of my trip, and off to speak at the conference tomorrow, at which point I will simply note that the category is being watched but that webmasters should carefully note the guidelines which some of the eds have been kind enough to point me to.

Then when I get home at the end of the month I will go over the various sites and post some comments here, or in private if the eds prefer.

kctipton wrotee: "False. Being banned is proof that you were trolling, as you are now. "

Oh my! All I can say is that the proof is in the pooding and that anyone can clearly see by taking a look at the research I completed who is on the up and up!

I am knowledgeable of the guidelines and know them better than many editors. Did I have a site that was kicked out? YES - I had a site that was added to the directory by no less than 2 editors - then another came along and canned it! I use syndicated materials and was told I was kicked because I "ripped" materials! That situation permitted me to uncover the dirtier side of odp editing and thus provide you all with verifiable research.

So please take a moment or two to do just that - after all thats all of your jobs to edit the directory to the best of your ability. You have the research - verify it and take the proper actions.

Pudding.

Ok... just to let everyone know that I have not forgotten... but I am also severely hampered by jetlag and a mountain of stuff which piled up while I was away. I promised to look over the sites and I absolutely will do so.

Having said that, while authority may well have been trolling (don't know anything about that), his list is also fairly accurate with one exception that I noted above somewhere.

I believe that, as far as online gambling is concerned, one can count the number of actively updated, unique content sites on both hands. The great majority are nothing but banner and affiliate farms which offer nothing to the visitor, and who also do nothing behind the scenes to further the interests of players and/or portals and/or operators.

As a start, however, I think authority's list should certainly be revisited - not because I'm being lazy, but because I know a number of those sites (and don't know most of the others, which shows how much they participate in the industry).

A new thread has been started in the General ODP forum as per Furiosity's suggestion.

Gambling Category Site summaries

OK. Rather than starting a new thread... if there is no editor listed for the category (Traditional Chinese), who would be responsible for adding the listing? Obviously time to get the Chinese version of the site listed, since there are only a few sites?

Just back from France. Soon as I clear my desk I will add to the thread in the other forum if people are still interested.

A category that has no listed editor can always be edited by the editors of the parent categories. There is also a number of editors who can edit in the whole directory, but not all of them understand traditional chinese. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thank for that, uzs. So I guess I need a favor from someone!

To whomever is looking - rest assured that the content is the same as the English site, only a bit less of it as we try to catch up on all the translations <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt;rest assured that the content is the same as the English site, only a bit less of it as we try to catch up on all the translations

Sorry, we can't rest on webmaster assurances, we have to go by the site.

But we do have editors that understand Chinese, and they will review the site. The usual caveat applies: scheduling editor activity is like herding cats. It doesn't work, but it sure annoys the cats.

Thanks, Hutcheson.

As long as there is someone who can read Chinese <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I always wondered how that would be taken care of... so I guess I'll just have to wait patiently <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Can I also assume that, even if the Chinese site is found to be substantially the same as the English site, it does not automatically guarantee inclusion/exclusion?

Nothing guarantees automatic inclusion/exclusion except having content deemed Illegal - although that is an infinitesmal amount of sites compared to all of the submissions we receive.

Considering there is less content on the internet in Chinese than in English, it is probable that it would be easier for a Chinese-language site to meet the "unique content" test.

A very belated thanks, Apeuro... LOL..

And special thanks to the new cat editor Poker! Boy, am I glad to see the junk disappear... great job <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> BTW, if you need any help or have any questions, let me know, I presume you know where to find me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now if I can only get someone to look at the Chinese stuff... LOL...

You're welcome.

"BTW, if you need any help..."

You could do my laundry if you want. <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />