M
martin
Hi,
I would like to know the status of this site, submited to Top: Games: Gambling: Bingo .
Thanks
M.
I would like to know the status of this site, submited to Top: Games: Gambling: Bingo .
Thanks
M.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Your site has been moved (by me) to the unreviewed queue to http://dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Bingo/Online/Directories since it is primarly a list of links, including that long list of keyword links. There is just a handful of sites in the Bingo queues so hopefully the editor of the bingo category will get to reviewing it soon.
M
martin
Thanks steveb, I'm sure that short queue is better then long one. However its look like the lake of editor in this category is the reason why it was last update on September 10, 2002. And I think it’s explain why site like ‘Free Online Bingo’ is there(it’s offer the same sites list as its ‘parent’ site Winner Online that is already listed in Top: Games: Gambling: Guides). Further more I do believe that dot-bingo is more then just a directory. It has much more to offer then most of the sites at Top: Games: Gambling: Bingo (e.g. bingo lovers, Bingo Hall Directory, bingo-info and others). Bingo tournament, stories, surveys and such make dot bingo more like portal then directory.
I’m sure your intentions are good (short my waiting) but I do think that my site deserve to be include in the top level of the bingo category. Please put my site back in the long list and maybe you can replace the editor of this category with another one that is really like to edit.
M.
I’m sure your intentions are good (short my waiting) but I do think that my site deserve to be include in the top level of the bingo category. Please put my site back in the long list and maybe you can replace the editor of this category with another one that is really like to edit.
M.
It’s not going to change any thing whether your site is in the short queue or the long one, they just not going to let you in. those are “closed lists” and it’s not looks like you’re going to make it in. On the other hand you certainly can drop sites out the best way is to write to kctipton he is the best cleaner in the gambling categories, once he even admit that he is the one that responsible for most of the cleanings but this massage was removed latter on.
Poker, is within the few (if not the only one) at the gambling category that is doing for the growth of the ODP but unfortunately for you he is an editor of other category.
Throwing an editor from ODP is harder mission then to add a site to non-edited category. Specially editor smooth like kosmo (have you seen his profile?) I bet kosmo is just a “ghost” editor.
My conclusion is that it is no different how good is your site or how uniqe is the content. It is all in the hands of the editor and its not look like something going to change this.
Poker, is within the few (if not the only one) at the gambling category that is doing for the growth of the ODP but unfortunately for you he is an editor of other category.
Throwing an editor from ODP is harder mission then to add a site to non-edited category. Specially editor smooth like kosmo (have you seen his profile?) I bet kosmo is just a “ghost” editor.
My conclusion is that it is no different how good is your site or how uniqe is the content. It is all in the hands of the editor and its not look like something going to change this.
There is nothing closed about these categories. That's just silly. And I explained to you before what the removing of sites done by kctipton entails... it's removing dead, non-existent sites or those that have gone over to porn or something else. I had four such sites removed this week. This is a good thing, certainly not bad.
Editing in ODP is a process. The key element needed is a human who knows something about the topic willing to put in the effort to do the work. I don't know diddly about bingo. I can handle sites about physical bingo halls or bingo magazines, but anything more than that needs a person with some expertise to do a good job of evaluating a site. Nobody has locked all the bingo knowledgable people in the world in a closet and said they could not volunteer to edit the categories there, or join the ODP in other categories and then add bingo (or whatever).
It may please you to know (maybe not I guess) that I've gone through every submitted site in the Gambling queues, its a process called greenbusting, and there are 150 or so sites that likely will be added sometime in the next few weeks. I also deleted hundreds of dead, non-compliant with the guidelines or just lame "sites". That's the way it works. Somebody did something about something. Other people could if they wanted to, but that is up to them. The only reason backlogs exist in ODP is because people don't persevere in volunteering to see that they are eliminated.
Editing in ODP is a process. The key element needed is a human who knows something about the topic willing to put in the effort to do the work. I don't know diddly about bingo. I can handle sites about physical bingo halls or bingo magazines, but anything more than that needs a person with some expertise to do a good job of evaluating a site. Nobody has locked all the bingo knowledgable people in the world in a closet and said they could not volunteer to edit the categories there, or join the ODP in other categories and then add bingo (or whatever).
It may please you to know (maybe not I guess) that I've gone through every submitted site in the Gambling queues, its a process called greenbusting, and there are 150 or so sites that likely will be added sometime in the next few weeks. I also deleted hundreds of dead, non-compliant with the guidelines or just lame "sites". That's the way it works. Somebody did something about something. Other people could if they wanted to, but that is up to them. The only reason backlogs exist in ODP is because people don't persevere in volunteering to see that they are eliminated.
M
martin
Just wondering, which site is the site that waited to be reviewed for the longest time?
And for how long it was on the queue? <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
M.
And for how long it was on the queue? <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
M.
I have no problem with removing sites that are not complying to the guidelines. The problem is with the long period of time that sites have to wait to be reviewed by editor before they reject (and most of them will <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> ). I'm surprise to know that there are less then ten sites in all the bingo categories together, but still I'm sure that in your categories there are no sites waiting for reviewed since February. Am I wrong?
M
martin
What will be the best affective way to report regarding abuse of the Bingo categories? Is it better to e-mail staff@dmoz.org or to kctipton? And when exactly I use this forum's 'Abuse Reporting'? I know I shouldn't use it for specific site, but what if there is a list of sites like umesh report on 'Matrimonial Spam' is it OK like that?
Or maybe I should use this thread as it already mentions some of them (and not opening a new thread because I read in this forum that it’s not a welcome procedure).
M.
Or maybe I should use this thread as it already mentions some of them (and not opening a new thread because I read in this forum that it’s not a welcome procedure).
M.
>What will be the best affective way to report regarding abuse of the Bingo categories?
Whatever gets through. There is an official automated system "in the works" but it's not yet available. In the meantime:
>Is it better to e-mail staff@dmoz.org or to kctipton?
Either would probably work. I'd recommend putting "Abuse report--category XXX" in the Subject line. Note that staff will probably just add the report to our automated system and let some meta volunteer to investigate.
>And when exactly I use this forum's 'Abuse Reporting'? I know I shouldn't use it for specific site, but what if there is a list of sites like umesh report on 'Matrimonial Spam' is it OK like that?
>That's good for less specific problem. A list of sites is pushing the limit a bit, but the rules are there to protect posters from counterattack by frustrated spammers, not to keep us from hearing about spam.
>Or maybe I should use this thread as it already mentions some of them (and not opening a new thread because I read in this forum that it’s not a welcome procedure).
Probably OK also. But email to kctipton and other meta (or staff) of your choice is probably the best bet.
Whatever gets through. There is an official automated system "in the works" but it's not yet available. In the meantime:
>Is it better to e-mail staff@dmoz.org or to kctipton?
Either would probably work. I'd recommend putting "Abuse report--category XXX" in the Subject line. Note that staff will probably just add the report to our automated system and let some meta volunteer to investigate.
>And when exactly I use this forum's 'Abuse Reporting'? I know I shouldn't use it for specific site, but what if there is a list of sites like umesh report on 'Matrimonial Spam' is it OK like that?
>That's good for less specific problem. A list of sites is pushing the limit a bit, but the rules are there to protect posters from counterattack by frustrated spammers, not to keep us from hearing about spam.
>Or maybe I should use this thread as it already mentions some of them (and not opening a new thread because I read in this forum that it’s not a welcome procedure).
Probably OK also. But email to kctipton and other meta (or staff) of your choice is probably the best bet.
M
martin
Thanks hutcheson, I've just did. Now I'm waitnig for results.
M.
M.
M
martin
Re: http://www.dot-bingo.com/
Hi,
It is been a week since I sent my abuse report to kctipton (with CC to staff@dmoz.org).
So far only one site out of 17 sites that I suggested has been removed. Although there where sites on my list that are much more obvious abusing the category.
The site that was removed is mention in my second post on this thread, so I suspect that maybe someone else removed this site and that my report was never treated yet…
Can any one tell me if my report was read by anyone or should I try the other method suggested (posing on the abuse reporting category in this forum) <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
M.
Hi,
It is been a week since I sent my abuse report to kctipton (with CC to staff@dmoz.org).
So far only one site out of 17 sites that I suggested has been removed. Although there where sites on my list that are much more obvious abusing the category.
The site that was removed is mention in my second post on this thread, so I suspect that maybe someone else removed this site and that my report was never treated yet…
Can any one tell me if my report was read by anyone or should I try the other method suggested (posing on the abuse reporting category in this forum) <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
M.
Re: http://www.dot-bingo.com/
I just removed a couple Bingo sites that were dead or non-compliant with the Gambling Guidelines, but that has nothing to do with the abuse report sent in, since I don't know anything about that or even have access to it.
Regarding the original question, dot-bingo.com's news and glossary are copied, the "free stuff" is off topic, and directory of online sites is not listable content as ODP now doesn't list online gambling directory sites. So the site was deleted.
I just removed a couple Bingo sites that were dead or non-compliant with the Gambling Guidelines, but that has nothing to do with the abuse report sent in, since I don't know anything about that or even have access to it.
Regarding the original question, dot-bingo.com's news and glossary are copied, the "free stuff" is off topic, and directory of online sites is not listable content as ODP now doesn't list online gambling directory sites. So the site was deleted.
M
martin
Re: http://www.dot-bingo.com/
Well then... I guess it’s just the time to remove Google from dmoz all of its content is “copied” from other sites its news are copied from allover and its directory looks very much familiar to me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
The main goal of dot-bingo.com is to have every thing that a bingo fan will look for in one place. I don’t have every thing yet, but I’m consistently adding to this portal as much as I can. I do have some original content you may find nowhere else (have you checked Bingo stories?) but this is not what this portal is based upon. I believe the ODP is there for helping surfers to find things they will find no where else, and I am offering exactly that, a unique concept of free online bingo, bingo news, stories (written by registered users), collection of bingo news, books and more.
The free staff is because I found out that most of my registered users are interesting in such material. The beauty tips and the recipes are there because more then 80% of my registered users are females.
And if you think that my site is less suitable for the suggest category then sites like Bingo Trips (the trip was canceled last year) or Bingo lover -rubbish written by 74 year old cute lady (BTW the site was moved from the current URL) and much more sites I report about, then I think you should question your self if you are the right man to be an editor for the ODP.
<img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> M.
Well then... I guess it’s just the time to remove Google from dmoz all of its content is “copied” from other sites its news are copied from allover and its directory looks very much familiar to me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
The main goal of dot-bingo.com is to have every thing that a bingo fan will look for in one place. I don’t have every thing yet, but I’m consistently adding to this portal as much as I can. I do have some original content you may find nowhere else (have you checked Bingo stories?) but this is not what this portal is based upon. I believe the ODP is there for helping surfers to find things they will find no where else, and I am offering exactly that, a unique concept of free online bingo, bingo news, stories (written by registered users), collection of bingo news, books and more.
The free staff is because I found out that most of my registered users are interesting in such material. The beauty tips and the recipes are there because more then 80% of my registered users are females.
And if you think that my site is less suitable for the suggest category then sites like Bingo Trips (the trip was canceled last year) or Bingo lover -rubbish written by 74 year old cute lady (BTW the site was moved from the current URL) and much more sites I report about, then I think you should question your self if you are the right man to be an editor for the ODP.
<img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> M.
Re: http://www.dot-bingo.com/
These are the ODP gambling guidelines http://dmoz.org/guidelines/gambling/ They supplement the general guidelines http://dmoz.org/guidelines/
ODP aims to list sites with unique content, not sites with copied content, extensive or not. A site that merely copies the recent speeches of George Bush and Sadaam Hussein would be presenting important information, but the ODP wouldn't list dozens and dozens of sites like that. That doesn't mean it is a "bad" site or something. It just means it isn't a site ODP will list.
The travel site was removed as soon as I saw it. The Bingo lovers site, which is listed on the correct URL, appears to have some unique, original content so it more obviously merits a listing. You may think it is rubbish but it is interesting that you mention it was "written". That is the point, original content. If you copied everything on her site and put it on yours, that wouldn't make yours listable.
And I'm not the right person to completely edit a Bingo category, but I am able to recognize those sites that clearly don't, or clearly do, meet the guideline requirements for a listing in the Bingo category of the ODP. People with Bingo expertise are welcome to volunteer their time to the Directory.
These are the ODP gambling guidelines http://dmoz.org/guidelines/gambling/ They supplement the general guidelines http://dmoz.org/guidelines/
ODP aims to list sites with unique content, not sites with copied content, extensive or not. A site that merely copies the recent speeches of George Bush and Sadaam Hussein would be presenting important information, but the ODP wouldn't list dozens and dozens of sites like that. That doesn't mean it is a "bad" site or something. It just means it isn't a site ODP will list.
The travel site was removed as soon as I saw it. The Bingo lovers site, which is listed on the correct URL, appears to have some unique, original content so it more obviously merits a listing. You may think it is rubbish but it is interesting that you mention it was "written". That is the point, original content. If you copied everything on her site and put it on yours, that wouldn't make yours listable.
And I'm not the right person to completely edit a Bingo category, but I am able to recognize those sites that clearly don't, or clearly do, meet the guideline requirements for a listing in the Bingo category of the ODP. People with Bingo expertise are welcome to volunteer their time to the Directory.
M
martin
Re: http://www.dot-bingo.com/
WOW, I’m feeling like a character in Franz Kafka story. The bureaucrats are after my ass screaming “unique content, unique content”. I guess that if I’ll refer you to the gambling guidelines , at the end of the third paragraph, where it says that the content should be useful to the end user you’ll refer me back to where its say “content of its own” (ignoring its says high quality content). Well then, I hardly find the content of Bingo Lovers neither useful nor high quality. And if copied from books (“The wired and wonderful world of bingo”) make it unique because you can’t copy a sentence and search for it in Google. Then I guess that if I’ll replace every second word in the dot-bingo with synonym will make it unique as well as Bingo Lovers site. And the stuff that is not copied from the book is less merit to bingo then those posts that I have written in this thread alone (which I always can add to dot-bingo with specific button says “Bingo unique content for ODP editors”).
Search for unique text in site with related keywords to category is not something human editors should do. Machines doing it faster (I’ve just made slogan for Google).
This is the only reason why song about dog name Bingo could be refer as merit content for Games/Gambling/Bingo category.
The only way human can make it better is by seeing things in away machine can’t like concept of site which I’m positively sure there is no other site like dot-bingo in the bingo category yet...
It’s a human nature to make mistakes. It’s divine to admit making them.
I am not going to add those posts or any of dozens of e-mail I’ve written regarding bingo to my site just to have unique text and I’m not going to remove the news section or any other section that is helping my users just to be included in dmoz directory.
I still would like to know what’s happening with my abuse report. And how come some guidelines can be bended for several sites belong to same manufacture and stick hard for a competitor one. I do see that some of the sites I’ve pointed where removed.
To apply for the Bingo ODP editor position is not highly realistic for me right now:
A. There is this Kosmo guy (which I’m not sure what’s make him the right one for the job)
B. It’s obviously I’m not qualified for the category because the best site I could think to suggest for this category is not qualify in a way like that even an editor which admit has no understanding in bingo could disqualify.
C. I hate to be in double standards situation when I’ll have to approve competitor’s sites.
So thanks but no thanks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Apologies for been sarcastic it’s happen to me sometimes when my hart feel pain.
M.
WOW, I’m feeling like a character in Franz Kafka story. The bureaucrats are after my ass screaming “unique content, unique content”. I guess that if I’ll refer you to the gambling guidelines , at the end of the third paragraph, where it says that the content should be useful to the end user you’ll refer me back to where its say “content of its own” (ignoring its says high quality content). Well then, I hardly find the content of Bingo Lovers neither useful nor high quality. And if copied from books (“The wired and wonderful world of bingo”) make it unique because you can’t copy a sentence and search for it in Google. Then I guess that if I’ll replace every second word in the dot-bingo with synonym will make it unique as well as Bingo Lovers site. And the stuff that is not copied from the book is less merit to bingo then those posts that I have written in this thread alone (which I always can add to dot-bingo with specific button says “Bingo unique content for ODP editors”).
Search for unique text in site with related keywords to category is not something human editors should do. Machines doing it faster (I’ve just made slogan for Google).
This is the only reason why song about dog name Bingo could be refer as merit content for Games/Gambling/Bingo category.
The only way human can make it better is by seeing things in away machine can’t like concept of site which I’m positively sure there is no other site like dot-bingo in the bingo category yet...
It’s a human nature to make mistakes. It’s divine to admit making them.
I am not going to add those posts or any of dozens of e-mail I’ve written regarding bingo to my site just to have unique text and I’m not going to remove the news section or any other section that is helping my users just to be included in dmoz directory.
I still would like to know what’s happening with my abuse report. And how come some guidelines can be bended for several sites belong to same manufacture and stick hard for a competitor one. I do see that some of the sites I’ve pointed where removed.
To apply for the Bingo ODP editor position is not highly realistic for me right now:
A. There is this Kosmo guy (which I’m not sure what’s make him the right one for the job)
B. It’s obviously I’m not qualified for the category because the best site I could think to suggest for this category is not qualify in a way like that even an editor which admit has no understanding in bingo could disqualify.
C. I hate to be in double standards situation when I’ll have to approve competitor’s sites.
So thanks but no thanks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Apologies for been sarcastic it’s happen to me sometimes when my hart feel pain.
M.
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.