struggle – perseverance - success

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

dajeffster: thanks for your reply - its nice to see that there are in fact editors who take the time to provide helpful input. I agree with your comments - I dont think a ratio can successfully be enforced.

As I have already noted I don’t think it should be left up to the subjectivity of the editors. There needs to be a concise set of standards, which the editors should adhere to. Id be interested in any help that you could provide me with getting listed.

lissa: [edited to remove confidential information - apeuro]

As for unique content – my site offers plenty – my site may have received unjust criticism in that respect which has more or less crippled my efforts. I totally agree with your comments – and I thank you for offering useful advice – I would like you to visit my site and see for yourself how easy the content is to find. I’ve been doing web design for several years and I understand how important navigation is.

Thehelper: Thanks – I look forward to a solution to the problems soon.

Best regards,
Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

[edited to remove confidential information quoted from post above - apeuro]

This would be a misunderstanding.

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

I guess he couldnt of deleted my site from the directories/ category on the 17th of April and left a note?

Sorry I was mistaken.

[edited to remove confidential information: apeuro]

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

There is no thing as a "senior meta editors" there are only "meta editors." I would also like to warn non-editors that it's very dangerous to rely on editor notes leaked to you. It's quite easy to misinterpret them based on snippets, or even in some cases without being able to view the notes of different sites referenced in the editor notes.

There is a reason editor notes are restricted to the non-editing public. If you chose to ignore those reasons, then be forwarned that the conclusions you chose to draw from leaked editor notes could greatly hinder your ability to get listed.

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

When I use the term “senior meta” ... I am referring to an editor whom has been around for some time - thus senior meaning seniority or someone who may be considered more knowledgeable on the guidelines and in the categories they manage. Along with this seniority I assume would come more leniency, control, and trust when controlling categories.

Thanks for the comments - I have not drawn any conclusions yet.

Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

Ok, I think I understand what the problem is exactly! You took a very bad example to compare with! Games/Gambling/Directories is probably one of the worst category in the gambling tree. I'm fully aware of this and the clean-up of this category is on my "to-do" list since a long time already, but I was too busy recently to start reviewing those sites. I believe you though that most sites in there contain lot of affiliate links but I can guarantee that these sites will be deleted sooner or later.

Your site has been reviewed many times by many different editors. I even posted a message on our internal forums asking for more opinions on this site and we finally decided to take it off. Now, as someone suggested in this thread, your best move now would be to delete some affiliate links and/or modify your site so that making people clicking on those links doesn't appear to be the main goal of the site.

Hope this helps

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

When I use the term “senior meta” ...

Brian, there are meta editors, and non-meta editors. By default all meta editors are "senior editors," but among metas themselves there is no conception of seniority.

Along with this seniority I assume would come more leniency, control, and trust when controlling categories . . .

Senior editors are usually less leniant than new editors. This usually comes from their experience in sniffing out affiliate content, mirrors, redirects, etc, which new editors often overlook. BTW: No editor "controls" a category. We strongly discourage editors from thinking of their categories in possessive terms.

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

Arkoid wrote: “Games/Gambling/Directories is probably one of the worst category in the gambling tree.”

Well Games/Gambling/Guides deserves equal attention in my opinion – its not much better. The parent category also has questionable sites – though you have removed a few of the sites I suggested were questionable – you chose to leave others.

Arkoid wrote: “Your site has been reviewed many times by many different editors.”

This is correct and on more than one occasion an editor has approved it. [Edited to remove confidential information - apeuro]

Arkoid wrote: “your best move now would be to delete some affiliate links”

I have began removing some of these links – I think when a user visits my site they are not overwhelmed with the affiliate links staring them in the face. Unlike a few of the sites I pointed out in the parent category that you chose not to delete.

Apeuro wrote: “Senior editors are usually less leniant than new editors.”

I was implying that staff and other metas would be more lenient and trusting of the actions of other metas. As a user of this forum that’s quite apparent and that loyalty is commendable.

If you have yet to visit my site – I ask that you all please take a moment to do so.

Best regards,
Brian

PS FTR its not my intent to see sites deleted from the directory – on the contrary Im interested in seeing the directory built not destructed.

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

>>I was implying that staff and other metas would be more lenient and trusting of the actions of other metas.

I think the idea got garbled in translation the first time around.

But what you say is true (well, sort of: I'd think of it the other way round.)

Staff (generally after listening to recommendations of metas) chooses metas that they trust. So the ones they choose are the ones they already trusted. (no surprise there)

With senior editors, a similar phenomenon occurs. They have done a lot of work....most of it obviously for the good of the directory (otherwise it would have been noticed long ago.) And so our presumption is in favor of trusting all of their work.

Still, every editor is responsible to staff. We all know that with an "anyone can be an editor" approach, the most obvious disadvantage is that any crook can be an editor, and the reputation of the directory depends on weeding out the, um, abusively self-interested ones. So specific, documented claims of editor abuse, even against senior editors or metas, have to be taken seriously. Hence the current development work on an "abuse reporting procedure."

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

excellent observations and equally impressive interpretation.

Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance !! success ?

Just one more thing I'll like to add. I think people don't understand that it's not only the number of affiliate links that is important but also WHERE they appear on the site! A site with 20 affiliate links can be accepted and another one with 20 affiliate links can be rejected, so saying that a site should be deleted because it contains X number of affiliate links is simply not a valid reason.

On some sites, these links are organized in a way that the content is sometimes hard to find! On the other hand, on some sites, the content is very easy to find and the affiliate links are very dispersed throughout the site. Such sites have greater chance of being accepted in the directory. Obviously, not every people will agree on whether a site with affiliate links should be listed or not and this is why we keep seeing thread like this one in public forums! /images/icons/wink.gif


Hope that clears things up a bit

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

Outstanding point arkoid – and a perfect explanation as to how subjectivity can be so widely varied from one editor to the next. I thank you for taking the time to make those comments as I believe every remark you just made supports my claim that my site is worthy of being indexed.

Ardoid Wrote: “On some sites, these links are organized in a way that the content is sometimes hard to find! On the other hand, on some sites, the content is very easy to find and the affiliate links are very dispersed throughout the site.”

My site incorporates affiliate links and affiliate related advertisements in a very unobtrusive manner. When a user visits my site they are not overwhelmed with 20 + banners saying click me - click me … The focus on the site and its “clean layout” is “community” and the content is presented as such.

Again – I thank you arkoid as I strongly believe that you have helped support my case that my site should be indexed. * If anyone hasn’t reviewed my site I urge you to do so and if you have any questions/comments please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,
Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

<Again – I thank you arkoid as I strongly believe that you have helped support my case that my site should be indexed.>

I'm sorry if I don't share the same feeling. /images/icons/wink.gif

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

You don’t agree with your own statements – or your own editing practices? With all due respect that’s both amusing and predictable.

If anyone actually takes the time to review this issue in detail and consider each and every piece of evidence I believe the conclusion will be obvious.

The url is above – click it – I believe its one of the cleanest gaming portals around. Check a few of the sites listed in the categories I have previously presented. Review the editing logs they speak for themselves. Consider the comments and suggested editing guidelines put forth by the categories top-level editors.

I refuse to give up on getting listed – I will remain adamant - I strongly feel as if my site should be included. Furthermore I believe the review and verification of the above resources will fully support this claim.

les meilleurs souvenirs
Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

The main content area of the site is for content not for affiliate links - imho. You have bar console content and the main presentation is affiliates. Try putting your affiliate links in the console style or reduce the presence of them on the page and put the content in the main sections of the page and maybe you will have better luck.

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

thehelper gave you some good advices, I suggest you make the proposed changes and re-submit again. Arguing with editors here won't help you getting listed faster (In fact, you may shoot yourself in the foot if you're insulting editors trying to help you).

My 2 cents

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

Arkoid wrote: “Arguing with editors here won't help you getting listed faster (In fact, you may shoot yourself in the foot if you're insulting editors trying to help you”

Thats was a pleasant threat but yes – I am aware that my site has most likely received a ban – that doesn’t change the premise of my cause – and that’s to make the process of submitting to the gambling categories fair for every submitter.

It was never my intentions to start an argument – only to present my claim that my site was worthy. I will agree that my comments towards you [arkoid] have been on the argumentative side – and with good reason. Your conflicting comments and actions have me perplexed. You do one thing and say another.

[Edited to remove confidential information - apeuro]

You stated that it’s about site layout as much as it is the existence of content/affiliate links. Show me a site with a cleaner layout.

I greatly appreciate the bulk of the editor’s comments – most seem to be offering sincere assistance. Thats why I still have some hope - I thank them. Some are just looking to brush me aside in preparation of the next submission/deletion.

I don’t quite understand what your saying ‘thehelper’ … I don’t think the presence of the affiliate links on my site is overwhelming. I can show you 100 hundred sites or more – already in the directory with much more of an affiliate presence. But I thank you for your comments and use them when I am reviewing the sites in the directory.

I honestly don’t think I’m going to get an non-biased review of the site – I say this because I am fully aware of the other sites in the directory, the business in general, and my web site contents and layout.

I have came forth with my inquiry in an honest and straightforward way – I listed my site, my real name, even a picture, and complete profile - I have since removed much of this information after I began receiving unjust email! The fact remains I am not hiding anything here – I do not have an anonymous email account I don’t sign my post with a fictitious screen name - I’m an honest individual who strongly believes I have a good case for inclusion in the directory. I’m sorry I can not accept the fact that my site is excluded while other sites are included. The reasons set forth just don’t add up – there’s something else going on here.

I guess I will take a break from this forum and wait for the investigation to be completed. I hope that one is actually being conducted – but probably not. I will continue to gather my own data in an attempt to corroborate my assumptions about being excluded.

Have a great day,
Brian

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

Gypsy, since you persist in standing behind the "content" on your site, let's go page by page.

Casino Articles:

The first article, by Mark Pilarski, is ripped from Mark's Pilarski's official site. Same goes for the second article by Larry Edell, which was also ripped from Edell's site. So far no unique content.

Casino Reviews, Casino Ratings, Bonus Deals, Merchandise, Casino Books:

All affiliate content.

Sportsbook, Online Bingo, Lotto Picks:

Large portions of the content (even the reviews) are copied or mirrored elsewhere on the web. Even the section on Gambling Addiction is lifted verbatim from other sites - which is especially galling.

* Everything found in your Casino Tips section, is not anything that can't be found elsewhere on the web. The rules of blackjack, can't be exactly called "unique content"

Gaming Glossary and Jokes:

About 80 sites have the exact same glossary and jokes as you do. Again gets a 0 for "unique content."

Forums and Chat:

This would be unique content, if it actually contained some posts, or vistors to the chatroom. Considering that both are deserted, again, it doesn't help you any.

Quiz
Again, your quizzes are ripped from Mark Pilarski's Page.

Free Games

All of your Free Games are offered by Roman Palace Casino, which is already appropriately listed in the directory.

******

In short you offer NO unique content. None whatsoever. Your site consists of useless affiliate junk, and content that is listed in tens, if not hundreds, of other sites on the web. I would also add, as a warning, that sites that infringe on intellectual property rights, are not to be listed as per the Editor Guidelines.

[Edited in order to clarify concluding statement - apeuro].

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

Pardon me a moment while I bow down in awe - that's a masterly site analysis. Orderly, logical, and irrefutable. And reasonably civil, considering some of the previous statements.

I hope other visitors with similar questions will study that post and learn from it.

Re: struggle - perseverance - success ?

I haven't checked apeuro's analysis, but somehow I find it plausible, at least.

This well illustrates the problems with affiliate sites. It is a major job to check for "unique content". Webmasters should understand that editors DON'T do this with every site. What would typically happen is that the content which is the "apparent primary focus" of the site is spot-checked. If that appears to be non-unique, the proper assumption will be that the whole site is, um, a work of compilation. And the whole site will get labelled "affiliate." Someone (editor or no) that doesn't know the typical sites in a category, or doesn't know how the affiliations and content-lifts are concealing themselves these days, or doesn't do the analysis, may be fooled into thinking the site has some merit. That is probably the intent in some cases. Sometimes we're fooled, just as sometimes Yahoo is fooled. (Looksmart, to their credit, can't be fooled--they list all the sites that are worth buying listings for.)

But no site is guaranteed a permanent listing. And I think, now that this discussion has done such a thorough job of exposing some of the seamier aspects of affiliate sites, we may do a better job spotting and weeding out more sites that "don't contribute to the sum of human knowledge."