Gambling Category changes - unresponsive

[Guest]

It has been over a month since I contacted you last, asking what could be done to improve my site so that it can be properly considered for the Gambling Category at DMOZ. I also pointed out to you at least two sites which are essentially shills for their own casinos, and even run popups off of their sites.

 

In about 14 days, I will be speaking at the Casino Affiliate Conference ( http://www.casinoaffiliateconference.com ) at which I am supposed to be speaking about Asia - but likely will change topics to speak about the do's, dont's, and other peculiarities of search engines, pay-per-click and directories such as DMOZ.

 

As it stands right now, the only possible opinion I can form of the DMOZ Gambling category editors is that there is a distinct bias towards either favored sites, or against non-favored sites. While I recognize a couple of members in the category which are clearly deserving, it is also clear to me that more than half of what is there clearly does not belong, and despite genuine efforts to discover why they are there when other worthy sites are not, I am unable to come up with an answer since I do not have any replies.

 

What is most peculiar is that my writings, which appear on my site, are also featured in two of the sites in your category - Winner Online and Gambling Times. Indeed, I am the Online Casino columnist for Gambling Times.

 

It has been suggested by Ettore (thanks again) that my site has too many ads, or affiliate links, or whatever. Let me point out that each of the sites in your list either have as much as or more advertising, or are in fact operated by casino manufacturers themselves for the sole purpose of promoting their licensees.

 

I am unsure what to do next - obviously open this thread to see what happens, but I had not done this earlier because I believe a private answer would have been sufficient. From a personal standpoint, I am willing and able to do whatever it takes to meet your standards - if only you would let me know what they are. And this message I can also carry to the delegates at the Casino Affiliate Conference, instead of telling them that my experience with DMOZ is that this particular category appears to be unfairly biased after a number of attempts in past months to establish a line of communication with category editors.

 

That, unfortunately, gets you lumped in with Kanoodle LOL.. where PPC for the category is useless and almost exclusively clicked on by people in China... yeah right...

 

[Edited to make URL clickable]

[windharp]

From your post it reads, like you do not understand what we talk about, when we mention "affiliate" sites. Its not about having ads or something. I think that you should know that, when you are in the business.

 

Lets keep it simple and see what I am doing to check a site for listability:

 

1) What is the main content of the site. (If there is none visible, the site is deleted for "no content") --> In the case of an online gambling site this is the possibility of "online gambling", right? So I examine this further

 

2) Is the content I identified in chapter 1) good for my category? If not the site will be moved on to the apropriate place. (This is unrelated to your question, just added for completeness)

 

3) Is the content I identified in chapter 1) unique to the site? If it is not I try to identify where it is from and list that site and only that site. I differ between 2 types of sites that fall out in this test: "mirrors" which are more or less the same, mostly owned by the same company or "affiliates" which act like a doorway, sending users to somewhere else, where they would have been able to walk to on several other paths.

 

I can guess what your next post is, so please let me answer it in advance:

 

> but there are [n] affiliate sites already listed in DMOZ

 

I don't know if you have realized, but DMOZ is based upon volunteer work only. Most of us are having lots of fun editing thematic (non-commercial) categories. Some of us are doing the hard work of sorting spam and affiliates in categories like "online gambling". We try to do our best to a) filter out anything that sghould not be listed and b) keep abusive editors out. If you spot abuse, please contace one of the Meta-Editors (marked as "Meta" in this forum) and they will have a look into it. They are quite busy, so it can take some time. After all they are volunteers, too.

 

I don't know what you do in your spare time, I know some people who like to edit DMOZ all of the time they can afford.

 

[EDIT]

 

A thought I (for myself as a person, not talking for ODP in any way) had right after posting this message:

If you read DMOZ listing guidelines, you may have noticed, that we do not guarantee anyone a listing. I just thought that it might be very relaxing for us editors to follow this rule and generate an addon to our guidelines that states "We do not list online gambling sites". I for myself wouldn't miss anything. And I wouldn't miss people trying to argue for listing ther affiliate site... <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Oh, I know quite well what affiliate sites are. After all, that's what I'm supposed to be talking about at the conference.

 

1. Main Content - news, articles, reviews, much of it unique, some syndication.

 

2. I would presume that good, unique content qualifies in this instance.

 

3. See above.

 

And my next post is - you're wrong LOL. There are eight total in the category. One is a banner swap site - hardly qualifies for this category. One is a well-known site which has plenty of unique content. One is a magazine which I read twenty years go and has just made a comeback, and I am indeed fortunate to have been asked to write for them. And one, with the best name in your list, happens to belong to one of the major casino manufacturers. The other four? They all promote casinos which are not even in the mainstream - 10 gets you 1 that they are backed by manufacturers or licensees - and all of them have far less content than the other sites, and many other sites which are not listed.

 

I research the industry for a living. The portal is just one of the things I do. And as for volunteering... LOL... every time I have tried to do so I get Internal Server Error - 500. Very foreboding LOL...

 

I am in full agreement with you editing out spam and banner farms and non-unique sites. However, there are no clearly-defined standards, for one - and if I thought everyone was being treated equally and my portal still not listed, I would not argue one bit.

 

As for my spare time - and my non-spare time, in fact almost every waking moment - I work hard to develop the portal, research the industry, prepare presentations for conferences, and provide advice to manufacturers, licensees, portal operators, and players. That also includes dispute resolution - and only the portal earns income, everything else is gratis at this time.

 

Now I really don't disagree with you when you say site listing is not guaranteed. But that does not prevent one from saying that there is a clear bias when deciding which sites should be included and which aren't.

 

Treat everyone fairly, and no one complains - even if NO online gambling sites are listed. That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

Sure, I would love a listing - but not because I whined and moaned and pressured people to do so - only because I deserve it, or at least deserve it as much as some of the other listed sites. And if you define standards clearly, it is not difficult at all to ensure that the site meets those standards. And also gives you category editors something to point to rather than just saying "appears to be an affiliate site, we didn't notice the unique content".

 

By the way, I have *one* site, with well-known, unique content. I don't make out like a bandit and do what many others do - create 100 mirror sites with small changes, though the way we get treated sometimes I must say I get very sorely tempted.

 

Example: I live in Thailand, and don't take part in the local custom of having a minor wife. But that doesn't stop my wife from challenging me every now and then... the last time she challenged me I said "The next time you ask, I am going to get a minor wife just so you can be right!"

 

Needless to say, that stopped her in her tracks. And that relates directly to the situation I just described above - if I work hard on providing content, and yet get treated or thought of as an affiliate site, wouldn't it be a lot easier for me to go create 100 mirrors instead?

[Guest dargo21]

"I am in full agreement with you editing out spam and banner farms and non-unique sites. However, there are no clearly-defined standards, for one - and if I thought everyone was being treated equally and my portal still not listed, I would not argue one bit."

 

If there is no editor watching the category, some sites will go bad and go unnoticed. Usually the higher up editors are busy with other things.

 

We use our free time for editing... some editors don't have a lot of free time.

 

And if you list 100 mirror sites, your site could be permanetly blocked. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Last time I looked, there WERE editors - and that was scarcely a month ago <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> And my point about the 100 mirrors I see you understood perfectly - so why should legitimate, honest, single sites get treated in the same manner?

 

Now that I see there are no editors again, maybe - perhaps - I should put an application in again, not because I want to see my site listed, but because I'd rather have a useful DMOZ than an old, disused one.

 

Alternatively, if some other editors wish to take over the category and need some advice, I would be perfectly happy to help them establish some clear standards.

[Guest]

Spearmaster - you might be interested in this thread from the Announcements forum. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Thank you. Would have been nice if someone had pointed this out to me a month ago.

 

Having read those guidelines, I form the opinion that my site meets all criteria, as it has in the past.

 

Specifically, the only two points that could possibly concern the site and the editors:

Do not list sites where advertising and affiliate links overpower actual content. These include sites where console(s) appear on top of the actual window for the site being reviewed. Make this determination on a per site basis rather than per page basis. Many sites have banner intensive splash pages and full-page ads, but the actual content pages include few banner ads and affiliate links. These may be OK to list.

We do not currently have a splash page - we did in the past but have not used one in the past 3-4 months and have no intention of doing so again. But even under this guideline there's no problem. And we have no pop-ups, full page ads, etc.

The link to a site's actual content should be easy to find on the site's main page, and appear obvious to the average, reasonable end-user. If you are having difficulty finding the content, then the average user will as well. So, there is no point listing the site.

Listed prominently on the front page, as well as each author immediately available from left navigation bar on every page. Certainly do not fall foul here either.

 

That leaves me only three possibilities:

1. The editors do not agree with me and think that the site is just one big advertisement - if so then please do me a favor and can the other sites in the category as well.

2. The editors are biased as to their selection of sites. Obviously unproven but given the next possibility, this looks to be the most likely.

3. The editors have no time to edit the sites. Having made a submission in the proper manner, discussed with other metas, meeting all conditions, and especially having been listed in the past - I find this one very, very difficult to swallow, and considering the sudden swoop of editors slashing and burning their way through a number of sites (most rightfully), it does not appear to me as if editors have NO time.

 

Take a look at these three possibilities and which one do you think the average person (let alone me) is going to believe?

[thehelper]

I think you and all the other Gambling webmasters that are having problems should apply to be editors. You know it is the OPEN Directory Project. Anyone is free to become an editor. We do our best to try and review the Gambling site (for free I might add) but most of us are not in the industry.

 

I have to add something here, Gambling is not a very popular category to edit in the Games branch. Most of the Games editors would rather edit somewhere else than in Gambling. The answer I think is for the Gambling industry to become involved. You guys know what the good and bad sites are - and it is alot easier for other higher level editors to keep an eye on you guys from the top rather than getting into the trenches and dealing with all the spam and affiliates as would have to be the case now if any of the hundreds of sites waiting to be reviewed are going to be processed. I would rather take care of WarCraft III or Browser Based Collections - to be completly honest - and that is pretty much what I have been doing. Gambling is about the last item on my list of things to do - but that is just me... or is it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Very true - but like I said above, I tried twice and got the dreaded Internal Server Error <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

 

I'm not entirely sure that Gambling even belongs in the Games branch - entertainment seems a lot more fitting. I can't equate roulette with WarCraft III LOL - actually, if I had any spare time I might be playing WarCraft.

 

And yes, I agree the higher-ups can easily see if we are not being fair in our assessments. But I also don't see the point of being the only editor for the category because, as in every case, there needs to be some balance. And then there's the flipside of the coin - because I *am* in the industry, there's always going to be someone who accuses me of bias LOL.

 

Frankly, I don't envy the job or the people who do it - but I should think it would be an easy matter to quickly investigate a complaint which can be substantiated, and then take action - rather than doing nothing or ignoring the problem for a month (like my toothache).

 

If I can find a few of you existing editors to lend a hand, even if just for a short while, then I would be more than willing to sign up for this task no one seems to want. Absolutely needs some assistance with experienced DMOZ editors who know the ropes, even if they don't know the industry.

[thehelper]

If you are accepted as an editor I will be more than happy to lend you a hand. I am "The Helper" you know - LOL!

[Guest]

What is your site? Where did you previously communicate about this issue?

[Guest]

I think my email address is in my profile, that should tell you what the site is. And previously I have sent you 2-3 emails over a 4-5 month period, without response. Which I was quite frankly disappointed by since you are one of the category metas.

 

[edit] My apologies, I thought email address was displayed by default. I try not to put the site or email in the post to avoid accusations of ulterior motives LOL.

 

Can either of you PM me, or shall I just post it once?

[thehelper]

I don't see your email address in your profile.

[Guest]

LOL...

 

Now if TheHand would offer a helper...

 

App is in. Let's see what happens...

[arkoid]

And then there's the flipside of the coin - because I *am* in the industry, there's always going to be someone who accuses me of bias LOL.

 

Oh don't worry about that. Even when you don't have any affiliations, there will always be someone to accuse you of bias! <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Er... no comment LOL.

 

I'll tell you what, though - I am a sure target. For you "outsiders", one can only make presumptions based on what they see in the listings.

 

For me, just the fact that my name is there could be enough LOL.

[hutcheson]

trust us on this one, spearmaster: editing in that category is more than all it will take to be accused of not only of bias but also of corruption, mopery, dopery, and a god-complex.

 

Life: Edit a little, whine a little, laugh at the other editors' whining a little. Repeat while conscious.

[Guest]

I'm having trouble connecting "spearmaster" with any of the emails I've received this year.

[Guest]

How do you like that.

 

Applied and REJECTED in two hours.

 

The only possible reason:

* Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is

interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's

motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed.

 

Now someone please tell me, what have we been talking about in this thread? I can get rejected in two hours but the category remains untouched for months?

 

I'm not worried about being rejected. If anyone would like to view the application I have copied the entire thing - full disclosure. And in this thread I have clearly stated that the object is not to get listed but to get fair treatment.

 

KC, my name is Ted Loh and I am the webmaster of Got2Bet.com. Spearmaster is the nickname by which I am known on every serious gambling board, and also the nom de plume I use in the articles. [edit] de for the - must've got distracted by the prospect of Rock facing off against Triple H <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> [/edit]

 

Now - the rejection letter was basically a form letter, which is not a problem. Either I am accused of having an agenda (to list my site), or for some reason I am not qualified to be an editor because titles and descriptions were promotional - well, if I copy the titles from the URLS, and then write concise summaries of each site in the format by which DMOZ editors commonly use (one sentence description) they certainly are not promotional (in my opinion).

 

Reviewer comments:

-Descriptions and titles are not respecting our guidelines.

-Sites submitted must not be already listed in the directory and have to comply to the guidelines.

 

1. Just as I pointed out.

2. 1 site was already listed but by definition really belongs in another category.

 

I am amazed that it was reviewed so quickly. It proves that DMOZ editors do have some time to take care of business.

 

I did, however, forget to list other credentials: business editor of an English-language daily in Thailand, and speaker on the conference circuit.

 

Ah well, such is life - I really would hope that someone would review the application again - or else convince someone else that the category does need cleaning up.

 

Hutcheson - you're totally right LOL. But an accusation against me would have to have a lot of substantiation simply because I am known.

[thehelper]

I am not a meta editor so I don't review new editor applications but the part of the form letter I would pay most attention to is the Reviewers Comments section.

 

-Descriptions and titles are not respecting our guidelines.

-Sites submitted must not be already listed in the directory and have to comply to the guidelines.

 

That means what it says. A new editors application needs to be according to the guidelines. Titles and descriptions have to be according to the guidelines.

 

If the application asks for sites that are not already listed in the directory than you are supposed to give sites that are not already listed. If you put a site that was already listed than you are not following the directions. I would like to see you get accepted as editor but I do not want to see the metas lower the acceptance standards for anyone.

 

When you are applying to edit in dmoz it is like applying for a job - you should treat the application like a job application. Good Luck!

[Guest]

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)

and

(A concise and objective overview of the site)

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.

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.

[arkoid]

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

 

"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

 

"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.

 

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

[thehelper]

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?

[Guest]

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...

[Guest]

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...