Guest Posted September 12, 2002 Posted September 12, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 12, 2002 Posted September 12, 2002 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.
thehelper Posted September 12, 2002 Posted September 12, 2002 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="" />
Meta hutcheson Posted September 12, 2002 Meta Posted September 12, 2002 >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.]
giz Posted September 12, 2002 Posted September 12, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 13, 2002 Posted September 13, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 13, 2002 Posted September 13, 2002 Yes, I thought about that. Point taken... Now, how can I, or others, help to get the category cleaned up?
Guest Posted September 13, 2002 Posted September 13, 2002 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="" />
Meta mngolden Posted September 14, 2002 Meta Posted September 14, 2002 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="" />
Guest Posted September 14, 2002 Posted September 14, 2002 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!
Guest Posted September 14, 2002 Posted September 14, 2002 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="" />
Guest Posted September 15, 2002 Posted September 15, 2002 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 – 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 > 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 > http://www.casinocity.com/krigman/ http://www.acesguidetogambling.com/roulette/zeros.html About The Author Michael Shackleford FOUND HERE > 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 <--- 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&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’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’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!
old_crone Posted September 15, 2002 Posted September 15, 2002 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="" />
Guest Posted September 16, 2002 Posted September 16, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 16, 2002 Posted September 16, 2002 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="" />
Guest Posted September 23, 2002 Posted September 23, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 23, 2002 Posted September 23, 2002 I believe there are numerous sites not currently in the directory that are very deserving of a listing 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. False. You may also wish to consider me being banned for presenting undeniable proof as to what some of these editors are up to. 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.
Guest Posted September 23, 2002 Posted September 23, 2002 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.
Guest Posted September 25, 2002 Posted September 25, 2002 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.
Guest Posted October 6, 2002 Posted October 6, 2002 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).
Guest Posted October 17, 2002 Posted October 17, 2002 A new thread has been started in the General ODP forum as per Furiosity's suggestion. Gambling Category Site summaries
Guest Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 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.
uzs980 Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 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="" />
Guest Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 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="" />
Recommended Posts