Do you have any websites listed in DMOZ?

[arkyt]

What I should have said is "Does my website look like its objective is simply to generate affiliate revenue through the use of marketing hyperbole and marketing material rather than by providing solid original content that is a valuable information resource? Plenty of gaming websites have the former without the latter being present in any significant way.

Sorry, but I find myself laughing as well... A very large number of the sites currently listed in the 'gamed' gambling categories are nothing but affiliate link farms. And as pointed out by Gooner - it is in fact the case - editors do list their own sites, they even give themselves "multiple" listings.

What I can say is that I have seen no evidence of a "good old boys network" influencing listings based on my experience within dmoz. And I know that in the work I am doing, and in the work of other editors I personally know, there is a very strong desire to be as objective as possible in the editing that is done.

It appears that dozens of sites were just deleted from a few dmoz gambling cats ... so someone must have seen some sort of substantiation for that.

[MichaelCorfman]

Sorry, but I find myself laughing as well... A very large number of the sites currently listed in the 'gamed' gambling categories are nothing but affiliate link farms. And as pointed out by Gooner - it is in fact the case - editors do list their own sites, they even give themselves "multiple" listings.

It appears that dozens of sites were just deleted from a few dmoz gambling cats ... so someone must have seen some sort of substantiation for that.

I do think that sites are currently listed that should not be listed. And there are sites that are not listed that should be. And there are also folks that care about the gambling categories and specifically care about making sure that listings make sense. Personally, I believe they will make sense over time but not overnight. If you see that dozens of sites were deleted that could very well be part of efforts to clean up issues that are observed.

The comments I made were not about how a rogue editor might behave. They were about how a responsible editor would behave and the perspective an ethical editor will take when listing websites. And over time probably all of the gambling listings will be reviewed to insure that they should be listed, and as that is done sites that should not be listed will be removed.

And certainly if you see a case of multiple sites of a single owner (whether or not the sites are directly related to an editor) being listed where those sites do not meet the criteria, it is correct to report possible abuse using the standard reporting channels.

Multiple sites with the same owner (or for that matter even the listing of a single site), when the sites don't deserve to be listed according to the dmoz editing criteria is not consistent with the dmoz editing guidelines.

Michael

[TheGooner]

Thanks for the clarification Michael.
Insightful as always.

[Webzcas]

As an editor myself, who also edits in the gambling categories as well as other parts of the directory, I would like to make a few comments also, in addition to the good points raised by Michael. My editor profile is here: http://www.dmoz.org/profiles/webzcas.html

The gambling categories have in my experience, been left pretty much alone compared to other categories, due to the vast amount of spam submitted daily. Therefore to identify a gem of a site from the public suggestions, can take a considerable while, whilst you review countless sites which are nothing more than adcopy, hype, link farms to get to said gem of a site.

Sorry, but I find myself laughing as well... A very large number of the sites currently listed in the 'gamed' gambling categories are nothing but affiliate link farms. And as pointed out by Gooner - it is in fact the case - editors do list their own sites, they even give themselves "multiple" listings.

Should you feel a site, should not warrant inclusion and goes against the Gambling Guidelines, then please report here on the Resource Zone ( Link to main forum on my DMOZ Profile also )

Should you feel an editor is abusing their position, then please file an abuse report here ( Link currently down until 8th July due to work on the directory being carried out by AOL ). When filing an abuse report, please include as much substantive information as possible. Abuse reports, are given high priority by the senior editors and are dealt with quickly. Please also bear in mind, every action an editor makes in his role is logged.

Another point I would like to make, is that all editors have to disclose in full all their affiliations and associations. Any editor that does not, is going against the guidelines and could be removed as an editor. By affiliations, this means any site you own, or any site you have worked on, or owned in the past and subsequently sold on. If you moderate on a forum which you don't own, in my case Casinomeister.com, this also has to be disclosed.

Another misconception is about editors listing their own sites. I would like to point out, is that it is perfectly okay for an editor to list their own website, if it meets the category guidelines and DMOZ listing guidelines. Senior editors are aware of this and normally review such action.

When you are first accepted as a DMOZ Editor, it is usual that any and all edits you perform are reviewed by more senior editors.

Final point. No one site is guaranteed a listing for life. Sites get added and removed all the time. The purpose of the directory is to provide a quality resource to the end user.

If you want to improve the quality of the directory, then apply to become an editor. The application is not hard, although does take a bit of time and care to complete. When applying for a category, it is very important that you disclose any and all affiliations you have. Contrary to the myth on some forums, new editors are accepted on a daily basis.

[bb1web]

post removed by request

[universal4]

I just read somewhere that submissions are turned off right now in anticipation of DMOZ 2.0

If the playing field isn't gonna be more level, changing the software, or look and feel of the directory, or the api's (whatever is changing) it will not make much difference in the categories that have generally had more complaints of corruption and/or mismanagement over the years.

Rick
Universal4

[Simmo!]

One thing I would like to see in DMOZ 2 is a field where you can tell an editor just what it is about your site that makes it unique. Looking at logs in the past, its easy to see a DMOZ editor come to review your site, but frustrating when you see they have missed the USP you are angling at.

[pgaming]

Wow our site should make into dmoz without issue after reading the guidelines. I and others are slowly putting together Rogue Online Casinos dot com. Strictly a information site for non profit and very well written so far.

We are not using banners, links, or anything else we witness on the standard Gambling Affiliate site. Instead were relying on very well written original articles, illustrations, facts, and figures. If I may gloat the site is turning out to be much more than we expected.

And yes were in deliberations whether or not to include a few affiliate sites currently listed with dmoz. Or dmoz themselves for their failure to comply with their own guidelines. We have submitted numerous of complaints involving link farms, doorway pages, mirror sites etc... In fact a few private GPWA members currently listed with dmoz are running spam techniques. All our concerns have went unanswered after submitting our complaints to dmoz roughly about three months ago.

We also filed complaints with eCOGRA Reputable Portal around the same time. ECOGRA has yet to respond. Currently we are lodging numerous complaints against Wagershare for deliberately sending out mass spam email for the fourth time.

But rather provide facts and figures here we will state in bold terms on Rogue Online Casinos dot com.

Back to DMOZ the rotten apples never fall far from the tree IMO. DMOZ is one big fat tree in dire need of some pruning version 1 or 2.

JMO

greek39

[FictionNet]

Heh - I can't believe people are still bothering with dmoz all these years later. It's corrupt - all the way to the top - and always has been. The very top core of dmoz are lying, corrupt assholes and right now I wouldn't want my sites listed anywhere on their craphole directory.

If that sounds harsh or rude - tough. Dmoz is a pathetic joke and you'll save yourself time and effort if you just ignore it and let it fade away...

[pauljones]

good info webcaz, thx for posting.