Dmoz Fraud and Gaming The System

[GamTrak]

Interesting thread. I'm going to see if I can get my site listed to see what all the fuss is about since I plan on getting back to work soon.

Is there anything special required to get listed? Sorry to not do my own research, but time is short so any helpful tips would be appreciated.

[Former Member 14]

yep I got it...and the answer is NO...but your email is not working!

[belgamo]

I too am under the impression it is the same old "who you know" that gets you a listing in the gambling sections. I have tried for quite some time to get my www.nodepositforum.com listed in the forum guide to no avail. We offer just as much as the others, have a large member base, help players with problem and even have a unique live chat feature built in that is on the site page at all times, so long as a member is logged in, no clicking any button to get to chat. I will add we are well aged, never have black hatted and have good serps.

IMHO the listing process in the gambling sections will always be controversial as we are all competitors and its a good way for editors to keep the competition a step behind. I see valid points from both parties in this thread, but again its still the old who you know that will get you newly listed.

[Former Member 14]

I too am under the impression it is the same old "who you know" that gets you a listing in the gambling sections. I have tried for quite some time to get my www.nodepositforum.com listed in the forum guide to no avail. We offer just as much as the others, have a large member base, help players with problem and even have a unique live chat feature built in that is on the site page at all times, so long as a member is logged in, no clicking any button to get to chat. I will add we are well aged, never have black hatted and have good serps.

This guys forum stats:
Registered Members: 5,597 Topics: 9,984 Total Posts: 73,567

Probably a few too many banners (dmoz don't like too many aff links per page) however if every site is truly reviewed on the quality and benefits which webzcas claims, casinos-online.co.uk has 17 affiliate promotional links on the home page - that throws the aff link rule into disarray and makes it a moot point.

Belgamo is not the only webmaster to encounter this issue as he's described above. Numerous gambling webmasters have sites just as good if not better but just can't get listed. Whilst the editor of these gambling categories, not only lists his previous site in two categories but drops them and replaces them with casinos-online.co.uk a site that has 17 affiliate gambling links on its home page...But that's ok - that's a quality site!...

Yeah right webzcas your not using your position to game the dmoz system


Cheers



Dave

[ck8795]

Interesting thread. I'm going to see if I can get my site listed to see what all the fuss is about since I plan on getting back to work soon.

Is there anything special required to get listed? Sorry to not do my own research, but time is short so any helpful tips would be appreciated.

Hi Robin

There are lots of posts in the forum. I think it was last month's dmoz thread where I linked Michael's reply to requirements. (A good read btw)

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-ha...tml#post602203

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/dmoz-187571/p2.html
https://www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-ha...tml#post598435
https://www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-ha...tml#post602163
https://www.gpwa.org/forum/do-you-ha...tml#post602203

Although I think people are ignoring these posts. I have had two sites listed in dmoz, blackjack and slots. The one has since been removed, but it did NOT have any negative impact on rankings and I don't know the editors of either category. I applied and waited just like everyone else (in fact took over 6 months for the one listing). If you follow the guidelines, as pointed out in the above posts, it is possible. If you think there is abuse in a category, report it using the link Web has provided many many times in multiple threads. Or you can volunteer your time and become an editor of a cat.

[MichaelCorfman]

I too am under the impression it is the same old "who you know" that gets you a listing in the gambling sections. I have tried for quite some time to get my www.nodepositforum.com listed in the forum guide to no avail.

I decided to do some research from an editor perspective to see if I could provide you with any feedback about why your site might not have been included in the directory based on the guidelines that editors use when adding sites. There are 23 sites listed in that category and I took a look at all of them and also at your site. I am excluding one of the sites from the analysis below because, while the site in general was working, the forum home page listed in the dmoz directory was experiencing a database error at the moment. Following find my analysis of the 22 sites I did examine in terms of the number of banners they each have on the forum home page linked to from www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums.

2 forum home pages had no banners
10 forum home pages had one banner
4 forum home pages had two banners
2 forum home pages had four banners
2 forum home pages had five banners
1 forum home page had nine banners (none at the top of the page, two in the left column the rest each in conjunction with written reviews)
1 forum home page had eleven banners (all 125 x 125 banners in the right-hand column)

By way of contrast, your forum home page had 21 banners when I first looked at it (although that number was reduced to 15 when I looked at it again later).

Now, in that context, let me provide my perspective about how the overall editoral community (and in particular many of the more senior editors) look at the dmoz directory and their goals for the directory. In general, they want the directory to include what they consider to be high-quality resources representing content they view as valuable. And they want the impression of folks who use the directory to view that is the case.

Most senior editors have had to wade through tons of sites masking as information sites that are just affiliate sites replicating other sites with little additional information to offer. That happens a lot in many categories when affiliates are involved. Hotels, vacation spots, and real estate are good examples. And the same thing is true of gambling. So, in my opinion, many senior editors end up in a place where there is a natural bias against affiliate sites with a lot of banners because they "know" that most such sites just are not worth including in the dmoz directory in the first place. And the more advertising dominates a site the more likely the site is to be rejected out of hand. And even if a site is accepted by one editor, if the advertising appears to dominate the site, there is some liklihood that the site will be removed by one of the hundreds of other senior editors who is intent on ensuring other editors do not add sites they feel are inappropriate to the directory. Such editors refer to affiliate content that they view does not provide quality content as "affiliate junk".

Now, I'm not an editor at the moment in any categories where gambling affiliate sites are listed, so these are observations from a distance in my case. But I have seen sites that are clearly quality sites removed from the directory where the only way to get them included again was to have a discussion in the editor forums about why the site was a quality website that should be in the directory. There have been a number of such successful discussions. But I can say that my view of the dynamics of those discussions is that I would not want to be leading one where a site had more than a minimal amount of banner advertising involved both because of the effort involved and because I would view it as most likely that my effort would fail.

Based on all of those factors I would say that if I were editing the gambling chats and forum category I would be reluctant to add a new site with the volume of banner advertisements as yours, but would not hesitate all all to add the site if the volume of banners were substantially reduced. And if I were in your shoes I would not make such a change simply to increase my chances of being included in the dmoz directory. But I probably would make such a change because I personally don't feel that in today's world that many banners are effective at conversion anymore. Not that I'd just rip them out - because I wouldn't. I'd just try to figure out a more editorially oriented promotion strategy.

Michael

[Former Member 14]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your informative review and appraisal, I'm sure that's clarified this listing issues for belgamo. It didn't address the main issue of belgamo's post though, it didn't address my concerns as to why casino-online.co.uk gets a listing.

casinos-online.co.uk has 17 affiliate links (including an assortment of casino banners) on its HOME page but according to webzcas is a quality site which deserves and warrants its dmoz category listing.

Unless you approved the listing, I think it's best to let webzcas answer this one...

Whilst on the topic of listings...

Webzcas
It's my understanding, when one is accepted as a dmoz editor - or is that on the submission application, either way, one submits a site recommendation for listing.

Edit:
I'm very interested in knowing what was the site you recommended? Did it get listed? Was it rejected? Was there any issues relating to your recommendation?

Also what were the first three (3) sites you approved for the dmoz categories when you became an editor?

And did any of these three (3) sites get rejected? Were there any issues relating to these first three (3) listing recommendations?


Cheers



Dave

[belgamo]

Thanks for the insight on banners being an issue Micheal, I have reduced the number and actually like the look better, cleaner.

[arkyt]

Thanks for your informative review and appraisal

Seems Michaels argument was that a major factor in assessing submitted sites is the amount of affiliate advertising contained on the site. According to dmoz. that actually should be an editorial consideration for listing "affiliate sites" in dmoz - course a good deal of the sites listed in dmoz gambling categories wouldnt be listed if they were actually held to those guidelines.

casinos-online.co.uk has 17 affiliate links (including an assortment of casino banners) on its HOME page ...

Using the same standards as Michael used to access belgamo's website - the casinos-online.co.uk is not worthy of an inclusion in the directory.

"In general, they want the directory to include what they consider to be high-quality resources representing content they view as valuable"

Gambling/Consultants/Online/Affiliate_Opportunities/

Not sure who would think that Casinomeister actually is deserving of a third dmoz listing, to a broken out portion of its forum which already has a dmoz listing. Certainly, multiple listings to one site are acceptable, but only under certain situations - when they truly warrant the listing.

Further I seen xxx.affiliateforumalliance.com had a listing in this category - does that listing truly offer a high-quality resource to end users?

I can see additional there are still additional categories in need of an audit.

[Former Member 14]

According to dmoz. that actually should be an editorial consideration for listing "affiliate sites" in dmoz

Very informative dmoz link to their AUP on affiliate sites.

Whilst on that page I saw the following Conflict of Interest link - ironically it addresses the issues and catalyst of this thread.


Cheers



Dave

[Dominique]

Interesting. It says there:

Everyone is welcome to apply to join the ODP, including those who own, maintain and promote websites. Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated.

BTW, this thread is the reason I would never volunteer at DMOZ, just like I would never run for political office.

There will always be people who question every step you make. After spending all that time volunteering, one now has to spend all kinds of time dealing with questions about it.

That's just simply too demanding on time and energy.

I wish some of the people who really question DMOZ would just volunteer there and set it right.

[MichaelCorfman]

Seems Michaels argument was that a major factor in assessing submitted sites is the amount of affiliate advertising contained on the site. According to dmoz. that actually should be an editorial consideration for listing "affiliate sites" in dmoz - course a good deal of the sites listed in dmoz gambling categories wouldnt be listed if they were actually held to those guidelines.

Actually, if you read those guidelines carefully you will see that they do not say affiliate sites should not be listed. What they do say is that affiliate links should not be included in the dmoz directory. For example, if someone submitted a link to an online gambling site that included their affiliate code in it as a proposed dmoz listing it should not be included in the directory (in that case a link to the site without the affiliate code included could be included in the dmoz directory). However, having a link in the dmoz directory to a site that contains affiliate links is acceptable. The page you point to explicitly says that is allowed.

Using the same standards as Michael used to access belgamo's website - the casinos-online.co.uk is not worthy of an inclusion in the directory.

That is a factually incorrect statement. The casinos-online.co.uk site has two banners on the home page versus the 21 banners that I observed on the home page of belgamo's website when I wrote my analysis above. The number of affiliate links is not relevant to the analysis I did nor are the number of logos. In my opinion as an editor the presence of those affiliate links and the presence of logos is not a factor that would be important to me in making a listing decision. Please note that I have not taken a position on the relative listability of either site based on the contents of the sites themselves. I have not, at this time, looked at either site in enough detail (I've only looked at their home pages) to form an opinion on that front.

Gambling/Consultants/Online/Affiliate_Opportunities/

Not sure who would think that Casinomeister actually is deserving of a third dmoz listing, to a broken out portion of its forum which already has a dmoz listing. Certainly, multiple listings to one site are acceptable, but only under certain situations - when they truly warrant the listing.

Further I seen xxx.affiliateforumalliance.com had a listing in this category - does that listing truly offer a high-quality resource to end users?

Here we are getting into more subjective questions. What I can tell you is that the criteria for listings in categories that are not prone to having tons of affiliate sites are not as strong as the criteria for listings in area that are prone to lots of affiliate competition. So, in the subject category I tend to be pretty free about being able to list most relevant sites.

In my opinion, the casinomeister forum section for affiliates is a significant resource in that area so in my view a listing in that category is warranted. As a practical matter, from a business perspective, It is reasonable for me to have the view that it is a competitor to the GPWA, and that my making a decision to list that forum section for affiliates I was taking an action to benefit a competitive site.

Not that I think that way - I don't. I think that over the long term being fair in dealings, whether it be in my business endeavors or in my volunteer activities such as being an editor at dmoz, is the right approach that works for me.

In terms of the affiliate forum alliance website, yes, as an editor that site was added by me and I will stand by that decision as being the correct one. I agree it is not the most important website in the group, but it is, in my opinion, relevant to the contents of the section in which it is listed. And, in accordance with dmoz guidelines, it has been listed in the database of my affiliations, so its listing is completely above board in terms of the way dmoz operates. Additionally, I firmly believe I would have listed it if anyone else had submitted it for consideration as well.

Michael

[Former Member 14]

In my opinion, the casinomeister forum section for affiliates is a significant resource in that area so in my view a listing in that category is warranted

Which hat are you wearing whilst forming that opinion - that of a dmoz editor; a link partner of casinomeister.com; a mate of CM; or merely from a purely subjective stand point?

A significant resource you say.

xxxhttp://www.casinomeister.com/forums/webmasters-corner/

xxxhttp://www.casinomeister.com/forums/seo/ out of 29 new threads on the first (1'st) page of this forum (from 12'th Jan 2011 to 10th September 2009).

The only significant factor here is the % of zero, zip, no involvement and no posts in threads.

Apart from a few forums which alert gambling webmasters to dodgy people, places and things in the industry, a few SEO tips and not much else, I honestly can not see nor understand why, as a dmoz editor, you've included CasinoMeister in your directory as well.

Over and above this, I dare say the majority of threads are not really unique or are merely re-spun content (sorry that's called mirrored by dmoz isn't it) originally posted to other gambling affiliate forums which REALLY do deserve your label significant resource!

IMHO the GPWA and AGD is worthy of this title. Where as the CM webmasters corner is not even in the ball park.

Edit: So this bring us to yet another quandary, which frankly IMHO seems all to familiar.

Here we have yet another listing, in yet another dmoz category, being added because it's said to be a " significant resource". webzcas also considers his site xxxhttp://www.casinos-online.co.uk/ as a quality resource too. Even though the home page has a combined total of 17 affiliate banners and links.

Whereas Michael implied the reason belgamo is unable to get his site listed is because of too many affiliate banners...

I do not have a problem with any editor listing their site if they are indeed a quality resource. However, what have a HUGE problem with, sites being listed because they are in an alliance with the dmoz editor. Webmasters who are not in this alliance gets harshly discriminated against and therefore rejected.

If anyone thinks that's OK - your ethics and integrity needs an overhaul.



Cheers



Dave

[arkyt]

After a consult, I am going to excuse myself from this thread at this time.

Which hat are you wearing whilst forming that opinion - that of a dmoz editor; a link partner of casinomeister.com; a mate of CM; or merely from a purely subjective stand point?

AussieDave, please contact me - the end is near.

[GCG]

There have been additions made in xxhttp://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Guides/ today or yesterday ..........

What I Find quite disturbing that a new site that has been added which has only 41 pages in google when you do site : (it has not an "age" you will find the site soon enough

I think this has NOTHING to do with quality. If it takes so long to list a good site just give a monkey some cards to pick one with dull colors and boring stuff on it and you get the same result.

I had not taken sides but this is just poor judgement and even very OBVIOUS that this site probably will not be a problem regarding competition.

Anyone can build such a site in a few days...............

[MichaelCorfman]

Which hat are you wearing whilst forming that opinion - that of a dmoz editor; a link partner of casinomeister.com; a mate of CM; or merely from a purely subjective stand point?

You forgot to add in the "hat" of the GPWA and Casinomeister.com being competitive resources for affiliates, because that is mixed in there somewhere too as I stated before.

Now it is true that online.casinocity.com and www.casinomeister.com do have a home-page link exchange with one another that was put in place many years ago.

But, on the casinomeister/GPWA front, there has never been any sort of link exchange, and, in fact, casinomeister has stated when I asked several years ago that he has no specific interest in participating in the gpwa or exchaning links or any other such activity on that front. So, on that basis, there was a part of me that had no interest in adding a link to the affiliate portion of the casinomeister website.

It was only in stepping back, and in trying to be objective about what links I felt were appropriate, that I made a decision to add a link to the affiliate section of the site. In my opinion, I only did it in an effort to be objective and inclusive.

I would also point out that I believe I use the word "important" in a different sense than you do. I don't use it in the sense of being "most important" but rather in the sense of having a resource available in the subject area that I personally believe is worth sharing with others.

I do not have a problem with any editor listing their site if they are indeed a quality resource. However, what have a HUGE problem with, sites being listed because they are in an alliance with the dmoz editor. Webmasters who are not in this alliance gets harshly discriminated against and therefore rejected.

I can only speak for myself here, and in that context I can definitively state that I have not discriminated against or rejected sites as you suggest. I encourage anyone who cares about the integrity of dmoz to join and become an editor. As an editor you can examine the editing history of any other editor and file a complaint against any editor based on their history if you believe their editing history shows improper behavior. My editing record is an open book to any other editor and all of my website affiliations are declared in detail in the affiliations database as they should be.

Michael

[JasonD]

This is a very very important discussion and topic that none of you have done justice to. You should all set aside 3 hours per day for the next week and ensure that you keep going round in circles (or wheels if you prefer) in ensuring that you get to the bottom of this mass injustice.

The following week you should all set aside 4 hours per day to argue the point from the opposing angle.

In the meantime, while your sites stagnant and wither I'll take all your rankings and laugh all the way to the bank.

People generally whinge or win. Rarely do they do both!

[Former Member 14]

My editing record is an open book to any other editor and all of my website affiliations are declared in detail in the affiliations database as they should be.

The days of unethical manipulation of dmoz - editors listing their own sites and their buddies whilst keeping other out, must come to an end.

If you, webzcas or any other editor within the gambling categories has not been doing this, you've got nothing to worry about, hey!


---------

arkyt, got it...


Cheers



Dave

[GCG]

I can not get the text more bold than I have put above.

There have been4-5 new sites listed with poor quality today or yesterday. The online casino age one really puzzles me.

If you can bang out 4-5 listings in a day why must it take years to add just 1 ?

The COI for DMOZ / gambling is written all over it.

This needs to stop really.

I also see only 5 sites in xxhttp://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Slots/

I applied for that cat with the site slots on (1200 + pages in the sitemap) but I saw just after I applied there is no editor for that cat...........what can one do just sit and wait for years to come (I have not sent another request like I was told to) ?

[Former Member 14]

I also see only 5 sites in xxhttp://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Slots/

I applied for that cat with the site slots on (1200 + pages in the sitemap) but I saw just after I applied there is no editor for that cat...........what can one do just sit and wait for years to come

Actually the category editor of xxxhttp://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/ (please dmoz editors correct me if I'm wrong) can review and add sites to any sub category under his or her category.

Taking a look at the site it's "a significant resource", I'm surprise this site is not listed. It certainly kicks butt and is in my non judgemental opinion far better than the majority of sites listed in the gambling categories.



Cheers



Dave