- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Definition for ya:
Pompous: having or exhibiting self-importance : ARROGANTI applied to Dmoz a long time ago, and promtly forgot about it.
Who me – worry?
Nah
Life’s too short, and Dmoz ain’t all that.“someone waste 100+ hours”
Why exagerate?
“To include one website?”
That’s exactly the attitude of a person who should not be an editor. The reason to apply is to make the Internet a better place for the topic you apply to. If you only care about your own site you should be rejected.
“No one I know has ever been approved.”
A couple dozen people a day are. Maybe you hang out with the wrong crowd.
“Dmoz has no special relationship with search engines.”
http://www.inktomi.com/products/web_search/oemsolutions.html
“Inktomi leverages the Open Directory Project (ODP) to further improve the user experience on distribution partner sites. ODP title, description and category meta data is used to enhance Inktomi’s relevant search results. ODP is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web with a global community of volunteer editors.”You couldn’t be more wrong. Fortunately having people who believe white is black is good for the rest of us.
Linking to the most relevant category page in dmoz (or the Google or Yahoo directories) is currently just about the best easy, simple seo tactic in terms of Google. This is because Google recognizes DMOZ as an authority. I personally couldn’t care less if it *IS* an authority, I only care that search engines consider it important.
Please save the sarcasm for someone who wants to fight on a message board.
If you don’t think it is valuable, fine. What are you getting all worked up over? Forget about it. Go to another thread.
An example of a site deserving its dmoz listing is this one. Others are Winner Online, GPWA, Casino City Press, BJmath.com, etc. etc.
“Not only did I get rejected within hours, I didn’t even receive the courtesy of a note advising me why.”
“That is a physical impossibility unless you are suggesting they called you on the telephone!”
No, it’s not a physical impossibility. There’s a section in the form rejection for including a reason.
“It is extremely unlikely someone would get approved in that scenario since it is pretty presumptuous.”
Begging your pardon, but there’s nothing presumptuous about it at all. I’m a degreed professional with an internet marketing background, and I’m an amateur webmaster. I put quite a bit of work into filling out the application and submitting some very high-quality sample sites that had unique content.
“It’s just a form email, and maybe some dick of a meta editor should have included a reason, but so what? You just going to curl up into a ball and die?”
Please relax. I have no intention of curling up into a ball or dying. I’ve already seen my doctor and my therapist to discuss my rejection as a DMOZ editor, and the antidepressants are working out well. (j/k)
“Randy, if you would have read a bunch of the apply to be an editor resource zone forum it would have been apparent that you should have applied to a smaller category”
Thanks for sharing that forum with me. I hadn’t seen it before, and never saw a link to it on the DMOZ site. I read the guidelines on the DMOZ site thoroughly before I applied though.
“You can’t just become Pope. You gotta rise up through the ranks.”
Now this is interesting–I’d like to know exactly what DMOZ’s relationship with the Catholic Church is! (j/k again)
“Randy, if you do want to edit that category fairly and well, why don’t you apply to edit a category for your home town or area first?”
That’s not a bad idea, but I’m not sure my little old small hometown would have 2 or 3 websites devoted to it. LOL
Take ‘er easy, Classics.
That’s odd, please PROVE to me how it’s benificial to get listed in Dmoz to be located in the Inktomi results. Does it actually boost your rank? If so how? I see no extra weight when I compare the results of websites listed in Dmoz and how well they do in Inktomi.
When it comes to Inktomi, as long as I design a website with quality content I’m listed very high. I dont even have to waste my time exchanging links. When I say very high normally on the first page of results, occasionaly on the second if it’s a very competitive industry.
Hey Classics,
Can you tell me why is my site not accepted.The site is http://www.RealOnlineCasinoReviews.com. It lets players to submit reviews and ratings for online casinos. It has a database of over 90 online casinos with valuable information for each (fact only). So how come it’s being rejected for this category – http://dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Guides/Reviews/
And why is this site that has no reviews at all is listed – http://www.bonustracker.com/
Nice site, Playsafe!
Originally posted by playsafe
Hey Classics,
Can you tell me why is my site not accepted.The site is http://www.RealOnlineCasinoReviews.com. It lets players to submit reviews and ratings for online casinos. It has a database of over 90 online casinos with valuable information for each (fact only). So how come it’s being rejected for this category – http://dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Guides/Reviews/
And why is this site that has no reviews at all is listed – http://www.bonustracker.com/
“Can you tell me why is my site not accepted.”
No, but I can guess. That is all this is, is a guess…
First, are you sure you were rejected and not just still sitting there waiting?
Second, you mask your links (put cursor over a link shows bullshit rather than link destination). That likely won’t get your site rejected, but nobody wants to click blind links so you’ll likely get a less in-depth review.
Third, I just clicked through Riverbelle, Wiilliam Hill US, Royal Dice, Omni and found no reviews. You might want to separate casinos into “have reviews” and “waiting for first review”. How many links will an editor clickthrough that show no reviews before giving up, ten? Less? Make it easy on ’em.
Fourth, I click “View report” and nothing happens. If this is supposed to pop up a javascript thing, then you are running uphill against IE6 and some firewalls. It’s very unlikely an editor in gambling (or porn) is going to not have high security settings on their computer given how much malicious code is out there. On the other hand, if those links work for no one, then that is a big negative against the site. The editing guidelines say that sites under construction should not be edited.
Fifth, the reviews that are there are pretty minimal. Casino Tropez is just three sentences.The site mostly just repeats the content that can be found on the casino sites themselves, all the “more info” stuff. I don’t see any 500+ word reviews.
The other site is listed I imagine because of pages like
http://www.bonustracker.com/best-online-slots.php
http://www.bonustracker.com/best-casino-payouts.php
http://www.bonustracker.com/online-poker-guide.php
Not a ton of stuff on this site, but three pages alone seem to have more webmaster-written original content than your site, and all the links work. The site fits the category description:
http://dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Guides/Reviews/desc.html
It says right there “lists of casino features” will not be listed. That is the bulk of your site. While that is useful, they already list that by listing Casino Tropez or William Hill themselves. Also I think “Reviews” is just a convenient word for “Consumer Information”. So, I think bonustracker does qualify to be considered for this category. I don’t know that it deserves to be listed, but bonustracker does qualify to be considered for this category.I’d suggest you get at least twenty original reviews of 500+ words and submit again. This should be about the easiest category to get in. That’s all you have to do is write some actual reviews of the casinos. But while this category should be easy to get into, the amount of sites out there pretending to offer online casino “reviews” is enormous. How many portal type sites out there have bullshit “reviews” that are nothing but copying the promotional text of the casinos? Thousands. You have to be different than the pack. At least ten reviews of 300+ words would seem to me to be a bare minimum here.
“You’re wrong. There is nothing that prevents a webmaster from being an editor in his/her interest area. But you have to bite off a small piece first. There was one guy on resource zone a few months ago offering to volunteer to do a security alarms category, something like that. Problem is the category was enormous, 300+ listed sites and hundreds waiting for review. But the guy was too stubborn to apply to a smaller category that didn’t interest him much first. You can’t just become Pope. You gotta rise up through the ranks.”
If no-one else wants to be Pope then why not let give the person who wants to be a go?
Point has been taken and too tired to worry about it anymore.
Oh, one more thing Classics, what’s one of your gambling sites?
A bad Pope is worse than no Pope. I think I’ll pass on the other.
Randy http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Texas/Localities/W/Wylie/
There are 50 sites here. Maybe you can find three sites for churches, or doctors.Antoine, Inktomi says they use DMOZ. Believe them or don’t. Plenty of things might be as important or more important. Being listed is just one thing that is better than being not listed.
I cant help but notice that you can sit there and criticize our websites, but you cant supply your own.
Classics – got a question for you?
What is your connection with DMOZ as you seem to sound knowledgable in the area and how can you assist us affiliates getting our sites online.
One the world wide web, most sites are commercial. Of those, a large percentage fall into the category of “retail”. Now, if Online Casinos are the wholesalers, then we, the portal owners, are the retailers.
I once owned a pet store/farm feed store, and I can assure you, I never once wrote a review about the great chicken scratch I stocked. I sold the stuff, and the quality of it spoke for itself when the consumer consumed it. My job was to insure that I stocked good quality feeds and was personally able to answer any questions the customers had about it.
Most retailers use the ad copy of the manufacturers. For example, a windows retailer would have a selection of pamphets for their customers to peruse, and I’m sure the retailer themselves didn’t write or edit any of them. Their job is to market the product. To have a storefront, put out ads, and bring in traffic – which they then direct to the products they are representing.
While I agree it adds to a site’s esteme if they write a personal review of each casino, there are so many ways to describe, say, the games in microgaming casino. Basically an original review adds to credibility, and thus earns the trust of a visitor, so it benefits the webmaster. Thus, it should remain his/her choice to do so, and is no one’s business but their own – and it certainly is not for DMOZ to judge. Does DMOZ penalize a window retail site for not actually installing all the windows in their home, then writing a 500 word review of how well the sun shone in, or how well the weather was kept out?
Are casino portals held to such a high standard that they cannot be listed in DMOZ without the help of a higher being?
The attitude towards online gambling is based on ignorance.
What is the difference between casino retail and thermopane window retail. Both are trying to make money *gasp*, and that’s not immoral. It seems to me that the web is becoming moralistic about online gambling. Moralistic, not moral. Snobbery! The world is full of stupid people who prefer to see things in black and white, because it’s easier than thinking!
More people die from automobile accidents than smoking, but we can see nothing wrong with every family owning one or two cars, but just TRY to smoke anywhere! What criteria do we use to deem what is good and what is bad? No one has died from gambling, and although some are addicted to it, I don’t believe we should throw out the baby with the bathwater because of it.
Lastly: I reiterate what Antoine said: “I cant help but notice that you can sit there and criticize our websites, but you cant supply your own.”
Classic, you have been asked by several people lately what sites you have. I am interested in knowing, also. If you have nothing to hide, then please be willing to share, as we have done.:smoker:
Damnit!!! When am I going to learn to proof read.
haha
“I cant help but notice that you can sit there and criticize our websites, but you cant supply your own.”
What a bizarre thing to say. LOL. The dude ASKED about his site. Please try and just have a civil discussion, okay?
Simoneaton, as I said before, I’m not an editor. As for “assist us affiliates”, DMOZ lists “web resources” that offer original, useful material (and of course a significant amount of it). Most gambling websites consist of copied content: copies of promo text from casinos, copies of wizardofodds or Mark Pilarski articles, etc. Those sites won’t get listed. Being affiliate sites is not against the rules, but that part isn’t an asset either. Affilialte ads, or any ads, are at best non-content, something to be ignored. To get listed you need original content to overwhelm the stuff that isn’t original. Sites like this one, or wizardofodds or winneronline, or oddschecker offer content that originates on the domain. You have to have a good amount of original content (that is not obviously inaccurate). Think about how great those sites are.
DMOZ has gambling guidelines
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/gambling/
Every category has a category description. Despite that, people charge right on by those and submit stuff that obviously doesn’t qualify for the category. People should just build the sites they want, but if you want to consider dmoz as you are doing it, read the guidelines and category description and look at the listed sites. If you understand that they want to list wizardofodds.com or casinoaffiliatesprograms.com, then you should see you have to make very good sites.The best assist though is that dmoz needs a lot of gambling editors. This is because hardly anyone is volunteering now, and the senior editors don’t trust gambling or adult editors much so there would be strength in numbers. The organization has unfortunately gone through lots of editors in those fields over the years.
There need to be people willing to do the work, fairly. And they need people willing to do the work to do the work. The paying the dues stuff, like starting small, or even starting in the Regional branch. If Randy, and simoneaton, and Jarvi and others persisted in doing what is necessary to join up now, three or four months from now whole sections of the Gambling categories could be made up to date and more valuable to users. If you guys don’t do it, who will? If you guys don’t want to do it, why should anyone else? It’s not like you are donating an organ or something.
If you want to believe like antione that dmoz isn’t important, fine, go to another thread. If you want to see your qualify sites, and the qualifying sites of all your competitors, listed in this web directory, then do something about it and volunteer, and keep volunteering if need be.
This is weird. Why does anybody want to know what sites I have? Why on earth would anyone care? LOL.
Fergie, dmoz has basically the same rules for window pane retailers. You are making the same mistake lots of people make. DMOZ isn’t listing your business. DMOZ is listing your web content. If they already list the words on a page, like on Casino Tropez’s website, they aren’t going to list those same words on another site. They do hold gambling to a higher standard, but it it isn’t that much higher.
Put words on webpages that aren’t on any other webpages.
