Page 6 - Is there a trick?

Yup... 2 things that are added to most processed foods sodium or saturated (or trans) fats to bring out the flavor... without it processed stuff would taste very bland.

Course both are very bad for you.

I think its worth the try after all ;)

Beer is still best for me, lols! Cheers to that Gazzahk!

Just out of curiosity Fathom, and I'm not asking for any info here, did you post a note in the Dmoz editor forum after about the red note on my site?

I have not finished... not being an expert is movie/dvd review it is a little disorienting.

However, I will note a few things (and maybe you can clear some things up as well). It is worth mentioning this is not a dmoz listing review - but a red note (Do Not List) review because there is currently no reference to why the domain was red noted.

Overview: I selected one page in each section for a basic understanding of reviewing techniques looking for, among other things, unique content. In addition, I reviewed the members' list of reviewers, forum & posts, and blog for uniqueness, credibility, industry credentials, and overall awareness of the industry/products of the industry.

I will generally use scale comments of 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 0% to note overly ratings on what was reviewed (NOTE: I repeat, I did not review the majority of product pages)

1. Synopsis - 100% copied from other sources
2. Reviews - 100% copied from other sources (Caveat)
3. Forum - 0% use (not considered an active community)
4. Blog - 0% use (not considered an active blog)
5. Reviewers - 0% (no active reviewers)

A couple of members appear to have reviewed "1" feature each... and while one member appears to be extremely active [J.D. Lafrance] reviewing near everything -- a click off the member's list show this account hasn't reviewed anything...

When reviewing this individual in Google it appears that the same person (username) has many aliases and regurgitates their reviews and profile info to best match the location of the reader... e.g. in Canadian portals they are a Canadian critic and in UK a UK critic, etc. with reviews only changing minimally.

From what I can see their specific reviews are suspect -- meaning your domain has (according to your membership account - 3 user reviews out of what? 1000 titles or more?

From a "professional vantagepoint" this domain really isn't about movies or review of movies - it's really about content for AdSense ads first and foremost.

At this point I would say the DO NOT LIST red note was referencing the fact that there isn't anything unique that doesn't exist in other domains... (unless I jump over these unqiue areas - which I haven't completed everything yet).

From what I understand of movie review/critic segment - the products are identical - you can't really alter these - so it's the review "ONLY" that paints the picture (plus forum & blog are added features)... and since your lone reviewer authenic dialog is questionable it difficult give this project a thumbs up.

Try paying people for the authenic words - your credibility will increase substantially.

The often jest people make for a listing - "my competitor is listed in dmoz" BUT if so and "your competitors" and their info are pretty much what you have in your domain - the category currently has what you have... you add nothing "unique" to the category... as such for anyone interested in a dmoz listing -- start coming up with content within the topical area that dmoz does not yet have... that ensures listability.

Be that as it may, I don't see the evidence that you see which suggests it is deserving of a listing... and my findings (unless you can categorically refute them) suggests the red note is acceptable... a DO NOT LIST is warranted.

So what am I missing?

Thanks for that. The members of the site offer a different reviewing process which is more member comments than reviews, a few short lines each. As you say the forum and the blog are additions which possibly don't need to be there, but are there for the future.

The synopsis, as with a great many websites, comes from the official source so generally is the same throughout the net. We get them from publishers and aren't actually allowed to edit them.

JD is the most active reviewer currently, and I am not aware that any content he writes is used on other sites. I will look into that. He was not always the most active though, as in 2003 when the site was refused the reviews were mostly mine. Reviews from different reviewers can be seen here:

http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=1 Me
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=2 Tom Ramsbottom
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=3 (JD's reviews)
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=4 Eddie Keaton
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=5 Jason Cook
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=7 Helen Hartfield
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=8 Mathew Williams
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=9 Jamie Nagadhana
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=11 Tom Smalley
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=12 Gemma Buckley
http://www.whatdvd.net/editor.asp?ID=13 Viren Udeshi

All of the reviews from those guys are unique. I will look into what is happening with JD as he's the only Stateside reviewer, and thus updates his reviews himself.

OK your members list starts at ID=15 thus none of your active reviewers show up... while I can see from your noted IDs you do have many different reviewers with many different reviews - I would have never come to that conclusion publicly... so you should fix that technical glitch.

I would also do something like this:

Nothing gets people attention more than sarcasm, being cocky, or rude... and you seem to be an expert at it (that's not a 'dig' but insight) -- since most movies don't appeal to everyone -- you may wish to use your split personality to provides a "nice review" and the "counter-point" where the counterpoint is so obnoxious that it get's notice by blogs blogging about reviews... the nice review could be so "obnoxiously nice" that the counter merely trashes the "review" and not the movie when it's a superb flick.

Something your "competitors ain't doing".

I was thinking just the same thing then. The members and editors are different tables in the database and I'll change the emphasis to show the editors instead.


Some of the reviews I've written, especially about Steven Seagal are incredibly nasty and sarcastic. Some of our reviewers do this, it's just JD that takes the analytical approach.

Nice idea though. We have a waiting list of people wanting to do reviews as well, the site gets a lot of coverage already which is why I'm not bothered about it being in Dmoz anymore.