Casino-Gambling Content End

As of this morning, we are no longer accepting articles on anything Casino or Gambling related and all articles have been removed in that category. This was a tough decision because of our desire to balance the needs of our authors & publishers vs. the needs of our advertisers.

In addition, we are no longer accepting articles with any variation on the “F” word due to complaints received. This only impacts a very small number of articles. We’re also working retroactive to help authors edit their articles if the F word was used or remove them all together if the message can’t be delivered right without the use of the F word. This F word decision was not one that we made lightly, but we knew it was one that had to be made to ensure the long-term success of the website.

What’s really interesting is that the greater majority of usage of the F-word were not relating to the act that it describes, but in the use of the word as a descriptor of intensity or from quoting a movie or song lyrics. In any case, its time has come and passed for our site and thanks for understanding.


Edward Weiss writes:

What the F___? Completely understandable for a commercial site. I didn’t understand how the F word got in in the first place. :)

Comment provided September 21, 2006 at 5:08 PM


marshal sandler writes:

Excellent idea these site have no relevant content they are semantic jazz !

Comment provided September 21, 2006 at 5:12 PM



Well done, Chris… thank you! Good for you for taking a stance. And I think it makes sense in the long run from a commercial stand point, but maybe I’m naive….

Comment provided September 21, 2006 at 6:00 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

No problem here. Although I wrote a pretty good article about MIT high-tech use of card counting that was mostly about Artificial Intelligence, so hopefully I can modify that. It was in the Gambling Category, but it hardly had anything to do with gambling but rather the use of technology.

The F-Word issue is a good idea, although there are times when a variation makes sense? For instance “Cluster F-ck” and things of this nature to describe situations in business, traffic, systems, etc. Of course such an article could easily be changed with replacement words or alternative descriptions.

Comment provided September 21, 2006 at 6:05 PM


John Ruscio writes:

You know, it would have been nice to have a little advance warning on your new gambling content policy, needs of your advertisers, not withstanding.

Some of us are spending a good deal to generate traffic and may have included the fact that you can look forward to articles in addition to the main service offered.

You are entitled to do what ever you like regarding your business and adjust policy as you see fit.

I just don’t see why you have to be so inconsiderate and thoughtless in the process.

John Ruscio

Comment provided September 21, 2006 at 8:29 PM




Thoughtless? You have no idea.

I can appreciate why you feel betrayed.

To us, the decision was about long-term survival.

I get that it is unfair.

We are launching a separate site that will be live within a month that will serve the needs of the lost content… with a different set of ad partners that are friendly towards this type of content.

I asked myself this question: “What good can come out of this ugly decision that had to be made?”

Answer = A site dedicated to the content with 20+ categories instead of the single one we had now (did you ever wonder why we never sub-categoriezed the Casino/Gambling section?).

We’ve known for a few years this content was higher risk than other content and our ‘plan B’ was to build a separate home for this content so that the other 300 categories of content on EzineArticles would not have to suffer the same risks.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 6:16 AM


Lance Winslow writes:

Actually John makes a good point? If Gambling is gone today. What will be gone tomorrow? Tattoo Category? Politics? I mean what is offensive to someone could never end actually, for instance Cooking articles are very offensive to ME, because it makes me feel inferior, as I am not a very good cook. Boxing makes me mad too, because I got punched when I was little kid by a bully from the Junior High School down the street. You know Stocks and Bonds category is bad, because I once had a stock broker try to rip me off. My car broke down in 1992 on my way to my mid terms and so we need to ditch automotive category too?

You see the point, Although if this is a somewhat isolated incident no big deal, But what if China will not allow your site there, because you have environmental category and articles on Pollution in the air and water in China? What if the International Terrorists get upset because people in Religion have written nice things about the Pope? With articles and such there is a bit of issue with freedom of speech, freedom of the press too, to eliminate the articles all together is not fair?

But if it is reasonable and it makes sense then that is not so bad. The only issue might be in the future, if this continues too much, because alienating groups of people can cause an issue later down the road and it also causes hard feelings and competitors.

With regards to Gambling? Many of the Online Gambling Sites are actually operating outside US Law in gray area and really borderline stuff, due to FCC laws and gambling laws so you do not want to get caught in that whole mess either. Interesting really, although personally I am pretty much unaffected by this.

I am sure the Gambling Authors can find some other site out there who wants those articles, somewhere some new website will want that traffic? Who knows really, It must be late and I am rambling so that is some thoughts for the peanut gallery today?

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 6:28 AM


Audrey Okaneko writes:

This is quite interesting. Two days ago I uploaded some articles to another site and in large letters they too said they are no longer accpeting articles in this category. Chris, it sounds like your decision was a long time in the making, yet what a coincidence that two large directories made the decision the same week.

Lance, I’ll have to upload some really easy, throw it all in one bowl and cook recipes ;)

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 7:57 AM


Pamela Beers writes:

This must have been a tough decision, Chris. It somewhat violates the first amendment, but you have the right to run your business the way you see fit. Personally, I’m glad you made the decision.

Gambling addiction is one of the biggest problems in our society. Statistics have shown that 90% of people who gamble can least afford to, pushing them furhter into a life of misery.

Even though the first amendment may be bent a little by your decision, it is a wise decision on many levels. EzineArticles continues to be a class act.

Again, thanks for all you do.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 9:18 AM


Programmer #1 writes:

John Ruscio and others, your hard work is not at a loss!

All gambling articles removed from EzineArticles, are still in our system. (you just can’t see them)

We are working hard to build a new home for them, and they will all be back before long, generating traffic once again for you. =)

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 2:05 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Well then Programmer 1; It seems is doing the right thing and what is best for all concerned really. That is a viable solution to this dilemma really. It does not alienate article authors in that category. I noticed my article numbers went down by only “three articles” or so and I am so happy they were not lost. I do not even remember what they were all about. I only remember writing one of them. Nevertheless, if they are put onto a new site that is good.

Plus if it helps with their advertisers then that means more money into the system and that means more continual upgrades for us authors, a return on Investment for EzineArticles and Happy Advertisers. So it is a “Triple Win” and that is a good thing. You should be proud that you have accomplished everyone’s objectives and done what is “fair for all concerned”.

Now then regarding Pamela’s comments, I must say Pamela, I totally agree with the “Gambling and Society Issues” that you raise. Of course being in your line of work you would know this. In my life I too have seen such hardship and it breaks your heart sometimes;

The Gambling Online sites are having a war with the Gambling Establishment in the US; Such as Las Vegas, Tunica, Atlantic City, Gulf Coast. They have fought against the CT, CA, OK, IA and other Indian Casinos and lost in political and legal battles. China is now putting in Billion Dollar Casinos and the Asian Las Vegas crowd is dwindling too. There is a war right now due to lobbyists and political interests against online casinos; a 250 Billion Dollar industry and it will grow. Offshore money flows, legalities and business interests are involved BIG TIME. Getting caught in the middle of all that on an online article submission site needs to be weighed carefully and it is best to not push it. Advertisers know this too. The industry does not want any heat from the Federal Regulators, so this whole issue is way way bigger than all of us authors in the much grander game of Gambling Casinos and their fight for market share losses from Online Gambling Casinos.

We should look at the Bigger Picture and know that EzineArticles is making the right decision here.

Other issues they may wish to consider I believe would include FCC Federal Regulators and how they are going after Porn, Identity theft and other serious things. Because an online article site could become caught in the middle with those too and obviously the online advertisers would not wish to touch any of that with a ten-foot pole. This is another reason when the EzineArticles Team mentioned the F-Word that I totally agree because this site must stay above board in all aspects to continue its climb and popularity. I can image with 30,000 plus authors and 300,000 articles that it is indeed becoming noticed by the big boys and they play the game a little differently than the little community grocery store with everything you need under one roof. Consider it, as I have been observing and studying this for quite a while now. It is fascinating the changes in the market and we should not FEAR but rather embrace them. In the end it is a good thing really.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 6:40 PM


John Ruscio writes:

You are missing the point. I do not feel betrayed. I do not think it is unfair. I am not cringing in frustration over waisted work or whether the articles end up homeless.
My gripe is you eliminated the content with no warning.
My ad campaigns often include the fact they can look forward to expert articles.
You encourage placing ezine article banners on our sites which obviously link back to the articles.
In this case, once again, because I was not notified the banner linked to a blank.
Had you let me know it would have saved me the embarassment of site visitors experiencing this, and I could have at least, temporarily removed the banner.
Please understand that this is my only issue and I wish you would stop assuming you know what’s bothering me.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 7:54 PM


Rory writes:

I feel betrayed. I log into my account only to see that I had just one article live. I felt like I lost my head. I quickly sent an email to find out what was goin on. I run a bingo forum and I used article writing as my main marketing tool. I invested many hours getting them together.

I would have felt better if I was told in advanced and not after the fact. Some of my articles were gaining momentum and one I submitted this month about bingo supplies got picked up 2 times by ezines. I feel life my efforts were bearing friut. My big advertiser heard about my site through my articles. The views were growing and I saw bumps in my traffic. I even made some articles exlusive to this website. I guess it was foolish to put all my eggs in one basket.

I must say that those of you who talk about this descision being “good” and all the other praises, you are very insensitive. I want you to imagine all your articles disappearing because of a business descision.

I guess there is no sense crying over spilt milk. the next step now is where do we turn to now.Chris mention a new “home” for gambling content. I wish in anticipating this descision that was long thought out, I would have hoped plan B would already be up and running. If you don’t mind I would like to know the url for this new site. I trust this new site will be just as good as EzineArticles.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 9:23 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

John makes a good point, a little heads up is proper indeed. Perhaps next time a category is combined or eliminated a better lead time can be given. That would make sense for sure. The reciprocal link issue is a Major Good Point. Interesting, I had not thought about that, dead links do make one look like they do not know what they are doing. I had a few on my companies website and I just cringed when I discovered them.

It is really good to have John’s feed back so the people at EzineArticles can address this in the future. Wow, this Blog really does help dialogue and allow for everyones concerns. Without this Blog there could be hurt feelings of the EzineArticles Team and even some Article Authors too.

Heads up of those who proliferate in a particular category prior to the combining or eliminating should be contacted individually. Maybe the top 10-15 authors in the category? Especially because there are great article authors like John who using all the tools that EzineArticles offers to promote their articles and online businesses. Maybe a contact protocol prior to major changes might be;

Those authors who have 10 or more articles in a category and are in the top 1-15.

This might solve the potential conflict that John raises. This way they can adjust things on their side so that every thing synchromeshes together. It will provide better fluidity of motion and ease for the Internet Surfer too.

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 10:04 PM


Programmer #1 writes:

Very good points John & Lance. Thanks for the input, and I am already working on some idea’s I will bring to the table should any future moves occur, to prevent dead links and make things smoother for everyone all around.

I must agree on a proper notification too.
That’s another department though, hehe, I will give them some scorning looks for you =p

Everyones input helps us all.
Lesson Learned ;)

Comment provided September 22, 2006 at 11:22 PM


Ruth writes:

Rory I totally agree with how you feel. Even though I can understand why the decission was made by EzineArticles, that it was made and executed without notice is highly unfair.

I would be very upset if EzineArticles suddenly decided that pet articles no longer fit into their agenda, and so overnight my articles would be gone.

I have seen nothing but fairness from EzineArticles so I am at a loss of why they would execute their decision this way.

I am sorry this happened to you and I wish you much success in your new article marketing endeviours,


Comment provided September 23, 2006 at 6:16 AM


Lance Winslow writes:

Rory makes a good point too and you know it seems to me that Bingo Night and bingo supplies is not really the type of Gambling that any Advertiser would care about anyway. Bingo although I guess is gambling could just as well go into the Business Category of Fundraising? Since so many non-profits use this a way to make money. I wonder if your articles would not belong there really. Bingo is certainly not the same as online offshore gambling or Casinos. Of course some Indian Casinos do in fact have Bingo because maybe their states do not allow full on gambling. Interesting the sub-category issues. State Lotteries are also gambling and I am sure the Advertiser would not mind about that either. And it is legal gambling and the profits from State Run Lotteries often go towards education too. Apparently this subject has so many various sides too it. Well, knowing EzineArticles Team, I bet the new site is very good and will be much better since it is specific in nature that the Bingo Forums can really win big.

Comment provided September 23, 2006 at 8:06 AM


John Ruscio writes:

Thank you Ruth. I appreciate your comments. I too am at a loss. Perhaps someone should write an article: Does Common Courtesy Elude Us in the Twenty First Century?

Comment provided September 23, 2006 at 9:01 AM


Lance Winslow writes:

Rory, I will write this article, sounds like a good title. We can start with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela condemning our nation and calling our President the Devil. We can talk about customer service in businesses; selling everything from Diet Supplements to Bingo Supplies. We can talk about what they and we can all do better in our businesses to walk the talk.

We can show how no one cares anymore and how that customer service is on the decline. We can talk about persnickety customers, vendors and how this affects employee attitudes and small business owners. We can talk about Corporations with high-tech phone systems where you never talk to an actual customer. We can talk about kids in school and their behavior.

We can talk about the guy who flipped me off on the Freeway last night. We can talk about the political divide and our politicians slamming each other on TV. We can talk about “the Apprentice” and how reality TV is a bad example to our children. Then we can talk about how online forum spammers little forums with Casino and Online Gambling ads and we can talk about how they will not stop and how others pay them to do it.

Yes I will write this article, but there is no way in heck I would ever include in such an article. They are an example of what is right in World, not in what is wrong and certainly not an example of how common courtesy in the twenty first century is eluding us. Indeed, as I consider and ponder your comments, the reference its self lacks common courtesy. I would ask you withdraw it and further state that making such a comment leads me to believe that one does not deserve any common courtesy? You decide, I am merely the mirror and the observer.

Comment provided September 23, 2006 at 3:46 PM


John Ruscio writes:

I don’t understand Lance. You wrote earlier that heads up is proper, indeed. Doesn’t that equate to common courtesy?

Comment provided September 24, 2006 at 8:18 AM


Dina writes:

Bravo, Lance. I had a fine time arguing your points in a separate post this weekend, however here I’m backing you 100% (meaning, everything you said in Comment 19).

Comment provided September 24, 2006 at 10:12 AM


Lance Winslow writes:

John, yes in hindsight better ‚¬“heads up‚¬ would have been nice and the right thing to do as per the new paradigm of business relations where collaboration is replacing the Shoot From the Hip, fly by the seat of your pants, fearless leader entrepreneur types as the way to run things, well at least that is what they are teaching now. This is not to say that decisive business decisions are not also sometimes necessary. Ask any General in fog of war, fluidity of motion is the key to winning in the 100 battles too. Ask any running back in football, find a hole in the defense make a few cuts, zig zags and run like heck.

Nevertheless, with all that said. Remember that Respect must be earned. Tolerance can be required thru social conditioning. Common courtesy should be given unless you find that common courtesy is not reciprocated. At that point one can decide to give common courtesy anyway and let the behavior slide or not. But if someone Demands common courtesy in advance they are engaged in the midst of a Demand, which is not common courtesy, because common courtesy would in fact be ‚¬“asking politely‚¬ or submitting a request, rather than demanding.

In this case common courtesy was asked originally and therefore if will most likely be granted in the form of “heads up warning” of a category change. Why? Well, as programmer one puts it; that is a fair thing to do, and as I have stated that would be fair for all concerned.

Demanding the Right to Common Courtesy is really in essence hypocrisy, for one who demands common courtesy should also ‚¬“give it‚¬ to others. I on the other hand often do not give it or demand it. I would rather know what is really on someone’s mind, than Common Courtesy Fakery, which is a whole other point of contention on the philosophical debate of the sub-subject at hand. You can read my article on this subject; I made it for you, it will be posted tomorrow along with 50 others.

Now then, obviously if one is a decent poker card player they do understand all this, so indeed your questioning stating: ‚¬“I don’t Understand‚¬ is also not common courtesy, because you pretend not to understand something that you think you know, that you really don’t know, in order to make a point. Thus hoping to bait the other person (me), which I do not appreciate, into burying themselves into proving your point. This is conversational trickery often used in debate.

Unfortunately, you are debating with someone who has now schooled you in reality of this subject matter and are now burying yourself. Further, these types of manipulations in conversation you are using really are not a very nice way to correspond, because you are trying belittle the next guy and yet all the while in this debate; You Demand Common Courtesy? Therefore your tactics and demands are disrespectful and inadequate. So as long as one is Demanding Something from me without proper reciprocal response, well, I cannot give it too you, I do not feel common courtesy is owed from me, but I bet EzineArticles, will in the future, after all you are one of their customers and I don’t gamble, they risk does not make sense mathematically. That is what I think.

Comment provided September 24, 2006 at 5:28 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Ezine,

I noticed a change in the Menu of Categories this Monday Morning; would this be a permanent change and if so; how were you able to keep everyone happy? Was there some high-level management decisions, change of heart or something of this nature?

Comment provided September 25, 2006 at 5:31 PM




Permanent, no.

For now, yes.

It wasn’t about ‘heart’, but rather about risk management.

We have a series of complex risk mitigation strategies that we deployed and are deploying into October to allow some content into our site that is a bit more liberal or higher risk than others.

Some have criticized us for this sharp-action decision without a courtesy notice, but I hope most can appreciate that there were circumstances involved that were never disclosed and won’t be disclosed that lead to the decision.

We have begun development on 2 separate projects for in-depth sites to be bulit exclusively for high-risk content that we don’t deem offensive while will remain more ‘mainstream’ acceptable content.

Many good things are going to come from this chaos as I’ve seen some of the cool things our dev team have put together already in our mockups that will go live in October.

Comment provided September 26, 2006 at 9:17 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Sounds great and looking forward to seeing it all when it is completed.


Comment provided September 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM


Jennifer Thieme writes:

I can understand people feeling upset about their articles getting pulled.

In the end, however, is a business, and is free to handle matters as it sees fit. Thank God for that freedom. Having it, having that kind of freedom, is more important than hurt feelings. I think we need to remember this.

Comment provided September 29, 2006 at 1:30 AM


Ata writes:

I have been wondering about this topic with EzineArticles.
If EzineArticles no longer accepts gambling related articles why do they still have similar articles in Arts-and-Entertainment category?
Everything casino related and others.

Comment provided August 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM



We have this category for those who like to write about the game and/or want to teach others. What we don’t allow is direct online gambling sites.


Ata writes:

Referring to the adsense guidelines it mentions:

NO Gambling or casino-related content.

Hence, the content in the category mentioned is ‘Gambling or casino-related’ regardless whether the article links points to a direct online gambling sites or not.

Well, it seems Google is fine with EzineArticles. But still rather confusing for the average publisher, when it specifically mentions ‘No Gambling or casino-related content.

Comment provided August 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.