THE REQUIREMENTS
Quote:
| Private membership is available only to Gambling Portal Webmasters. |
We get a number of applicants from people who are interested in marketing to portal webmasters, but who do not work for or own an online gaming portal site. From the viewpoint of a professional association, it makes sense to limit membership to those in the profession.
Quote:
| 1. Your portal must have its own domain name. If the WHOIS contact information does not match your name, you must provide documentation that you own the domain or work for the owner. |
This is intended ensure that the applicant does own or work for the relevant sites. In the absence of WHOIS information that matches the individual applicant's name, there are a number of types of documentation accepted. The most commonly used one is simply a "gpwa.html" page uploaded on site for a few hours until we can take a screenshot of it - the focus here is demonstrating a connection to the site.
Quote:
| 2. Free site portals do not qualify for admission to the association. Note: If a webmaster has free sites and also has at least one revenue-generating site, the free sites would not disqualify the applicant. Rather, the free sites would not be evaluated. |
That is, there has to be at least one site with a revenue source that is not on a free-URL service (geocities, etc.). This goes back to the desire to focus membership to those who are in the profession -- those are are making or trying to make a portion of their living from their portal sites.
I have mixed feeling about this requirement and the next one, because while it ensures members have made some initial commitment to the industry, it also prevents the novices who would most benefit from help in developing their sites from accessing the resources for that available in the private forums.
Quote:
| 3. Your portal must have been up and running for at least 3 months prior to your application. |
This requirement is also intended to ensure a level of commitment to the profession.
I have the same mixed feelings here, as those for whom access is restricted by this requirement are precisely those who would have the most to learn.
Quote:
| 4. We do not accept portals that mix porn and gambling on the same site. |
Many members of the association are concerned about the social implications of porn or are concerned that the image of gambling is hurt by its connection with content widely deemed anti-social. Interestingly, the small group of casinos that mix gambling in with porn on the operator's end tend to also engage in other anti-social practices (most notably Grand Nevada). There is a thread about this issue at
http://www.gpwa.org/forum/any-casino-offering-nude-dealers-168010.html.
Quote:
| 5. We do not accept portals that are 1-page "banner farms." |
Combined with the no free sites requirement, this forms a minimum quality standard for qualifying sites. While the phrase banner farm literally refers to banner images, the requirement has been extended in its application to also include link farms. Having some banner farms doesn't disqualify an applicant -- it is just that the banner farm sites would have to be alongside another site that is a more robust portal. There is a lot of discussion in the membership team about what constitutes a banner farm.
In a lot of cases, newer webmasters have assumed that having lots of banners up will be the most effective way to earn revenue, so checking for this in the application review provides a good opportunity to provide feedback about site improvements to these applicants. This is one of those requirements that again raises the balance between focusing the association on those who are commited to the profession verse making information available to those who most need it.
Quote:
| 6. We do not accept any applicants who have connections to the inside operations of gaming properties, such as casino employees or casino software providers. |
This is intended to ensure both focus on portal webmasters specifically, rather than other sections of the industry, and also to provide for a more open environment in the discussions. Many members find it easier to discuss certain problems or news when they know the audience is just webmasters.
Quote:
| 7. We do not accept portals that are fronts for particular casinos. If a webmaster has both single-casino fronts and other sites, the casino fronts sites would not disqualify the application. Rather, the casino fronts would not be evaluated. |
White labels aren't considered portals for GPWA's purposes, so this is basically intended to state that fact. It also applies to sites that are not banner farms in the sense that they don't have a lot of different ads, but that are focused only on promoting a single property and don't have content aside from marketing materials for that property.
Quote:
| 8. We take copyright infringement very seriously. If your site is found to be infringing on anyone else's copyright, you will not be accepted for membership. |
This is the most time-intensive portion of the review process, and the one that raises the most questions or problems. In some cases, beginning webmasters are simply unfamiliar with what constitutes fair use and what is public domain rather than copyrighted materials. Most people are responsive about fixing these kinds of mistakes, and the issues are one-time rather than recurring. In other cases, there are content theft problems that go uncorrected, denied, or that are fixed in the specific examples we point out but are left in other cases.
Content theft hurts portal webmasters, and the requirement provides a good opportunity reduce its occurance. In cases where it is pronounced or where the applicant is unresponsive to feedback, there are serious credibility and trust issues raised. The goal of any blossoming industry should be to help the fair folks thrive and help the unfair folks grow up or make a quick exit, and we think recognizing the reputable webmasters as members helps with that process.
Quote:
|
9. Applicants must act professionally and respectfully in their business activities.
|
An extension on the same principles discussed in the copyrighted materials requirement, there are other types of behavior that may raise serious objections and they are considered in the application review. This is primarily focused on blackhat
SEO and spamming, but other objections would be considered if the existing members believed strongly that a particular situation demonstrated malicious intentions or hurt the industry.
As an additional note, you'll notice that several of the application requirements specify review of the applicant rather than the site. We get occassional applications with an organization being the applicant rather than an individual, although membership is actually specific to the person (additional users from the same site should have different usernames). So, if a particular person had really harmed the industry, that person would potentially be rejected even if the site itself didn't raise issues.