How many gaming sites do you identify as rogue or blacklist on your portal site?

[MichaelCorfman]

Many webmasters have a focus exclusively on sites they promote. But many webmasters also identify online gaming sites they consider to be rogue to warn players about them.

For this week's poll let us know if you have a list of sites you consider to be rogue that you publish, and if you do, how many such sites you have you included in your list of rogue sites.

Michael

[thepokerkeep]

My list is a little outdated but at present, I have 27 sites listed on my blacklist page.

[universal4]

I didn't vote because I do not completly understand the poll....

Of course there are many things I don't understand the past few days...

Rick
Universal4

[MichaelCorfman]

Casino City currently has identified 107 gaming sites as rogue. The complete list can be seen at online.casinocity.com/rogue. Please note that the page determines your likely location based on IP address, and only shows sites considered rogue that accept play from your location that are in the language to which your browser is set. To see the entire list of 107 sites you need to click the "edit your preferences" link to say to show sites accepting play from any geographic location and in any language.

Michael

[Ricbyrne]

We have blacklisted 29 rouge bingo sites! It is very important that players be advised of sites that have a history of player complaints and bad conduct. We have found that when a, new to online gambling, players first gaming experience is with a rouge bingo site and than realize they have been taken advantage of, some lose trust in all bingo sites and stop playing.

It's our opinion, that the conduct of rogue sites hurt the respectable and honest sites as well as giving the entire online gaming industry a bad name. Many players judge the actions of a few bad apples as the norm and just stop playing.

Warning players about bad sites can prevent them from encountering a bad experience and sends a message to the rogue site that their behavior in the industry is deemed to be unacceptable.

[CityGuard]

I didn't vote because I do not completly understand the poll....

Of course there are many things I don't understand the past few days...

Rick
Universal4

Rick, to clarify, the poll is trying to ask how many operators you provide warnings about to your site visitors. This is really a two part question.

First, for sites that you consider disreputable, do you publish information about the fact that you consider them disreputable or do you simply leave them off your site?

Second, if you do publish information to let your visitors know which sites you consider rogue/disreputable, how many operators (casinos, poker rooms, bingo hall, sportsbooks, etc.) do you say this about?

[Nandakishore]

I have not built up my own list. Instead I have links to CM's Rogue Pit and Aksana's Blacklist on the page Rogue and Blacklisted Internet Casinos

If anyone is interested in including a link to their list on this page, please PM me.

[Chips]

I currently have a list/section on my forum and adding a page to the website is on the task list too. I guess it is close to 40 or so names on it at present. I list all the Futurebet/IGS/Gametech sites plus AP, UB and a few select others.

[whichbingo]

Personally I think that portals that go out of their way to ONLY discuss 'rouge' (sic) sites but never have anything positive to say about any sites do our industry a dis-justice (is that a word?)

I am always cautious of those portals that jump to 'defend' players or 'out' bad sites without hearing both sides of the tale.

We have assisted many, many players in contacting the right person at a particular bingo site after they have been 'cheated', 'conned' and all manner of allegation. Funnily enough it is very often the player that is trying to cheat or con or simply not reading the rules.

Having said all that, those portals that do a thorough and unbiased job in this area (take a bow Mr C Meister for example) should be applauded.

[Doolally]

When the trust goes I just pull the links. I don't do a list of rogue casinos on my sites.

I might start a list of rogue affiliate sites though.

[tryme]

I think the issue here is that we need to define what is meant by 'rogue'.

Gambling Affiliate Programs that are 'rogue' because of how they treat affiliates : I don't have a rogue list for these kind of programs. Frankly, players could give a damn whether or not someone is taking a % of their losses.

A singular and recent example is this: Betsson (Affiliate Lounge). I couldn't in all consciousness say to players : 'don't play here - they're crooks'. They're not crooks, they look after their players (I'm one) and - for punters - they're an honest sportsbook/casino.

They have, however, shafted their affiliates. My problem. I need to pull them from my sites, but they aren't 'rogue' for my visitors.

My view is this : there is little value in having a page on your website that, in effect, suggests 'online gambling is dodgy and here's a list of crooked websites' . It isn't helpful. What is helpful is pointing your visitors in the direction of reputable, honest gamblig destinations.

[Anthony]

You have to look out for the players and affiliates.

Casinomeister said it best: "If they are willing to do this with their business partners, how do you think they plan on treating their players?"

You can't assume, a rouge program will discriminate on who they rip off.

[cindyslotsnbj]

We don't really keep a rogue list..

but we did start a "gamblerettes' -non friendly online casino list".

We keep it in the section that is dedicated to female players (gamblerettes) and from our own experience and our players' experience we are assembling a list of Online Casinos that their operators are not that aware and/or don't care of the fact half of the population, therefore- their players- are females (i tried to put it as mildly as i could )

[robertmedl]

I maintain a blacklist.

http://theonlinecasinogamblingdirect.../blacklist.htm

I think by now most internet users are aware that there are some shady characters in the online gambling world. It's important to address this fact -- to me, anyway. My thinking is that having a blacklist imparts credibility.

[lauferb]

I think the issue here is that we need to define what is meant by 'rogue'.

I agree, what is the definition of it?
why not make a definition? afterwords it'll be easy to classify programs as "good" or "rogue" (or maybe other categories like "excellent" / "good" / ...)

it'll be easy this way for affiliates to see in one place (page in the web with the full list) and not search in many sites and read many threads until they get an idea about which programs are good and which are not

it'll also give a push to the "good programs" since in the forums people usually write about bad ones and the good ones get no publicity so affiliates are not aware of them

[GCG]

think by now most internet users are aware that there are some shady characters in the online gambling world. It's important to address this fact -- to me, anyway. My thinking is that having a blacklist imparts credibility.

Maybe you need to check your sites for rogue casino sites, I found some on yours.

A singular and recent example is this: Betsson (Affiliate Lounge). I couldn't in all consciousness say to players : 'don't play here - they're crooks'. They're not crooks, they look after their players (I'm one) and - for punters - they're an honest sportsbook/casino. They have, however, shafted their affiliates. My problem. I need to pull them from my sites, but they aren't 'rogue' for my visitors.

The problem is that affiliate lounge is supported by big affiliates that have promoted their brands for years, their minimum player rule is just for keeping small affiliates out. This is their way how to float the boat for the future. I do not feel happy seeing those big affiliates getting less competiton and prosper from other ones ruled out by this program.
IMO affiliate lounge is ripping off webmasters and no better than any rogue affiliate program so I posted a warning on my site and I am not taking it off any time soon

[lauferb]

any rogue affiliate program so I posted a warning on my site and I am not taking it off any time soon

yes but it's a problem, now every person can define it differently, what is the global definition of 'rogue'?

for example, let's say that there is a good affiliation program, but one small affiliate don't like it for some reason and publishes in all forums that it's rogue, people that read the forums will think the same

on the other hand there can be a real scam program that cheats its affiliates and the readers of the forums will not know how to distinguish between the two and really be able to evaluate which is better comparing to others, and which is just good in general but has some complains and so on...

why not just make a global definition of this?
it'll be possible then to make a list of all the affiliation programs that exist (for example all the ones that are certified by GPWA or CAP) and then it'll have columns like:
1. program name
2. number of affiliates that are registered
3. number of affiliates that define it as "rauge"
4. number of affiliates that recommend it

and so on...
and this list can be public for GPWA or CAP members and it'll make life for affiliate easy, they can just see which are the good program and decide which one they want to register to?

it's technically possible to give access to a voting system so each affiliate will be able to vote and the table will update automatically

(I can make this application, it's not hard to make, I think that it'll give a solution to many affiliates)

[MichaelCorfman]

yes but it's a problem, now every person can define it differently, what is the global definition of 'rogue'?

for example, let's say that there is a good affiliation program, but one small affiliate don't like it for some reason and publishes in all forums that it's rogue, people that read the forums will think the same

on the other hand there can be a real scam program that cheats its affiliates and the readers of the forums will not know how to distinguish between the two and really be able to evaluate which is better comparing to others, and which is just good in general but has some complains and so on...

why not just make a global definition of this?
it'll be possible then to make a list of all the affiliation programs that exist (for example all the ones that are certified by GPWA or CAP) and then it'll have columns like:
1. program name
2. number of affiliates that are registered
3. number of affiliates that define it as "rauge"
4. number of affiliates that recommend it

and so on...
and this list can be public for GPWA or CAP members and it'll make life for affiliate easy, they can just see which are the good program and decide which one they want to register to?

it's technically possible to give access to a voting system so each affiliate will be able to vote and the table will update automatically

(I can make this application, it's not hard to make, I think that it'll give a solution to many affiliates)

We are building a pretty comprehensive system that lets affiliates say what they think of different programs, although we still have much more work to complete before it is finished. But webmasters can enter opinions of programs that they have published on their websites today. The announcement of the facility to share webmaster opinions is here: http://www.gpwa.org/forum/gpwa-membe...rs-185381.html.

Michael

[lauferb]

it's very nice system but it's very general
I was thinking of something much more simple
like this:

a page in the site of GPWA that has a table like this:



this page can have access to the public for read only
and members in GPWA can have an option also to vote
the table contains only the summary of the votes like above so members can put their vote anonymously basically, and members can also change their vote at any time
this table can be populated automatically from the list of programs that are registered in GPWA
each member can vote only once for each program in the list

[MichaelCorfman]

it's very nice system but it's very general
I was thinking of something much more simple

Yes, we'll need a presentation interface too. Probably something simple like you show, and with more details available for those who want to see it. And of course we need to give webmasters the choice of sharing it as their opinion or keeping themselves private and just counting in total.

We're willing to invest a moderate amount of development work into creating a really good tool, and that is probably what will be needed to synthesize together something that can be easy to use and also that can have more detail when it is available.

Michael