Im torn as to what this business really is

[boozaa]

I have to agree with giggle, mojo and QwertyCasino about having a link to 'rouged' sites. IMO the information needs to be there, but the link to the site needs to be removed.

I for one appreciate all that Casino City and GPWA do and have confidence that decisions are made in the best interest of all involved.

maybe you should remove your links
http://www.gamtrak.com/GamTrakForum/...splay.php?f=65

http://www.gamtrak.com/GamTrakForum/...ad.php?t=11284

[GamTrak]

Maybe you should mind your business.

maybe you should remove your links
http://www.gamtrak.com/GamTrakForum/...splay.php?f=65

http://www.gamtrak.com/GamTrakForum/...ad.php?t=11284

[boozaa]

Maybe you should mind your business.

I thought it was everyones business to oust the affiliates that promote dodgy casino's

[DaftDog]

I agree with Michael and understand his logic.

All visitors to Casino City are adults and can make their own decisions and choices by having all the information made available to them.

If I was a newbie to the online casino business and I visited Casino City and came across one of the rouged sites I would appreciate all this information.

I would also appreciate the link to the rouged property as this is part of the "evidence". If wanted to, I could visit the site to see for myself, and with all the available information in mind, make my own decision.

[MichaelCorfman]

Over the last few months everyone has yelled about how important transparency is and I believe this is the case here as well. I trust there is good reason just like the others but some sort of fast explanation would be awesome. Is it for seo reasons? I think a small tiny icon that says "caution" would be awesome to do and believe me as extensive as that directory is nothing is going to happen fast everyone, it will take months to get this updated or whatever it is Michael decides to do.

Well, I was going to try to wait until a couple development projects were finished so I could do some screen shots to answer this question, but I guess I will explain the way it will work once those projects underway are completed.

This will be the most typical path:

User searches in google, and one of the search results is of the form:

Black Pirate Casino
Online Casino City has rogued Black Pirate Casino. WARNING: Do not play there! Find out everything you need to know about Black Pirate Casino and other online gambling sites at Online Casino City.

The user decides to click on the search result link to find out more. They are presented with a page with the following information

Promotions for featured casinos that are not rogued

Basic information about Black Pirate Casino

A black skull and crossbones below a heading saying "Rogue Advisory" with text in bold red that says "We believe that Black Pirate Casino is not reputable. Play at your own risk! "

a link that says "Visit Black Pirate Casino"

News and more extensive details about Black Pirate Casino

Now the user really wants to visit Black Pirate Casino in spite of what they see so far, so the click the "Visit Black Pirate Casino" link.

But, we don't take them directly to Black Pirate Casino. Instead we overlay the page with a big box something like this:

Warning! Black Pirate Casino is considered rogue!
We strongly recommend you play somewhere else.

Here are other places you should consider playing at instead.

[Casino 1 Promotion] [Casino 2 Promotion] [Casino 3 Promotion]

...............................Take me to the ROGUE Black Pirate Casino.

And then, at this point, the user clicks on the "ROGUE Black Pirate Casino" link.

AT this point in time the user has decided to ignore three sets of warnings. They are clearly on a mission to visit this rogue casino.

Now, the question here is should we just remove the last link on the final block of text shown above. I think the answer is no, and there is one main reason. If we remove the link, then we have to remove the link on the page with general information about the property that says "Visit Black Pirate Casino". The reason is that we would be being deceptive if we have a link that says "Visit Black Pirate Casino" where clicking on that link does not provide any possible way to get to the casino.

But, if we remove the "Visit Black Pirate Casino" link from our general information page about Black Pirate Casino then someone who thinks they want to go to the Black Pirate Casino while looking at the general information page about it will simply click the back button to return to google and click on the next search result they think will help get them there. And that means that we miss a third chance to try to steer someone still thinking about them after visiting the general information page to a better alternative.

So, when my objective is to try to create a funnel intended to maximize the chance a player will visit a different casino besides our fictitious Black Pirate Casino, I think pulling them in for a third try at sending them somewhere else is important, and the most effective way to do that is either to lie on the link from the general information page, which I view as unacceptable, or to include the link at the end for those who are hell bent on getting to the site no matter how many warnings they see.

Also, so folks know, the projects in the works are 1) a project to include special descriptive text that will be displayed in search results identifying casinos we have marked as rogue and 2) a project to emphasize the rogue nature of the a rogue casino in the final overlay described above.

Michael

[bonustreak]

That is really awesome Michael!! Searchers will not only have 1 but 2 flags of caution, I find that very impressive and applaud you on that. The second flag is awesome and really needed because as we all know already most USA players just click and go, they don't read or give a crap about rules or cautions...lol They just want to play and play right now!

[lots0]

Michael, I do understand your logic about listing all the casinos, it actually makes a lot of sense.

But my question is why not just 'no-follow' those links to the rogue casinos?

The point of not linking to a Rogue is to not pass 'credibility' to the rogues in the search engines, so that they don't show up in the SERP at all.

Using a 'no-follow' for those links would accomplish your goal and also the goal of not passing any PR (credibility) from CC to the bad guys.

All the big three Search Engine's now incorporate "no-follow" in their algo.

I personally choose to not link to the rogues at all and just use text content to try to accomplish some of the same goals as you.

[MichaelCorfman]

Michael, I do understand your logic about listing all the casinos, it actually makes a lot of sense.

But my question is why not just 'no-follow' those links to the rogue casinos?

Lots0,

I think that is an excellent suggestion. Consider it done.

Thanks,

Michael

[universal4]

boozaa,

Please refrain from singling someone out the way you did because they may promote a property or group. Each individual affiliate has the right to make their own choices about who they promote.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss industry trends and was started by an affiliate and how they "felt" about the business.

It has changed a bit and has morphed into a discussion about how we feel about and deal with casinos that have been rogued by others.

I understand that Casino City has also been put on the spot, but the explanation by Michael about why and how he will be handling the way rogue proerties will be dealt with at Casino City is very informative and will help many others....

Rick
Universal4

[GCG]

Each individual affiliate has the right to make their own choices about who they promote.

Yes ofcourse but you will not be one of my best friends if you do. This industry needs fullproof trust and any place that does just the opposite hurts bad for everyone who wants to do the right thing.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by GamTrak
Maybe you should mind your business. =D>;

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I thought it was everyones business to oust the affiliates that promote dodgy casino's

whatever you do I do not care ........ you will do it anyway to make money, but what goes around comes around. If you start defending rogue places so will be your own reputation sometime. You have been advised that many times Gamtrak : start listening to the players and do not promote dodgy casinos.

[Puma]

Hooray for everybody who made a post in this thread. It shows alot about how we can make a difference if we just work together. Michael, you the man for taking such big steps to solve some issues that affiliates had WTG !

I think the next step for us as affiliates is to weed out our own sites of such dodgy casinos. Yes I even have some weeding to do lol. If after some time has passed and we still see sites promoting such rogued casinos as virtual, Wild Vegas , cool cat etc, I think it would be a required step to send a nice email to the site owners innforming them that they are promoting such sites that in the long run will do no good for themselves as an affiliate or the players they promote these casinos to.

For those of you who have inboxed me, thank very much for your support and I will reply shortly. I am still getting my thoughts sorted out and hope I can overcome this anger I currently have for the gambling industry.

Take a stand for the industry , Don't put up with crap just to make a buck.

[boozaa]

boozaa,

Please refrain from singling someone out the way you did because they may promote a property or group. Each individual affiliate has the right to make their own choices about who they promote.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss industry trends and was started by an affiliate and how they "felt" about the business.

It has changed a bit and has morphed into a discussion about how we feel about and deal with casinos that have been rogued by others.

I understand that Casino City has also been put on the spot, but the explanation by Michael about why and how he will be handling the way rogue proerties will be dealt with at Casino City is very informative and will help many others....

Rick
Universal4

I wouldn't usually single any one person out but when i saw this posted i just had to say something,

I have to agree with giggle, mojo and QwertyCasino about having a link to 'rouged' sites. IMO the information needs to be there, but the link to the site needs to be removed.
I for one appreciate all that Casino City and GPWA do and have confidence that decisions are made in the best interest of all involved.

telling someone that the link to a site needs to be removed, when they have a website full of links promoting rogue casino's, sorry but that just gets my goat,


True, everyone has the right to promote anything they want, but i keep reading that this business needs to be trustworthy, if affiliates promote such sites how can the industry become trustworthy,
also im speaking as a player, not as an affiliate i have learnt over the years which casino's to play at where i know ill get paid, but if i was new to gambling and came across such sites i wouldnt have a clue they were dodgy,
i cant see how this industry can become honest ,trustworthy, transparent when there are website that blatantly promote rogue casino.s

[MichaelCorfman]

Actually, it is kind of funny, but completely independently of the timing of the discussion taking place here our designer finished the mock for the pop-up overlay we will be using on our online casino city website when a visitor clicks on the link for an online casino considered rogue as discussed earlier in this thread. So, I thought I would post it here for folks to see.



Michael

[giggles7p]

Micheal, Thank you very much for taking the time to explain to myself and others why you have links to these sites. Your explanation, which may still confuse me, seems excepted by peers that i respect and trust just as yourself, so if they approve, so do I. I wish i could understand the logic of having a link to a site for people to use as an avenue to visit if they wish, but i do see your lap over page, and your warnings, and it looks great. I hope this works the way you all wish, and it makes this industry better for all of us. As it is right now, there is so much "bad" seen every single day now, with no breaks, i really believe we need to start making it a point to talk "everyday" about the "Good" thats out there, as to not get discouraged to the point that "puma" has gotten to.

Lets start a "Happy Affiliate" thread, and everyday, we need to post something positive in this industry, or some accomplishment made to make it better, so we all can keep a positive attitude and when we see someone faultering, we can lift them up as a caring community and go on to the next day.

Pat

[MichaelCorfman]

I have great confidence with the GPWA. As matted pointed out “it isn’t easy” and I 100% agree GPWA has and is outstanding.

I certainly do not want to take away from this thread but feel it is time. Giggles you mentioned Grand Prive so have many others. Grand Prive will likely forever be compared with the most notorious Ponzi Schemer Bernard Madoff, Or at least the biggest Affiliate Online Gambling Hustle in history. I believe then as I do today Grand Prive charted this course a few years back. Oh yeah I pounded hard but lacked the convincing abilities to change anyone’s mind. And now I sincerely feel horrible for those who supported Grand Prive to the bitter end.

I am so bitter and hope one day Grand Prive is nothing more than a lump of SH**. I prey for the worst so they may truly know hardship.

On occasion I would ask if the Grand Prive affiliate program is done why are affiliates still supporting them. I received very little response okay not a popular question. With over 50 various Grand Prive affiliate links collected I am still confused.

So I have decided to post two of them. If I offend anyone it is not my intent I am simply trying to understand.

Here it is:

blackjack-strategycard.com/bella_vegas_casino.htm

btag=B2_A2

casinocashjourney.co.uk/casino_grand_bay.htm

btag=C2_A2

Are these workable aff links? Why would these sites still carry Grand Prive? Maybe both sites have not been updated in a while? You see I am confused because I have 48 more.

greek39

I've sent a pm off to the site owner letting them know about these links. I'm positive this is just a case of not realizing they are there at the moment. We all know how hard it can be to find and take down information when it is old and outdated and not something we would really want to be doing anymore.

Michael

[slotplayer]

I like it a lot, there is a "c" missing in the exclusive bonus page which I'm sure would be caught but just in case.

[bonustreak]

That looks great and if players proceed to the casino after that I am sorry but the are plain stupid, that is a HUGE warning and very alarming looking ...lol

[mojo]

Certainly impressive Michael and the mockup is excellent and sends the message that is imperative. I knew an education was forthcoming.

I saw this earlier but wanted to think a bit.

CC is probably the most comprehensive informational site anywhere. I think this may work well for you since you have put these measures in place. For me, I would not put a direct link but for you I understand. I understand that given the amount of information that you do, it is also up to the player to read it and make an educated decision. I doubt a player would go ahead to the site after seeing the warnings and you certainly did all you could to discourage that. The purpose of your link is so that you do not 'lie' to the visitor when you are in the search that player is looking for. I get that.

So while I wouldn't do this myself as a small affiliate, I appreciate that it works for you and hopefully the player since you are hitting them hard with it. The harder the better.

[bb1web]

That looks great and if players proceed to the casino after that I am sorry but the are plain stupid, that is a HUGE warning and very alarming looking ...lol

You'd be amazed my friend.

I know I've mentioned this before but worth repeating (condensed)

I had a review bringing in traffic for the casino's name as keyword, the casino wasn't worthy so I first put up a warning in red, and provided same software alternatives.

my stats showed they were still clicking thru at an alarming rate.

I made the warning bigger, more threatening etc.

I finally took down the link to the offending casino because they were clicking thru and I decided I wasn't going to help them both get screwed + their stupidity of ignoring the warnings meant when they got ripped-off they were funding the cheats to continue that much longer.

I too ... appreciate CCs desired approach ... but I can't help but feel its wrong for the reason's mentioned (just in this type situation, I have nothing but highest respect for CC and Owner and if I didn't ... I wouldn't feel comfortable disagreeing with them in their own forum. But I know they are bigger than to let that ever be an issue and in fact I know they encourage other POVs.

Kudos for that

[bb1web]

1) a project to include special descriptive text that will be displayed in search results identifying casinos we have marked as rogue and

Now that rocks!

2) a project to emphasize the rogue nature of the a rogue casino in the final overlay described above.

that well... I revert back to my experience. Now I should have added also that the casino in my situation had a free play chip offer .. but lets face it .. most these kind of places ARE going to have the kind of offers that players can't resist ... which is why i stand by my conclusion that any link to the offending casino is a bad idea. Every penny they make is used against us. Don't add to their bankroll. Make them click back to the next listing .. even if it means losing that traffic.

I know if i could afford to lose it ... CC can lol. (I realize that's not why they keep the link up but the result is still the same in respect to possibly helping put more money into that casino's pockets).

Look at stats and I'm pretty sure a lot of traffic is lost when surfers are forced to go back to a SE and click another returned result. (meaning that whatever the first search they did ... that the chances of them pursuing that search drops considerably from each and every time they are forced to return to the search engine)

And hopefully if everybody is doing their job and not providing links ... then ... see where I'm going with that?