Membership application = Personal interrogation?

[Platinum]

I would like to apologize in advance, by all means i don't mean to be rude nor offensive.

As it was suggested to me, i went to apply for a private membership...
Actually, i was truly surprised to see it looks more like an interrogation than an application for a forum memership.

I don't know why do i have to list all my sites, then look for the dates i've launched them and list them too. I am self employed in my own business. All my domains are registered under my business name. So, from what i understand i will have to provide you with the documents about me and my company.

Well, i have nothing to hide. Yet, I will not do so if my application as submitted will be declined.

I have joined affiliate programs.. It was much easier than fillling that application. Moreover, Opening an account with Neteller was easier and less intrusive.

Why am i required to list all my existing sites and inform you of new ones i launch?

Why is all that?

Again, though i may sound grumpy.. By all means i don't mean to be rude nor offensive. I'm simply not used to being interrogated at such levels to join a forum or a forum sector.

[CityGuard]

Hi Platinum
There are specific reasons for each of the membership criteria, and I think there is also an underling difference in how the Gambling Portal Webmasters' Association views the meaning of membership.

In contrast to CAP, WinnerOnline, CasinoMeisters, etc., the GPWA is intended to be a professional association rather than a message board. Although access to the private forums is a big part of private membership privileges, the application is for the association and not the forums. Thus, membership has an added meaning of signifying a level of professionalism and credibility that requires some assurance process.

The application form and each of the requirements speak to concerns of the members and the industry as a whole. I go through these individually in the below two posts (one for the requirements, one for the form). I tried just posting these all in one message, but the volume of text is a bit overwhelming as one item so I thought it made sense to break them out into chunks.

I don't think your message came across as grumpy -- you've raised some important questions that deserve attention. I am interested in hearing improvements to help make the application feel less like an interrogation, and I think it would be worthwhile to take a step back and ask ourselves why these requirements are the way they are, whether their serving the aims they set out to serve, and if other things can help serve these aims as well.

This message is my view of the requirements, and there are a number of other folks who I'm sure have thoughts to add here.


Steven

[CityGuard]

THE REQUIREMENTS
Quote:
<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">Private membership is available only to Gambling Portal Webmasters. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">3. Your portal must have been up and running for at least 3 months prior to your application. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">4. We do not accept portals that mix porn and gambling on the same site. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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 https://www.gpwa.org/forum/any-casino-offering-nude-dealers-168010.html.

Quote:
<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">5. We do not accept portals that are 1-page "banner farms." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<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">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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.

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.

[CityGuard]

THE APPLICATION FORM
Full Name: We require the individual's full name in order to do our checks for requirements 1, 6, and 9.

Existing GPWA Username: We require the applicant's username to ensure the applicant has registered for a public account prior to submitted a private membership application, so we can take into account prior participation, and so we know what account to upgrade access for should the application be approved.

Email: We require an email address generally to communicate with the applicant through the application process, and we require communication with an email address at one of the user's domain names as an additional step to prevent impersonation.

Estimated Monthly Traffic: This is a relic from prior usage. I haven't seen this used anywhere, but we haven't changed the form or discussed it in the membership team since Casino City took over responsibility for managing it. It is ok to leave this blank.

Your Country: This also doesn't get used in an active way, although in a few cases its been helpful to know this as a possible explanation of language difficulties with English. Again, this was inhereted and we haven't really discussed why this was here or how it should be used.

List ALL Sites You Own: This is used in most of the requirements. In some cases, an applicant only needs at least one qualifying site (criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) while other requirements must be adhered to for all sites, most notably the no content theft requirement (criteria 4, 8, 9). This is also the reason we request disclosure of additional sites launched after the application -- so we can check them for requirements 4, 8, and 9.

Launch Dates (measured to the month): This is required for reviewing requirement 3. It also came up once in reviewing requirement 9. I think it might make sense to change this one as well to launch month for sites launched within the last 6 months, and launch year for older sites.

[systemlays]

I think its perfectly reasonable to have a stringent policy re applications - indeed that is the main reason I joined GPWA and would not consider anything similar. I'm looking for professional people doing similar things so that we can form a working relationship: I want to know that they come up to a certain standard!

The strict approval process helps - its a bit like DMOZ, you can be reasonably sure that anyone who gets in knows their onions.

[Leo]

Thanks for the explanation. I have read and re-read the application numerous times in the past, and have always been put-off by it... That's a LOT of information to give out. I appreciate you taking the time to explain why all that information is being asked for.

A lot of my promotional efforts go into SEO, and one of my primary concerns is not having other webmasters copy my sites. Of course nothing is stopping people from finding the sites through Google, and nothing is going to stop people from copying my sites, but I certainly don't want to make the sites more obvious to webmasters - so I really don't want any links to my sites in my GPWA profile, or to have my sites added to the GPWA approved sites list. Is that possible? I will have a hard enough time trusting the GPWA staff with my list of domains

I am sure that being a member of the GPWA is valuable and having access to the forum would be great... I look forward to hearing your response regarding the possibility of maintaining privacy.

[GamTrak]

I think its perfectly reasonable to have a stringent policy re applications - indeed that is the main reason I joined GPWA and would not consider anything similar. I'm looking for professional people doing similar things so that we can form a working relationship: I want to know that they come up to a certain standard!

The strict approval process helps - its a bit like DMOZ, you can be reasonably sure that anyone who gets in knows their onions.

I feel the same way. Either you decide to do it or you pass.

Each one of us had to go thru the process and I don't see a problem in providing information that is already public if it's a requirement. If there is a vote to change things then we can see what happens.

I can understand the concerns expressed here, but I like knowing that anyone that has access to that area to be a true webmaster/affiliate and not a spammer or porn site.

[matted]

It is a two way street, honestly.

The way I see it, by keeping membership criteria reasonably high, you weed out unethical webmasters who would do many of the things you are concerned about.

AND - at the same time, by being transparent with your own sites - so others can see you aren't taking advantage of other successful affiliates discussing things in the private forums.

[Leo]

OK, I can see the value of that, and I can agree that it sounds ideal to limit the private forums to only webmasters that can publicly prove they are non-spamming, non-stealing etc.

If joining GPWA means showing other members my list of sites, that means I can't join - there's no way I'm going to make my sites more obvious to other webmasters, no matter how ethical most of you are here. The SEO methods I use are ethical 'whitehat' and some of them are not being commonly used by many other portal webmasters - so I only have the advantage until other webmasters catch on and copy the ideas. I'm not talking about copying content, I'm sure your members are mostly too ethical for that, but copying the concept has equally bad results for me. Of course I know my sites can be found by webmasters anyway, and ideas will be copied regardless, but the SEO benefits are much better if the sites are not copied immediately - the longer delay, the better - so it would be very disadvantageous for me to shorten the copying process by promoting the url's to other webmasters.

As GamTrak wrote, "Either you decide to do it or you pass". That's fair enough. But I have a suggestion that I hope you may consider - to make just the forums for the affiliate programs viewable to non-GPWA members. Having the ability to post could be optional, but being able to read the posts would be very valuable to assess the reliability of the programs. For example I am tempted to join Euro Partners but at another forum I've read about payment issues, and I would really like to read the messages here... If the affiliate program forums were publically-viewable, it seems like it would provide benefits to the whole affiliate community, and wouldn't compromise the private discussions in the other GPWA-only forums.

What do you think?