Is it reasonable to sometimes block unresolved allegation forum threads from Google?

[MichaelCorfman]

Oftentimes forum threads are started based on allegations of wrongdoing that have not been fully researched in advance. That can be part of a natural investigative process because there are suspicions, but not evidence to draw a firm conclusion.

Recently there was a situation where allegations were made about an affiliate program that is neither a regular participant in the GPWA forums, nor a sponsor program. The program approached the GPWA and requested that we investigate the situation, claiming the allegations were false. It was further requested that the threads be removed from the forum.

We explained that removal was not appropriate because a significant purpose of the forum is to explore and investigate issues related to the operation of affiliate programs. However, we did agree that we would look into the situation and try to make sure that the facts underlying the issue were laid bare in the threads where the issues were raised. And we indicated that if the issue was resolved in a satisfactory fashion, then we would update the thread title in an appropriate fashion to indicate the issue raised was resolved in our opinion, as is our general practice.

So, I personally undertook an investigation. The situation involved allegations of spam being sent. And the affiliate program indicated that they took spam seriously, that they themselves were not the source of the emails in question, that an affiliate was, but that to take action against the affiliate they required a copy of the actual spam email. The person making the allegation refused to provide a complete copy of the original email, claiming that the email address should not have to be provided since it was private information.

So, what I thought would be a relatively simple issue to address became one that was more complicated and certainly not as clear-cut as I had expected in the first place. And, of course, there were lots of other matters on my plate, so I made a decision that resolving the issue could not remain my top priority since a resolution was going to take some time, and that in the meantime I did not view the allegations as being fully appropriate as top search results showing up for this program.

On that basis I made a decision that discussion in the GPWA forum was very appropriate, but that publication of that thread externally outside of the community here was not appropriate at the time. The program was not a sponsor program, nor did I expect they would become one, so this decision on my part was based 100% on my sense of fair play.

I should state that this is not a common practice, nor would I want it to become a common practice. I do think, however, that it is appropriate for the general issue, and the action I have taken, to be subject to feedback from the community. I do take the opinions of private members most seriously in matters of this nature. But since this issue has been pointed out in the public forums, I think it is also appropriate to outline the general issue in the public forums as well, and also to seek public feedback about whether the action taken was appropriate or inappropriate. If, in the public forums, there is a sense that what was done was inappropriate, then I will subsequently hold a poll of the private members and act based on the result of that poll.

The following are the threads that are currently blocked:

/forum/roxy-ibexnetwork-spam-enough-already-211920.html
/forum/warnung-vor-ibexnetwork-209525.html
/forum/ibexnetwork-com-warning-209699.html

Michael

[universal4]

I will be honest that I am a little torn on how to answer this poll and need more time to think about it.

I want to weigh the factors from both sides of the issue since I think this issue is important enough.

On the one hand, I think once posted it should be available.

But on the other hand, the information is still available, but in reality the post or posts can contain unsubstantiated claims and accusations that are unproven, and therefore should be given the opportunity to be investigated.

Rick
Universal4

[edgarf76]

My two cents is that the person being accused of something should have time to submit proof that they were not in the wrong which could be blocked for that period. If they cannot prove their innocence, then IMO it should be shown in search engines and unblocked. I do have more to say based on a recent purchase of a B rated sportsbook but I am going to hold off for now.

[Pmig]

Despite who is right on this issue, starting obfuscate any person point of view trough any method is not the right way.

If a allegation of any kind is made that should be open to many people as possible, this way the true comes faster and on future similar allegations everybody can see that issue is already discussed and solved.

Censorship is not a good practice, specially on digital media. Blocking search engines to a discussion is somehow a censorship method.

For this reason I vote: No, never.

[-Shay-]

If one of the purposes of this forum is to bring to light issues, investigate them, and warn others - taking the initial claim out of the public eye is not ideal. Generally speaking, the allegation could be the start of a problematic trend (smoke before fire), it could be a legit widespread issue, or it could be nothing at all.

Regardless, if opinions are encouraged and respected - if a claim is made and discussions are had, why block them from the search engines? I think you'd be doing our community and the online gambling industry a severe disservice if you selectively block threads.

[universal4]

I think there is some misconception about what did take place and what is being asked.

This was NOT obfuscated in any way, posts were NOT edited nor were they removed from public view.

Only the robots were restricted from indexing the content, to reduce the hit the brand would suffer had the issue turned out to be either false or incorrect.

I am starting to lean toward voting that a temporary removal from bot indexing through robots.txt, providing this is only done in extreme circumstances, not taken lightly....

Shay makes a good point for the other side also, and his point is part of what has me riding on the fence.

Rick
Universal4

[Roulette Zeitung]

It's always important to get a confirmation for his actions in hindsight if you get cought.

The more energy, the deeper the wound.
Not good to insult the intelligence of some readers.
Show me a German webmaster who is not laughing and shaking his head.
Ibexnetwork has cheated a German webmaster for a lot of money.

The webmaster is well know in the German szene as a good guy.
Silcence and stop writing in the German area of this forum is an alternative answer.

He opened an English thread too: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/ibexnetwo...tml?highlight=

The thread was secretly hidden from Google index too.

64,752 threads contains this forum.

All resolved?

Don't forget: The reason of this poll is my post: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/ibexnetwo...tml#post727823

It's always important to get a confirmation for his actions in hindsight if you get cought.

Leopold

[Pmig]

I think there is some misconception about what did take place and what is being asked.

This was NOT obfuscated in any way, posts were NOT edited nor were they removed from public view.

Only the robots were restricted from indexing the content, to reduce the hit the brand would suffer had the issue turned out to be either false or incorrect.

I am starting to lean toward voting that a temporary removal from bot indexing through robots.txt, providing this is only done in extreme circumstances, not taken lightly....

Shay makes a good point for the other side also, and his point is part of what has me riding on the fence.

Rick
Universal4

When I mention "obfuscation" I'm talking about the use of the robots.txt (sometimes I wish have a better english level to express myself).

[-Shay-]

Is there any way that we can see who voted for what in this poll? I think being able to view how folks voted would be in the best interest of transparency for this particular issue.

[thebookiesoffers]

Is there any way that we can see who voted for what in this poll? I think being able to view how folks voted would be in the best interest of transparency for this particular issue.

don't like that idea at all, people should be allowed to vote whatever they think without putting their head in any line of fire

[thebookiesoffers]

Having quickly read the spam question/argument/disagreement/complaint - whatever you want to call it. Can't see how this is even an issue. If the affiliate program wont do anything about then fair plays, name and shame in public. If they have asked for proof and this has not been sent then why should they be named and shamed in public, they have not been given the chance to sort the problem. I'm actually shocked that the complainant simply wont forward the email he got to the affiliate team, how can it be sorted if not?????????

And also whether they are or are not or may in future be a forum sponsor should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how this is looked at and aired

[thebookiesoffers]

and as to the poll i voted yes on a temporary basis. i.e full proof gets it out in google, if not, tough

[-Shay-]

don't like that idea at all, people should be allowed to vote whatever they think without putting their head in any line of fire

I normally do not. In this particular case I do. Affiliate managers and programs who could be impacted by this vote/policy also have a say in the vote. In the interest of transparency, I'd really like to see who is voting which way.

[Louis - Income Access]

Michael, I applaud this poll and the reasoning behind it.

We know that this forum is an important guardian of ethical behavior for affiliate programs, and that it is essential for a public forum to exist so that brands that engage in unethical behavior can be called out and problems can be resolved in a fair manner.

We also know that there have been enough cases of individuals in this forum making unproven accusations as if they were fact. This is a problem because if this forum becomes known as a place where wild, unproven accusations are given equal baring to proven facts, then the forum will become discredited and brands will no longer chose to heed the words of those who participate here.

It's a delicate balance. Brands chose to participate in forums because they want to engage with the community, but too often they are forced to endlessly put out fires, many of which are the result of unreasonable requests or unproven allegations. If the costs of the forum begin to outweigh the benefits, brands will leave and the forum will lose its essential function as the public forum where brands and affiliates meet to resolve conflict under the public eye.

I would absolutely argue that until some kind of proof is given, unresolved allegation threads should be hidden from Google. The unfortunate reality as that there are individuals who would post false allegations simply to cause harm to a program, and these kind of attacks damage the credibility of the real, important problem disputes that occur here. GPWA must strive to maintain credibility or its essential value to the industry could be compromised.

[universal4]

And also whether they are or are not or may in future be a forum sponsor should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how this is looked at and aired

This is a good point, and I honestly think that even though Michael has a vested interest in the sponsorship part of the equation that he truly does try not to let that cloud his decisions when it comes to the posting of threads and how they are presented to the members.

And Louis, you stated that point very well.

The problem is, until such claims are investigated, we either have to let the (possibly false) allegations stand, or the mods have to completely remove them from public view (not censor but just unapprove the thread until we investigate the claims) or we can consider what Michael did in this particular case.

A) If we let it stand, a brand, OR INDIVIDUAL if the allegation is leveled at an affiliate, can be harmed.
Not fair to possibly an innocent party.

B) If the thread is unapproved, many will not know of the issue and we have less input to get to the truth.
Not fair to the community as a whole.

C) Keep thread public, but restrict the bots and get more input and hopefully hear all sides.
Seems like about the most fair thing to do.


I will be honest that I was kinda surprised to learn how this all came about, but in hindsight after I have had some time to think about it, I am sure it is a decision that Michael had put quite a bit of thought into.

Believe it or not, the other mods and admins and I very often discuss fairness in the way in which threads and individual posts are handled on a regular basis and the theme is almost always "What is the fairest way to everyone involved, without restricting involvement of anyone"

Rick
Universal4

Disclaimer: The mods (myself included) certainly are NOT perfect and we make mistakes (myself included) and it is one of the reason we have discussions on a regular basis on fairness since it's so easy for any one of us to allow our personal opinion to get in the way.

Funnily enough, I have to moderate myself sometimes....lol

[universal4]

I would also like to go on record and state, this had NOTHING to do with being German or not being German.

Allegations were leveled, and proof was requested and since the proof was not forthcoming in a timely manner is when Michael made the robot decision.

We hope that stopping to post here is not the final decision, since taking a calm and serious professional look at issues is needed before issues can be exposed, and before there is even a hope of getting toward a resolution.

Rick
Universal4

[-Shay-]

To add a bit more for thought in this thread, this particular issue (censorship, blocking issues from Google until proven/resolved) is a bit near and dear to my heart.

To expand a bit on that, as well as my other post, since I've entered this industry, I've prided myself on being an advocate for players and other affiliates - often without wanting or asking for compensation. If someone is wronged, I've stepped in numerous times to help right the situation. The very nature of the house edge in casino games or betting or the rake should be "enough" of a payday. Players and advertisers do not need to be cheated in any form.

With that in mind, quite often I see signs of "a fire" (smoke) before there is an actual fire. Sometimes, the smoke goes away on its own, other times it is a false alarm. Still other times, it turns into a small, controlled fire while other times it turns into a full blown blaze.

There have been many instances where players are wronged and either do not know how to fix it or think they're the only ones. Betonline being a perfect example - poker players were getting their funds frozen and their support team was incompetent. Additionally, management did not understand exactly how poker worked. Anyway, because the reporting was not hidden, the issues were brought to light. People who were not part of a few of the forums chimed in, joining the conversation, adding insight - whether it was "yea, that happened to me as well", or "I was told this...". Unless they were active members of the community, some of these people would not have found the help or information. Additionally, if other forums blocked threads of this nature, how would anyone have ever found out there might have been a problem at the time? (my understanding is that this is no longer a prominent issue with BetOnline).

In at least one of the discussions I was a part of, there was "effort" to silence the thread. More than one of us were "strongly encouraged" to mind our p's and q's in very "creative" ways. In fact, the way I was treated led me to participate here in this forum after seeing that it (GPWA) felt less restrictive in how problems are dealt with.

The way issues are brought to this forum and how they are handled means a great deal to me. Currently, I've not chose to apply for private membership, as I have not yet seen the need to "join" beyond public status. There's nothing in the private forum that I am able to access as a public member and I'm OK with that. To the best of my knowledge, Google cannot access the private forum either. However, if the public forum is in fact public - then it should remain truly public. Otherwise, what's the point, right?

[DaftDog]

This forum is here to encourage debate. If an accusation is made then the accused has the right to respond. The truth will reveal itself if an honest and open debate is held in public and not via email.

As a webmaster I do not need to be protected from the "truth" by censorship. Blocking search engine access to a thread is censorship. Most readers of this forum can make their own mind up as to when someone is being honest or not in a thread.

If I need to search Google for more information on "Affiliate Company X" then I would like to see that there may be an issue with them on the GPWA forum and other forums. By reading the threads I can make an informed decision.

I deal with a few affiliate companies that some GPWA members have had, and continue to have, problems with. At the end of the day the forums allowed me to make an informed decision based on multiple threads, good or bad, if any.

Edited: I would like to add that one bad thread cannot topple anybody unless they are already on shaky ground.

[slotplayer]

Operate from a position of integrity and you won't have any conflicts. Operate from a purely financial standpoint and you will.

I always tell people what goes on the internet stays on the internet so be careful what and where you post.

Of course the posts should be blocked until there is clear evidence otherwise. Why should some upset affiliate possibly ruin someones business just because they feel they've been slighted?

I say to programs what I say to those webmasters I crackdown on that steal my product images, take your own pictures and you won't have this problem. Programs stop cheating affiliates and you won't have any problems.

Once the evidence is clear, remove the block and the let the chips fall where they may.

You reap what you sow.

[alin04]

I voted NO, NEVER! Because blocking search engine access to a thread is censorship and I am from a country that censorship was for years until 1989.