Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    GFPC is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    3,525
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,145
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 673 Posts

    Default Reviews of Affiliate Programs

    I think it would be a good idea if GPWA allowed affiliates to review selected affiliate programs that are Sponsored here. Similar to what CAP does now.

    All to often new affiliates are led to believe if the affiliate program is listed here it must be safe and must be honest. We of course know this is not factual.

    I propose GPWA create a review section - where affiliates can rate the program on a score system like 1-5 or 1-10. Furthermore allowing us to write our opinions on the selected program.

    I do not think anyone should be able to vote either. It should be limited to Private members who will be able to vote. Reason being if you allow public members to vote you may end up with PUBLIC shills who make phony claims.

    Only accepted GPWA private members can vote and can share reasons for their rating.

    I strongly also suggest that these ratings be randomly showing on the homepage of the GPWA so that new affiliates coming into the site can see that affiliates have made votes and they can research the program.

    Often public members do not see behind the scenes talks of rogue casinos, sometimes we talk in private first and then go public. These new affiliates may not be able to see these threads.

    But a rating system will allow everyone to see. Not only affiliates but also programs and affiliate managers and the whole industry.

    Lets face it - the best to tell how an affiliate program works is from many affiliates already promoting them or who once did promote them.

    We need this - and i think it would increase the value of the GPWA in a serious way and stop people making complaints against the GPWA as accepting monies from rogue casino groups.

    This will kill two birds with one stone. As GPWA cannot follow every program of everyday of the year. Plus programs change - one day they are bad - one day they are good. Affiliates will be able to also feel more like they are making a contribution. Some do not like to post but may write a review.

    One thing i notice at CAP - and i am not sure how it works - but i also feel there needs to be an option to edit your rating! So if a program has not paid you and you want to review them as a non payment program, maybe a month later you will get paid and wan to to report that in fact you got paid.

    You should be able to edit your review or make an additional review to add on to your current review.

    This way affiiliate programs who say were once rogue decide to come clean and fix all their issues can get better ratings as time goes on. to keep existing reviews un editable its possible programs will just give up on trying to improve. This allows incentive for them to get better over time.

    Can GPWA please do something like this? It would go along way in protecting affiliates and take away the stigma of GPWA accepting money from Rouge programs.

    Any affiliate cannot claim they did not know! They will know cause all affilliates will make reviews.

    Of course it may take time - but i really would like to see this option here!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to GFPC For This Useful Post:

    LuckyLizzy (1 November 2010)

  3. #2
    ironman2000's Avatar
    ironman2000 is offline Non-sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    April 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    732
    Thanks
    188
    Thanked 147 Times in 127 Posts

    Default

    Hello GFPC,

    I believe what you are suggesting is very important to members old & new to review affiliate programs which are listed on GPWA.

    I also believe that Michael & Steven have already have in place a system to review new sponsorship requests to be listed and I feel this is good enougth in itself for affiliates to trust!!!!!

    Apart from that we have Affiliate Guard Dog & Casinomeisters which also watch out for any rougue affiliate programs and also GAU for affiliates to approach with any problems etc

    No need for too many cheifs giving personal reveiws which at the end of the day will just confuse all concered

    Have a wonderful weekend to all

    Keith
    KEITH WILLIAMSON | INDEPENDANT GAMING CONSULTANT

    SKYPE= ironman20001


    http://twitter.com/ironman20001

  4. #3
    Nandakishore's Avatar
    Nandakishore is offline In Memorium, 1935-2014
    Join Date
    December 2006
    Location
    In Germany near Munich
    Posts
    2,104
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 496 Times in 367 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ironman2000 View Post
    No need for too many cheifs giving personal reveiws which at the end of the day will just confuse all concered
    I don't agree. I think GFPC's idea that private members may review and rate affiliate programs is very good and a step towards protecting affiliates from rogue programs.

  5. #4
    thepokerkeep's Avatar
    thepokerkeep is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    London Canada
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    1,004
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 799 Posts

    Default

    I personally think that the more layers of protection we have the better. It's obvious that GPWA hasn't got the perfect system in place, just look at Ace Revenue as an example. They're de-certified at AGD and rogued by many leading websites, yet they managed to pass the GPWA review process.

    There is also the situation where a previously respected program goes rogue after being accepted for sponsorship here. In cases like this, having a rating system in place would go a long way toward warning unsuspecting affiliates.
    Terry - The Pokerkeep
    President / CEO - Gambling Affiliates Union

    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Affiliate Resources
    Gambling Affiliate Program Blacklist

    Email: admin @ thepokerkeep.com



  6. #5
    GFPC is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    3,525
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,145
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 673 Posts

    Default

    @ Keith - i can appreciate your viewpoint. I understand having many sites with similar features may "Possibly" confuse new affiliates. However I honestly feel they pros very much outweigh the cons in this particular case.

    Let me say that - this not only helps new affiliates but also helps older affiliates.
    and frankly will really aid the GPWA in extinquish the viewpoint that they accept sponsorship money from rogue programs that ultimately hurt GPWA members here.

    We often read in the forums where affiliates come in who are new and make comments like "how can a platinum sponsor do this?" and when it is explained to them that they should not base decisions of promoting a casino on whether or not they are listed here as a sponsored program - they are dumbfounded and confused.

    I do agree Michael and Steven and Anthony and the whole GPWA team do a thankless job here. They make this place the wonderful place that it is. for sure they have system checks for certain things before the fact. But certainly not after the fact.

    Terry makes this point clear in his post. Webcaz also made the point clear in his post earlier today in the private boards. There is not much they can do when it comes to programs who come here with a proper business model but only to turn around and after membership decide its ok to not pay affiliates, to create predatory terms knowing it will take a long time before anything can get done.

    The GPWA to me is not about "cheifs" its about an Association of Webmasters who together make a community. In this community we are here to help one another. We are here to watch each others back. We are here to support one another. We are here to learn and to share our viewpoints whether it be good or bad.

    Management can't baby sit programs, they can't concretely do everything. They are limited to the amount of checks they can do for programs. There is way to many programs for them to really make sure all are running ethically and honestly.

    This Keith is what we are here for. Allow us to help. Allow us to contribute. Allow us to protect one another. Allow us to decide who is rogue and who is not, allow us to review programs since we are the reason GPWA exists.

    The GPWA runs in such a way that they accept paid advertising. Its a prepaid business model to promote here. With that in mind they are limited to a certain degree on what they can do or how effectively they can do it.
    They cannot turn around and tell programs - "oh you have complaints against you for non payment - your gone!" It takes a great deal of time for them to be diplomatic - to listen to affiliates, to work with programs to resolve... SO while most of the industry has already rogued a group - GPWA still shows them as sponsored and people get seriously upset.

    This only helps the GPWA - it really does!! Its not about to many chiefs mate, its about allowing webmasters to share what is good and what is bad.

    Lets assume you want to work for a company Keith (not 2 at the same time) and you have a choice to work with Company A or B. You found these companies through an employment agency. The employment agency lists both companies as wonderful great companies. They have reviews of both companies that are almost identical. What do you choose? You meet both of them and both seem terrific. You can't decide!! Do you ask the Employment Agency? Well you could right. But they tell you that its your decision. They really cannot give you to much information on the value of each company.
    So your stuck in deciding. You may pick the company that doesn't pay you or goes under - then you get angry at the employment agency for not helping you!!! Now lets say the employment agency has reviews from previous employees who worked there. You see company A had 20 employees who give them 9/10 and write solid reviews. Then you read company B review and it has 10 people who claim bad working conditions, non payment of wages and a rating of 3/10. What are you going to choose?

    You got it!! Company A.

    Now if you choose company B and they turned around and did not pay you - would you feel angry at the employment agency? Would you blame them?
    If you did you would like pretty foolish. You had ample proof from other employees that this company is not a good one to work for.

    The employment agencies job was to provide as many possibilities - plus they run a business. They need the money to keep paying their own employees, their job is to list employers for potential matches. Maybe they do not know who is not going to pay. They cannot police every company. All they are there to do is offer this service. But they are RESPONSIBLE and offer a review system - they allow previous employees to leave reviews for new employees. This is what a responsible company does.

    Same goes for the GPWA. They cannot possibly know who is rogue, who is not going to pay, who will cheat, who will skim, who will start predatory practices. Its not really their job. Their job is to list affiliate programs for affiliates to work with. But I think they should allow for affiliates to RATE and REVIEW each program so that we can help all affiliates make wise decisions.

    If an affiliate see a review of a program and the review is so poor but decide to work with them anyways well they cannot come back to GPWA and say its their fault. Right?

    Right now Keith we see many people making claims GPWA takes money from rogue casinos. That GPWA does not protect affiliates. Of course this is false. They do everything they can. But they are limited. How do we solve this? We do the evaluating. We do the reviews!

    Sure right now there are systems in place. Posts in forums, sections where webmasters can make comment on a program, private area for us to talk on programs...


    ... but to the average new affiliate they do not see this!! Plus how many times have you come here and see the same question 500 times,

    "What programs are good to promote?" - well there is no need for that!!!

    A section where we can all vote the worth of a program is the way to go! And it will be current and up to date!!

    It is an extra layer of protection. And stops people making claim against the GPWA that they accept money from Rogue Programs.

    GPWA is a business - they need the funds to run the site and the employees and business. I understand that. Its the way the world works.

    All i think needs to be done is GIVE US THE TOOLS to help one another so that we can help one another. Yes I know there is other places to get reviews and all that.. but let me ask you?

    What is the most popular and most visited Casino/Poker affiliate forum in the world today? - THE GPWA!

    Just my take on it Keith.


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GFPC For This Useful Post:

    ironman2000 (16 October 2010), Nandakishore (17 October 2010)

  8. #6
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,199
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 5,389 Times in 1,741 Posts

    Default

    I think this discussion is a good one. But the topic it discusses relates to GPWA policies and plans, and is most specifically a proposal related to activities of private members evaluating affiliate programs.

    As such, this discussion is appropriate to the GPWA Planning and Policy Discussions forum in the private area.

    Accordingly, I am moving this thread to that forum where discussion can continue, but I am making a copy of the thread in the original location so the discussion that took place in the public area is still visible there, with the copy being marked closed so the discussion continues only in the policy discussions area.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    ironman2000 (16 October 2010), Nandakishore (17 October 2010)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •