I have blacklisted Clubdice, Carnival, New York, USA Casinos and CDpoker

[lots0]

Originally Posted by dominique

Getting management replaced is probably not going to happen...

Never know till you try.
Before we started with 888, a lot of people were saying we were wasting our time.

If all you want to do is just to get them to stop this contest or comply with googles guidlines, Im gonna have to pass for now. If you decide to upgrade the goals for this blacklisting down the road let me know.

BTW - there is no way Cpays can comply with googles guidelines and still have the contest, the contest its self is an attempt to manipulate googles results and that is forbidden by google's guidelines.

[dominique]

Originally Posted by lots0

BTW - there is no way Cpays can comply with googles guidelines and still have the contest, the contest its self is an attempt to manipulate googles results and that is forbidden by google's guidelines.

Yes, true.

However, if the following things put forth by google are adhered to, there will not be a zillion spam entries, rather participants will learn something about building decent websites that are useful to players who search.

Quality guidelines - basic principles

Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold™ that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.

Quality guidelines - specific guidelines

Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
Don't send automated queries to Google.
Don't load pages with irrelevant words.
Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
Don't create pages that install viruses, trojans, or other badware.
Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.
If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value. Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.

Making these requirements part of the contest would result in quality entries and positive contributions to the industry and players.

[lots0]

Don’t get me wrong Dom, in theory I agree with most everything you have said.

I just think it will be wasted effort to try to get Cpays to comply with these type of terms. Even if they do comply as far as the SEO contest goes, what about closing the affiliate accounts of the spammers and some of the other shady stuff?

You and I both know that the Management in question has been actively recruiting BH SEOs, we also both know that a big part of what this contest is all about is recruiting effective Blackhat SEOs, a long term plan to increase their search engine presence...

So how can we hope to reduce the spam or improve the image of online gambling if the goal is anything less than the replacement of the Management Team responsible?



[dominique]

Lotso, I just want to help the problem.

The most achievable and beneficial thing I can see is to include good qualifiers into the contest.

I know I am not a radical person on many levels, and I am often opposed because I believe that people should be able to redeem themselves.

I just want things to be right. Unleashing another 500,000 spam sites is just not right. It wouldn't be hard for CPays at all to fix this, so that is what I would like to see.

I realize it fixes the immediate problem only and not the origin. But it is a move in the right direction, and it is much better than doing nothing.

If we can also get better cooperation in the cessation of the use of spamdexing as Cpays marketing methods, that's good too.

I don't think these are difficult goals to achieve, especially the contest improvement. I have asked for this previously at CAP but it was ignored. I just want to draw attention to it and hope to see it fixed.

[lots0]

Good luck with your effort Dominique.

But to be honest, why would the Management at Cpays change the contest? It is doing just what they want.

The management at Cpays is doing the contest in the first place to recrute Blackhat SEOs, so why in the world would they want to try to make the contest 'google friendly', that would defeat their goal for the entire contest... Finding effective Blackhat SEOs...

>>>Added

The comments by the Cpays Rep over at CAP just re-enforce what I believe. On one hand the Cpays Rep sz they are not criticizing anyone, but the Rep calls the affiliates that blacklisted 888 two faced and money hungry (You and I both know every affiliaite that took on 888 paid a price)... in my opinion, these folks are slime and I would not believe a word that came out of their mouths or off their keyboard.

I also noticed that the Cpays Rep was in no hurry to stop the contest...

[AussieDave]

Dom the stand you took on scumware was commendable, if not for your commitment to that issue, we may have still be under its clutches today.

Trying to stop SE spam is like trying to plug a dyke with a pkt of straws.
to those who try. But imo, your fighting a losing battle. (the casualities from the 888 issue stand as reason to my opinion).

[dominique]

Ah, so much pessimism!

It will not be perfect, and nothing in the past has been perfect.

But it will help. Everything in the past has helped.

At the end of the day, the casinos need us more than we need them.

[dominique]

Here we go: casino pays - Google Search

I am still mopping up their listings on my site, in a day or two everything will point to the rogue page.

[greedygirl]

First, kudos for fighting this fight. It's absolute crap what CPays is doing here and whatever can be done to prevent this from continuing (or growing) is good stuff.

I do, however, take issue with this particular comment:

Originally Posted by dominique

At the end of the day, the casinos need us more than we need them.

I'm about to step in a landmine, but here goes...

When you say "us," I'm assuming you mean affiliates. While so many affiliates strive to do the "right thing," there's hundreds more out there who don't give a rats ass and are simply out for the quick buck. Were this not the case, we certainly wouldn't have sites like Cirrus, Prism, etc.

Currently, offline marketing is growing by leaps and bounds. Ask any online casino head-of-marketing about their offline marketing development and you'll get quite an education of how important offline has become. It's a natural progression for this industry and one that any of us marketing online needs to take seriously.

Do casinos profit greatly from the "good affiliates?" Absolutely. Have the "good affiliates" contributed to the success of online casinos? Absolutely. Are the "good affiliates" RESPONSIBLE for the success of online casinos? Arguable. Contributing and being the sole source of revenues are two entirely different things. I can guarantee that those less-ethical affiliates are responsible for far more revenues than that of their ethical, hard-working counterparts.

While I certainly don't underestimate the power of those hard-working, ethical affiliates, I do feel it is an over-assessment to say that the casinos need "you" more than "you" need "them."

With this in mind, I ABSOLUTELY believe that the "good" affiliates can help affect change--no question about it. It's been proven on dozens of occasions. What I DO question is the power of "good" affiliates in making change where both "bad affiliates" and crap operators are concerned. Without true regulation, it's a bit like plugging holes in a leaky boat with chewing gum, IMO.

I hope whoever reads this understands I am NOT anti-affiliate (I've been trying to lose that moniker for years, now). I AM, however, anti-crap-affiliate and there does need to be that distinction. I also believe that all sides of the industry needs to be realistic and objective in our expectations.

[dominique]

Actually I was referring to us folks here at Casinomeister, players and webmasters. After all these years I still always see us working together, it just makes sense to do. It makes for a very strong union.

Obviously the webmasters entering this contest with tens of thousands of spam sites are crappy webmasters. There are crappy programmers providing them with the tools to do so. There are crappy casinos paying for that stuff.

It's like cleaning a lived in house. It never stops and you are never done, but the alternative is living in filth. So one does what needs to be done.