Poll....SHould there be a short list...

[babs7262]

This is my very first one and I hope I do it right, so bare with me

Question: Do you think Bryan should have a short list of exceptional online casinos rather than just a whole bunch of accredited. By no means does this mean the accredited ones shouldnt still be listed, it would just mean he would add this short list of a few select online casinos that go way beyond just being accredited and must meet strict criteria in all fields including very fast payouts, efficient and curteous customer support, A rep here at CM to answer all concerns and fair play ( fair play meaning reasonable expectations from an online casino).

1. No, dont change a thing
2. Yes, He should pick one from each software (if possible)
3. Yes, but he shouldnt have to go by software, it should be up to him
4. Yes but he should have a democratic vote and give us a chance to voice our opinion before he makes the list

[bb28]

If Byran ever considers changing the way that he gives accreditation I have a suggestion regarding that.
I was thinking along these lines. How about a system that rates the accredited ones differently, perhaps using 5 stars as an example of the highest accreditation which would mean that a 5 star casino has the following criteria. (This is just an example) 5 star would mean that have a rep on board that is responsive and courteous and answers questions within a specified time frame, the casino has been through an independent audit and comes out smelling like a rose, fast payouts....say within 48 hours, etc. 4 star would mean certain criteria, so would 3 star and so on with lessor stars meaning that they don't meet as stringent requirements as the 5 stars but they still are accredited.

[lauriejim]

Originally Posted by bb28

If Byran ever considers changing the way that he gives accreditation I have a suggestion regarding that.
I was thinking along these lines. How about a system that rates the accredited ones differently, perhaps using 5 stars as an example of the highest accreditation which would mean that a 5 star casino has the following criteria. (This is just an example) 5 star would mean that have a rep on board that is responsive and courteous and answers questions within a specified time frame, the casino has been through an independent audit and comes out smelling like a rose, fast payouts....say within 48 hours, etc. 4 star would mean certain criteria, so would 3 star and so on with lessor stars meaning that they don't meet as stringent requirements as the 5 stars but they still are accredited.

.......agree, but just think of the extra work load on bryani kinda like it the way it is imo...........laurie

[LaHutti]

I think we should be very carefull changing things like that.
Now I know that a lot of you guys are very exited about 3Dice, and the way it's run.
I've been in the tournaments and the chat of 3Dice as well, and I can see why you all are having a great time there, and Ellen, Karen and the other members of staff are all nice people, but to me the extreme exitement about that place, is more like a fun chatroom, where you think you get to know the people from 3Dice and the other players personally, and that gives you the feeling that you're special. Their games, however are no different in payout, than any other casino, as far as I can tell.
Therefore I would be very carefull rating a chatroom, wich it basicly is, as the best casino online, since it would not give people the correct picture.
Chatrooms tend to be fun for a while, but then grow old on you.

[chuchu59]

Other than the heavy work on Bryan, we must remember that the online casino scene is now more dynamic than it has ever been. If we were to accord ratings to each accredited casino, we shall have to carry out periodic reviews almost monthly if not weekly. Take Eurolinx for example, they were accredited not too long ago and now they are off.

People may sometimes blame this forum or Bryan for that matter for accrediting casinos that have not met their expectations. We must try to remember the rigorous process that Bryan had gone through before awarding the accredited status to the casinos. With the decline of players (mostly USA), business would have been much worse and some have resorted to roguish tactics to withhold payments. Nevertheless, the accredited list, as it is, is still useful reference for players especially newbies because Bryan and MaxD still have channels of communication with them and may be able to resolve issues than those that are not on the list.

On the short list, I do not feel there is a need for it given the ever-changing circumstances. As I said, a casino may be excellent one day and go rogue or even bust the very next day. Having such a list gives a false sense of security. For me, the accredited list is fine enough as long as Bryan removes those that set alarm bells ringing.

[mycatscalledenr]

I think thats a very good suggestion Babs. I think the accredited section concentrates more on minimum requirements rather than highlighting exceptional casinos like 32Red and Intercasino. Maybe there could be an emphasis on "casinomeisters picks" by calling them "gold level" accredited casinos or something?

Cheers,
MCCE

[KasinoKing]

Originally Posted by LaHutti

Their games (3Dice), however are no different in payout, than any other casino, as far as I can tell.

And why should they be? We all know casinos only exist to make money, not give it away!
Accreditation is nothing to do with game payouts (though the games must be fair, obviously), it's to do with customer service, fairness & accountability.

I agree with Babs & bb28's idea of 'ranking' the best casinos. Some casinos are undoubtedly better than others, even if only slightly. These casinos deserve some recognition for their efforts in customer satisfaction IMO.

At the end of the day it's down to Bryan to decide if he wants to go down that route or not.

[Casinomeister]

Thanks for the suggestions - I always try to improve whatever lists I have at Casinomeister whether it's the rogue list (now broken down into a number of categories) to the accredited list which lists counties prohibited etc. Your voices help.

As mentioned, one problem is the dynamics of the industry - it changes a lot - and to single out a handful of casinos could possibly be viewed as being biased.

The problem is avoid being too subjective and to remain fair. But nevertheless, some good ideas here - it's a matter of integrating some of this information and presenting it in a aesthetic and beneficial way.

[vinylweatherman]

Such a scheme already exists, the annual Casinomeister awards for best casino etc.

This is based on a whole year of consistent performance, and shows which accredited casinos have indeed stood out above the rest. These are also dynamic, with it possible for a casino to win one of these awards one year, and descend into the pit the next.

The published PAB statistics and reading the complaints section should indicate which casinos are currently having issues, whether accredited or not.

One possible change would to have a section where Casinomeister members could comment about their personal feelings and experiences for each accredited casino. At the end of the awards year, this information would be archived, and used to inform the award process. The current list would be cleared each year to prevent old comments from holding back the process of reform (where they have highlighted shortcomings), and old comments shown in a separate archive under year headings.

Only members with a certain standing would be allowed to comment, certainly not those who join and then immediately fire off a complaint, as this is often just as likely a rogue player as a genuinly aggrieved party who has been told about this site, and that it might help.

[GaryWatson]

It's hard to satisfy everyone.

I dont like 3dice. It just doesnt seem to work well on my PC & the games didnt really excite me. Those freerolls tournies are great but my screen keeps freezing. Regardless of the customer service or fairness of game, I couldnt agree with a high rating.

Other sites I will like might be ones that others hate, just because they hit a heavy losing streak.

High up in my rankings would be th stability of software. That is a must.

Another pet peev would be customer service. On the occassion I do contact them, I expect a response.

Cashouts have not really been a problem for me, but it would be a big factor if I was based in the states.

Also, bonuses have not been an issue for me. I just dont take many bonuses but when I do, there has never been a problem.

One major thing I would look at was the sites TOS. If they have predatory terms, used or not, they should be marked down. Sites like 888 & playboy using a dormant fee is not a good sign.

It would be fairly difficult to paint an accurate picture as most players have different needs & PC capabilities.