Question for players & gaming reps..

[P.V.]

I'm always trying to think of new things for the gaming industry, a better way.

Got a question, feedback appreciated.

Would you, the player like a search database where you could key in a sites name and see all current deposit offers, special promotions, etc.. Anything new they are offering, could be as simple as a new game coming soon.

And would you the gaming operator like a place to submit this information about your site? Since spam is a no go player's can search your promotions and what's going on with your site. If they want to of course, through the database.

This way you wouldn't have to go to each site to see what's currently being offered but rather check through the search tool and database.

Just something I thought of, not sure if it would fly, feedback anyone?

 

[dionysus]

lol if spam is a no go, why do I still receive it?

From an operator's perspective, I can see a downside. Would you want to advertise your current 50% match bonus against your competitor who has a 100% out today; bonus hunters will gloss past yours for the better offer. I would if I'm low on funds. I'd think a casino would want you to open their site and figure 'well, since I'm here, 50% sounds good...'

For me, as a player, I'm not sure I'd use it. I LIKE coming here and seeing deals and promotions, yet having a hundred other interesting topics to read and check out.

 

[Tirilej]

Perfect! You're trying to get all affiliates out of business?

For me personally it wouldn't be of any help since I'm not that interested in bonusoffers, but I also think it would confuse many. Too much to chose from

 

[IanO]

In a perfect world it's a good idea, but I can see potential flaws.

Lots of sites updating lots of promos, sometimes daily. It's a lot of manual work and only a matter of time (and tbh, probably not a lot of time) before one slips through the cracks and the following conversation happens:

''site X said you'd give me 123, but you only gave me abc!!''
''Sorry, site X needs updating''
The player no longer trusts site X... and the whole thing falls apart.

Unscrupulous brands could exploit this for a 'bait and switch'.... 'forgetting' to update the site with their newest offer or changed terms.

Then there is the problem of comparison, and some players unwillingness to do sufficient research. Picture two big splashy offers for SUB / First deposit bonuses. One offers a 500% bonus, the other 100%. at a glace, the first seems better.... but what happens when you dig in to the terms and find one is sticky, the other is not, one is capped and the other is not, and one has HALF the WR of the other. Lazy players will just open site 'x' and jump at the bigger numbers. Not ideal.

IMO, bonus offers are a great way to compare sites and look for the best value, but if thats your main deciding factor then you need to look at how you are judging where to play. It's not all about the bonuses after all From my own experience affiliates that focus on the service AND offers tend to produce better quality traffic too.

All in all, I'd say dont hold your breath for this happening any sooner than a one stop shop for self exclusion requests. I'd be happy to be wrong though.


edit: One final thought... have you seen all those 'insurance price comparison websites'... similar model, and more and more I see ads with: 'you cant find US on comparison sites, come direct for the best deal'... the same would happen here. No site could realistically have it all imo.

 

[P.V.]

All in all, I'd say dont hold your breath for this happening any sooner than a one stop shop for self exclusion requests. I'd be happy to be wrong though.

Good input, thanks.

I do disagree about a one click self exclusion ever being successful.

Sure it will never work as long as gambling sites only offer limited options.

Self Exclusion

and a maximum 6 months self-exclusion period

You only offer 6 months max, what if someone wants to quit, period? I would extend your terms to total self exclusion if requested, JMO.

A problem gambler should never need to go to multiple sites for self exclusion. As I've said before it's 2013, not old school days.

I know just another ribbing or this wouldn't have been mentioned within this thread as self exclusion wasn't even discussed, I get it.

I too hope you're wrong but maybe you should check out your own house before critiquing mine.

 

[dionysus]

Good input, thanks.

I do disagree about a one click self exclusion ever being successful.

Sure it will never work as long as gambling sites only offer limited options.

Self Exclusion

and a maximum 6 months self-exclusion period

You only offer 6 months max, what if someone wants to quit, period? I would extend your terms to total self exclusion if requested, JMO.

A problem gambler should never need to go to multiple sites for self exclusion. As I've said before it's 2013, not old school days.

I know just another ribbing or this wouldn't have been mentioned within this thread as self exclusion wasn't even discussed, I get it.

I too hope you're wrong but maybe you should check out your own house before critiquing mine.

that's a bit cold, you asked for the feedback

 

[P.V.]

that's a bit cold, you asked for the feedback

It's not cold, when drifting off to an entirely different subject I have to respond. Especially since one click self exclusion was never mentioned and therefore was a poke at what I'm trying to accomplish.

Read it all again, you'll understand.

 

[dionysus]

Fair enough. Your post may not have solicited that piece of information, but it seems like a lateral comparison. I don't see his post making an attack, rather trying to make an analogy from what he perceives to be his understanding of your business (right or wrong). Surely you could have said something to the effect 'leaving self-exclusion out of the conversation' without the jab. He did after all take the time to come in and post his opinions for your sake after they were solicited.

 

[P.V.]

Fair enough. Your post may not have solicited that piece of information, but it seems like a lateral comparison. I don't see his post making an attack, rather trying to make an analogy from what he perceives to be his understanding of your business (right or wrong). Surely you could have said something to the effect 'leaving self-exclusion out of the conversation' without the jab. He did after all take the time to come in and post his opinions for your sake after they were solicited.

Wrong -The original question never mentioned a site, or platform, a simple question.

I never once said I wanted to incorporate this, again a question. I love feedback and good information.

My reply to IanO was fair but he incorporated additional directives which wasn't even mentioned about self exclusion so I replied. If you, Nifty and Sara don't like my reply, sorry but it is what it is.

There was no reason to include self exclusion, so I questioned Butlers lack of position, 6 months max which is a fair question.

 

[Tirilej]

If you at least had responded to our feedback to your question, questioned it, agreed or discussed it, but you did not. You only saw a sentence that compared something, and questioned that instead.

What are you thinking? Am I to getting bashed for not agreeing now? "If you, Nifty or Sara..."
You're being silly..

 

[IanO]

It's not cold, when drifting off to an entirely different subject I have to respond. Especially since one click self exclusion was never mentioned and therefore was a poke at what I'm trying to accomplish.

Read it all again, you'll understand.

Honestly not what I was trying to say at all, and am sorry if you misunderstood. I drew the comparison between the two because I think both are good ideas, both would be an asset to the industry, but right now I don't see them as feasible. It was in no way intended as a dig and I thought I was clear that I would love to be wrong on both counts and see them introduced soon, but was just giving my honest feedback as others have pointed out.

I was initially confused by your comments about 6 months self exclusion. We offer permanent self exclusion and always have, so I went digging and saw the error on our site that you are referring to. I will be sure to have that reflected to the truth as soon as possible so thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Again I apologise if my comments were misinterpreted, and again for the record I fully support your efforts to improve the industry and will continue to support you, but choose my words more carefully next time. If I did not support your efforts I would not be responding to these threads at all. It's not even in my nature to have a poke at someone who is trying to do good and the accusation really took me aback.

IanO

 

[clees42]

I could use a site with easily searchable bonus database. However it would need to be kept up to date.
Maybe it could work if mandatory promotion start/end date fields were added to the database and ended bonuses went invisible automaticly.

 

[Nifty29]

P.V.

I also think your efforts, although they have a commercial angle (and fair enough), are very well directed and could vastly improve parts of the industry that are being mishandled. I've always been of this opinion. IMO if operators REALLY viewed problem gambling seriously they would jump on board something like you have created.

In this case, I thought you were being harsh towards Ian, who is about as gentle as they come in a forum, and who I didn't feel was dissing you at all, hence me thanking those who expressed that opinion. It wasn't personal, and neither were the posts I thanked.

I wouldn't have posted, but you mentioned me by name so...

Also, I probably wouldn't use a member's real name unless they used it themselves publicly as a matter of course. IMO it is a respect thing. A select few here know my name, but they don't use it in the forums, because I don't.

 

[weesie]

I would like to see a comparison site that tells us EXACTLY what the current deposit and withdrawal methods and limits are. Up to and including TRUE time frames for each method, especially withdrawals.

 

[jstrike]

My site runs multiple promotions at the same time, in different amounts and on different sites, to see what works and what gives me the best results in terms of both signups and quality players. Some of my best players are people who googled deeply and found certain things I offered a long time ago. While most of the one-time signups and the people who try to abuse bonuses with multiple accounts are people who just find the easiest ones to find.

I spread them out over different sites because I like to track who's coming from where. So I wouldn't want to submit all my different promos to a single database, because 1) it would make it too easy for scammers to try all of them at the same time, and 2) I wouldn't know where they were coming from or which promotions worked the best anymore.

Realistically, I would only submit to it the bonuses and things I wanted to submit to that site...and I'm guessing a lot of other casino owners would feel the same way, which means it would end up looking like pretty much every other affiliate site with a search box. Not to be harsh, but I don't think it would be worth putting money into something like this.

--edit btw, IanO's points: "From my own experience affiliates that focus on the service AND offers tend to produce better quality traffic too." -- this is really true and is much more reflective of a good casino than anything to do with bonuses...and...
"All in all, I'd say dont hold your breath for this happening any sooner than a one stop shop for self exclusion requests. I'd be happy to be wrong though." -- I don't think this was intended as opening a debate about self-exclusion, it's just a good example of things that the industry will probably never cooperate on because there will always be some new casino who it's in their best interests to ignore that database. So I think it was a valid point.