CM Announcement Ratings revision now in progress

[maxd]

SO! As many of you know we have been promising to revisit and revise our Casinomeister Ratings for some time now.
We weren’t actually able to make much progress on that due to the migration of the site to Gentoo’s company-wide CMS but that migration was completed a couple weeks ago.
As soon as that was announced we — by that I mean me from the Forums with several of the fine folk from Gentoo — jumped in to tackle one of the first things we had on our ToDo list for post-migration: our Ratings system.

Now, some of you may recall that the one-and-only @dunover had done a fair bit of work on this whole issue a year or more ago. It was this week that for the first time I was able to include those proposals with other feedback on the forum and put that all forward for consideration.

I’m happy to report that good progress was made. Tentatively — I repeat, tentatively as we can’t and won’t be held to this ‘cause things change eh? — we’re looking at something like this:

• peel off Jurisdiction from the overall Rating, present that as a standalone number based on a fixed ranking of applicable jurisdictions.
• boost the weight of some metrics we know that players particularly care about, for example Payment Times and Initial Bonus Offers.
• significantly increase the weight of the Response to Complaints factor, though the mechanism for that is still TBD.
• provide some kind of easily viewable breakdown of the final Rating given, eg a pop-up or suchlike, so anyone at any time can see where the numbers come from.
• aim for a largely automated Rating system (based on data gathered from the casino) with a small factor left for discretionary weighting (eg. long term and trusted casino, highly active forum rep, etc)

So that’s where things currently stand.

You know what’s coming next, don’t you? Anything we obviously missed?
Anything scream “git yer head out of yer a** Max!"
As ever, let us know in the comments below. (oops, UTube speak! ) Let us know in your reply posts below.

 

[pereblue]

Fantastic newd @maxd!! I hope communiy feedback could be also a part of the rating ... Are yo going to keep a separate user rating vs cm rating?.

 

[pereblue]

I will also suggest to include some way to.compare historical rating ...to show a cm tracking rating system, this could also help to the users to see the evolution of th brand (eg.a x casino during 2021 got a cm revision and improved their cm rating +0.1 due to an increase of xx points fr better payment speed ) this kind of signal will benefit user understanding + Cm website showing a EEAT signal
..just saying

 

[maxd]

Hey Pere, thank you for dropping by. And great suggestions.

1. Yes, User Ratings are planned to be separate and distinct from the CM Rating. Full User Ratings are going to come a little later, we want to base it on the new CM Ratings once we see how they do, though a User feedback system is planned for earlier in the process.

2. Historic data: that is a truly superb idea! Big fat for that one my friend! Adding that to our Wishlist asap.

 

[paul7388]

Think there is a big problem with using historic ratings. Let's face it as people keep pointing out the ratings just now don't reflect how bad casinos are compared to what their official rating is. Also there's probably some casinos that are rated lower than they should be compared to higher rated casinos that aren't as good.

But some of casinos are decent enough just not great enough to be so highly rated. But if you then drop them from say a 9 to a 7 which considering all the factors might be more accurate. People will then see the casinos rating has dropped so much from previous ratings and must be going downhill which isn't really fair on casino if its not changed.

Would think it would be better just to guve casino a rating. Reasons why its rated such and a review. Don't think any need to say it used to be so much higher.

Also works the other way. If a casino has rating improved drastically it looks like casino has got much better when in reality it hasn't. Still same casino. If you think its a 9.5 casino why the need to mention it used to only score 6.8.

 

[pereblue]

@paul7388 That's a very good point, and I agree that a change in the rating methodology shouldn't be presented as if the casino itself had improved or declined.
What I had in mind is more of a CM Rating Timeline rather than simply keeping old ratings. The introduction of the new CM Rating system could establish a new baseline, and the timeline would track significant rating changes from that point onwards using the same methodology.
E.g:
Aug 2026 — 7.8
New CM Rating baseline
Nov 2026 — 8.1 ↑
Faster withdrawal times.
Feb 2027 — 7.6 ↓
Increase in unresolved complaints
....

So the idea isn't just to show that "this casino used to be a 9 and now it's a 7". It's to provide context around how and why the casino's rating has evolved over time.
Two casinos could both have an 8.5 rating today, but one may have consistently performed around that level for years while another has moved 9.0 → 7.0 → 8.5.
The current rating tells you where the casino is today.The CM Rating Timeline tells you how it got there.
I think CM's long-term knowledge of operators, complaints and player issues puts it in a particularly strong position to provide that context.

Salut!

 

[paul7388]

@paul7388 That's a very good point, and I agree that a change in the rating methodology shouldn't be presented as if the casino itself had improved or declined.
What I had in mind is more of a CM Rating Timeline rather than simply keeping old ratings. The introduction of the new CM Rating system could establish a new baseline, and the timeline would track significant rating changes from that point onwards using the same methodology.
E.g:
Aug 2026 — 7.8
New CM Rating baseline
Nov 2026 — 8.1 ↑
Faster withdrawal times.
Feb 2027 — 7.6 ↓
Increase in unresolved complaints
....

So the idea isn't just to show that "this casino used to be a 9 and now it's a 7". It's to provide context around how and why the casino's rating has evolved over time.
Two casinos could both have an 8.5 rating today, but one may have consistently performed around that level for years while another has moved 9.0 → 7.0 → 8.5.
The current rating tells you where the casino is today.The CM Rating Timeline tells you how it got there.
I think CM's long-term knowledge of operators, complaints and player issues puts it in a particularly strong position to provide that context.

Salut!

Thanks for explaining. And I get what you are saying and the reasons for it.

I was meaning more the casinos that were never rated correctly in first place. As has been asked many times how can a casino get so.much higher rating than casinos that are obviously better.

So if its decided a casino is rated too high and it should be lower its rating will accurately reflect that. But there's no timeline in such a case as the casino is exactly same as two years ago. Nothing has changed just never should have been rated so high or maybe low in first place.

 

[Wait!What?]

I know its too much work for you guys but will the rtp affect the ratings. For example add +1 or +2 in ratings if more than 50% of slots are above 96%.
I believe this is too much to ask but would like to know if its possible.

 

[SCATT3R]

@maxd
I would like to see user comments/rating enabled below each casino review. It would invite a lot of nonsense 10/10's of course but not if there were certain criterias for who could make their comments there - like only registered CM users for starters.
I've personally played in more than 100 casinos so I'm sure I have some experiences to share which might be helpful.

Edit: Sorry, I just realised this was already adressed above. Dunno how I missed those posts.

 

[teckiwi]

I assume it's unlikely but what I like about other platforms that offer the casino reviews is that you can view player disputes and the resolution(if there is one), I think it allows the player to get an idea for how the casino responds to disputes(or if they don't at all). ie are alot of the disputes about the bonus terms that are worse than they appear in the review, is the casino actively delaying payments etc which might offer insight into solvency and if my money is safe there etc.

 

[satchnz]

I know its too much work for you guys but will the rtp affect the ratings. For example add +1 or +2 in ratings if more than 50% of slots are above 96%.
I believe this is too much to ask but would like to know if its possible.

This is something that I raised shortly after joining CM. But in reality it's a very tough ask. The RTP part of the ratings would be valid for that point in time. Unfortunately it would be a massive undertaking to keep this info up to date with operators continuing to opt for lower RTP versions of slots.

Other factors contributing to a casino's rating should be a bit more dynamic. Like a casino that holds up customer withdrawals due to performing "enhanced checks" but still let's those players continue to deposit and play. This should damage a licensed casino's rating.

 

[dunover]

Well, I'm glad my long-winded list of suggestions I worked on before being kicked into the wilderness like the dog I am, has been well summarized by @maxd like this:

• peel off Jurisdiction from the overall Rating, present that as a standalone number based on a fixed ranking of applicable jurisdictions.
• boost the weight of some metrics we know that players particularly care about, for example Payment Times and Initial Bonus Offers.
• significantly increase the weight of the Response to Complaints factor, though the mechanism for that is still TBD.
• provide some kind of easily viewable breakdown of the final Rating given, eg a pop-up or suchlike, so anyone at any time can see where the numbers come from.
• aim for a largely automated Rating system (based on data gathered from the casino) with a small factor left for discretionary weighting (eg. long term and trusted casino, highly active forum rep, etc)

Ratings are worthless without context and simply appear arbitrary otherwise, hence long-standing decent casinos seeing new dubious social and crypto sites get the same figures when they cannot possibly have any provenance. Unfair on the traditional CM partners, misleading to the readers.

This is why I favoured separate 1-5 scores for jurisdiction, even the great Videoslots began with Cup-o-cola when I played there back in the day! This, I suggested could be a overlaid colour symbol say green for 5/5 and red for 1/5 with shades in between.

Similarly, player ratings I reckon should be separate - after all, we've seen blatant attempts at loading shill reviews from sites like CrackPipers.com (aka you know who, now on board ahem!) and as max suggests when, and only when, their credentials have be authenticated for say 6 months should a simple 'discretionary weighting' be applied. Another reason for this is that most players who are very satisfied seldom go out of their way to mention the fact, whereas a problem is immediately posted and complained about. Some human intervention needed.

On to the main figure, the CM rating. This should be totally comprised of what the CUSTOMER satisfaction factors score. So: customer service, KYC/AML, RTP maybe?, payout speed and games selection along with player rewards and bonuses. Those are easily the aspects of most relevance to the players, simple as. And we have to accept the new online gambling environment in that as well as established properly-licensed casinos which deliver well in this area, there are 'grey operators' that perform equally well but don't have all the required licensing for their clientele. We have to adapt to the modern era, however much it grates on us old-timers.
*Example - two casinos score 8.9 in the CM ratings, one may have a reddy-orange '2' for licensing, one may have a green '5'. You make your choice in your own way, your own decision about what's most important. The one with green 5 will appear ABOVE the former.

Although some might say it's more complicated to look at, it's really very easy to administer and update as there's 3 simple indicators as described. Buy a packet of crisps, you have 4 or 5 pieces of info to digest (no pun etc.) like fat, carbs, salt, protein etc.

1. So we would have an easily-understood colour/number 1-5 jurisdiction rating with a legend if you hover over the colour tile with the rating number.

2. There would be a player score, which periodically can be incorporated via the discretionary weighting into (3) the overall CM rating.

3. The CM score which takes into account the customer service, RTP maybe?, payout speed and games selection along with player rewards and bonuses as I mentioned above (plus player rating*). Again, this can be hovered over to show the breakdown. Nothing is hidden from the viewer. This is the only challenging part as admin would need to weight those aspects in order to obtain the overall CM score.

That said, it will be a whole magnitude easier than the incredibly convoluted and complicated system Bryan used to run (I hasten to add it was appropriate back in the 2010's) but is now hopelessly exposed and outdated in the latter-day playerscape. It's outdated because it attempted with one figure to incorporate far too many aspects, which worked once but no longer does due to the reasons cited earlier.

I also believe this gives the readers confidence, with full disclosure viewable when hovering, that no site has come on board and bought their number.

Uber und aus.

 

[andysbetting1187]

Great news this @maxd - it will be quite a bit of work but 100% needed - if you need any assitance with anything I am sure there are lots of people who will help (including myself, but not quite sure how lol)

 

[maxd]

Guys! Many thanks for your responses and input, I’ll comment briefly on some in no particular order:

... The RTP part of the ratings would be valid for that point in time.

… will the rtp affect the ratings. … I believe this is too much to ask but would like to know if its possible.

Actually, it might be. We’re considering a simplified version of this ATM but no decisions made yet. But it’s definitely in the mix for further consideration.

@maxd
I would like to see user comments/rating enabled below each casino review. ...

Yes, this exact thing has been discussed. No firm design for it yet but — to put it bluntly — everyone wants it so some version of this will be there in the not-too-distant future.

I assume it's unlikely but what I like about other platforms that offer the casino reviews is that you can view player disputes and the resolution(if there is one) ...

Yes indeed! We’re well aware that CM is an outlier in that our Complaints process to date has been more or less closed to the public. We do have the PAB Summary Page and we’re currently kicking around ideas for bringing some of that data into the Reviews section.

... a casino that holds up customer withdrawals due to performing "enhanced checks" but still let's those players continue to deposit and play. This should damage a licensed casino's rating.

Yeah, we’re currently thinking that this sort of thing could be part of the discretionary slice of the overall Rating. TBH it’s still TBD how that might work but your point is well taken, stuff like repeated “enhanced stalling” should defo come into play in the Ratings.