Revamping the Accredited Section

[pianoman]

One irritating feature of joining up anywhere is to submit one's personal details, then be greeted with :

"This account has been temporarily locked for security reasons.
Please contact Customer Support for further assistance."

Only happened a few times over the years after responding to the accredited list nudge -
perhaps I miss something?

Littlewoods recent inclusion prompted my registration there...
Found out they're simply NOT AVAIL to Aussies.

......... Aw JEEZ. That AGAIN !!!

Not many new ones I am interested in these days -
but still a pain when that happens Bryan.
Otherwise ...
reckon you got all the bases covered mate.

 

[mooshie]

never deposited

Yes, it's about time. I'm in the process of revamping the Accredited section and I'm looking for members' input.

At the moment there are these categories:

UK White Listed Y/N
Publicly Traded Y/N
US Accepted Y/N
3rd Party Audit Y/N
Poker Y/N
Live Games Y/N
Withdrawal Limitations Y/N and listed if yes
Special Notes - whatever

I'm thinking that there should be more. As for publicly traded, perhaps a point of contact should be listed there as well. But after the Purple Lounge fiasco it's proving that just because one is publicly traded, it doesn't mean diddly squat if the company goes bust.

As for UK white listed, I'm thinking of renaming this to "Licensing info" since Malta is UK whitelisted (probably the worst licensing jurisdiction in the short history of online gaming) and Kahnawake is not UK white listed, but is probably the most efficient and accessible. (The UK WL section was added when it was a big deal a couple of years back for Brits and anyone advertising in view of UK residents).

Anyway, now is your chance to voice a suggestion. Please don't suggest current bonuses etc. or anything that would be too laborious to maintain. Thanks!

Hello, I have never deposited in all those casinos.

 

[made2win]

Yes, it's about time. I'm in the process of revamping the Accredited section and I'm looking for members' input.

At the moment there are these categories:

UK White Listed Y/N
Publicly Traded Y/N
US Accepted Y/N
3rd Party Audit Y/N
Poker Y/N
Live Games Y/N
Withdrawal Limitations Y/N and listed if yes
Special Notes - whatever

I'm thinking that there should be more. As for publicly traded, perhaps a point of contact should be listed there as well. But after the Purple Lounge fiasco it's proving that just because one is publicly traded, it doesn't mean diddly squat if the company goes bust.

As for UK white listed, I'm thinking of renaming this to "Licensing info" since Malta is UK whitelisted (probably the worst licensing jurisdiction in the short history of online gaming) and Kahnawake is not UK white listed, but is probably the most efficient and accessible. (The UK WL section was added when it was a big deal a couple of years back for Brits and anyone advertising in view of UK residents).

Anyway, now is your chance to voice a suggestion. Please don't suggest current bonuses etc. or anything that would be too laborious to maintain. Thanks!

I have a suggestion you need to rank all these payout services too. Like Pay Pal and My Pay Linq some of them are terrible and hold your money up as long as 15 days after its gone threw the approval stage so if you win it takes you 25 days to get your money. That would also be a big help to all of us in the USA . Thanks and keep up the good work and advice. Big old hug to you all Made2Win

 

[zanzibar]

You need to regularly check the withdrawal limitations on each casino group. For example Red Flush is listed as no limits but according to their terms:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

17. Due to revised banking restrictions; Red Flush is limited in the value per cashin that can be payable to each player on a weekly basis. We will pay a maximum of 2 500 (in local supported currency) per week to players that have a single cashin or accumulative cashins over the value of 2 500 (in local supported currency). If the amount to be withdrawn is greater than 2 500 (in local supported currency), the remaining amount will be placed back to the player's account, allowing the player to withdraw additional funds the following week in accordance with this term.We will pay a maximum of 1000 (in local supported currency) per week to all players where their date first wagered is within 35 days or less. The remaining amount will be placed back in the player's account, allowing the player to withdraw additional funds the following week in accordance with this term.

 

[Casinomeister]

Hello, I have never deposited in all those casinos.

But you could use the information, yes?

You need to regularly check the withdrawal limitations on each casino group. For example Red Flush is listed as no limits but according to their terms:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Thanks! And this brings me to another point. There will be some areas that I'm planning to place into members' hands to keep updated. I think a concerted effort with player feedback will be a great assist in keeping the lists up to speed. I'll be creating a separate forum/sticky thread on player feedback/updates/heads up. For instance, I would have never known that Red Flush changed their terms unless seeing it for myself. The casino rep didn't say anything (perhaps too busy), and I don't have the time to check each and every term per casino on a weekly basis. So I will be relying on the teaming masses in keeping some sections of the Accredited Casino up to date

 

[mooshie]

yes of course

But you could use the information, yes?


Thanks! And this brings me to another point. There will be some areas that I'm planning to place into members' hands to keep updated. I think a concerted effort with player feedback will be a great assist in keeping the lists up to speed. I'll be creating a separate forum/sticky thread on player feedback/updates/heads up. For instance, I would have never known that Red Flush changed their terms unless seeing it for myself. The casino rep didn't say anything (perhaps too busy), and I don't have the time to check each and every term per casino on a weekly basis. So I will be relying on the teaming masses in keeping some sections of the Accredited Casino up to date

Yes of course, the more the information, the better.

 

[LinkinFart]

A lot of good ideas, I thanked to all posts I think should be implemented.

Maybe adding information how long its been since last login of casino representative.

Also, to expand the idea of ratings to casino reps, allowing members to rate casino reps and showing that in the list.
Maybe, if its not too much of a problem and there is time somewhere in the future, it would be good to allow members to create ticket like requests to casino reps and allowing only members with open/closed tickets to rate their experience with how the rep handled their issue.

Rating system can be abused and should have some filtering applied and from what I saw at other forums post count is not good enough. I cant think of a good filter at the moment, maybe limiting rating rights to accounts that were created through CM, but that has its downsides and I dont like it myself. Just a thought.

One thing I am against is downloadable spreadsheet with info. Personally, I hate it when I need to download a file from a site just to get few lines of info. SQL can sort lists easily and there is no real need for downloads of any kind because person that will be updating the list would have to use the same effort for completely different experience ( list - good / file - bad ). I dont mind if it means horizontal scrolling.

 

[MyronRR]

RR Reply

Hey Casinomeister

Thanks for highlighting this https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/revamping-the-accredited-section.50882/

This is a fairly old clause we were advised to put in due to payment restrictions in certain territories and via certain payment mechanisms over the years. It was more to have it visible if ever we were restricted so players can see we mentioned it .

We will remove it / change it (we can show you).

To be honest our policy / philosophy is to get players money back to them as quick as possible as it secures a long term customer. We have heard we are one of the best paying MGS groups and that’s the way we want it.

Sometimes the legal guys are anal about these things and want it secured by a T and C, but if you are not using it and its causing problems its crazy to even have it - agreed.

Thank again

Myronrf

 

[bsilva028]

jhn

The problem with payout times is that these can change as often as the wind. Keeping that updated would be a daily task.

Edited to add: But then again, I could hold operators responsible to keep the listing updated. Something to think about.

maybe an option, (i have no idea about the name to give), but an option with

"withdrawal can be reverse? yes or no?"

and

"time to reverse the withdrawal"

or

"instant forbidition of cance the withdrawal"? yes or no....

 

[bsilva028]

...

maybe a "reverse withdrawal"? yes or not? in case of yes, , how many time? in case of no, good, finally a casino with no time to cancel withdrawal.....

Yes, it's about time. I'm in the process of revamping the Accredited section and I'm looking for members' input.

At the moment there are these categories:

UK White Listed Y/N
Publicly Traded Y/N
US Accepted Y/N
3rd Party Audit Y/N
Poker Y/N
Live Games Y/N
Withdrawal Limitations Y/N and listed if yes
Special Notes - whatever

I'm thinking that there should be more. As for publicly traded, perhaps a point of contact should be listed there as well. But after the Purple Lounge fiasco it's proving that just because one is publicly traded, it doesn't mean diddly squat if the company goes bust.

As for UK white listed, I'm thinking of renaming this to "Licensing info" since Malta is UK whitelisted (probably the worst licensing jurisdiction in the short history of online gaming) and Kahnawake is not UK white listed, but is probably the most efficient and accessible. (The UK WL section was added when it was a big deal a couple of years back for Brits and anyone advertising in view of UK residents).

Anyway, now is your chance to voice a suggestion. Please don't suggest current bonuses etc. or anything that would be too laborious to maintain. Thanks!

 

[Nobunaga]

Sports books.

What this site can work on is Sports books.Which ones are accredited, which ones are iffy and which ones are in the rogue pit.

Many sports books on the internet are run by mafia and people put their gambling money on those websites, then those companies disappear.

Similar issues have happened in the casino industry all over the world.

Something should be there for skilled games, horse betting, bingo, video games, any type of future gambling game.

Making gambling safer would benefit Canadians and other gamblers worldwide.

I would like to thank Pat H from Red 32 and Virgin Ace for all of their help in the past in the online gambling.

Thank you for your help Casinomeister and help from your staff.

Nobunaga

 

[Jasminebed]

Maybe adding information how long its been since last login of casino representative.

Also, to expand the idea of ratings to casino reps, allowing members to rate casino reps and showing that in the list.

Some forum reps log in rarely, and only receive a notification by email if a player pms them. If the player's message contains sufficient information, they may be able to act to solve a problem without logging in.

Some casinos rarely have an issue arise, and almost never have a thread about them.

Some may have a staff member who has part of their job to browse threads and call things to a rep's attention.

We can see when a rep (or any member for that matter logs in), but it's not a true indicator of their usefulness if needed. Might not be a bad idea to ask reps to log in monthly, it will avoid when a rep leaves and his replacement doesn't get on board.

Some reps really do go above and beyond, and usually their praises end up being sung in the forum.

 

[butterflyboogie]

cream of the crop v buttermilk

If there was a way to have even the accredited rated from A to C....d and f's shouldn't even be thought about. The A list could have variables such as, flush option, timely pay, withdrawal limits, etc. Only the Cream of the Crop would be the A list, and C would be the buttermilk....still accredited but not top of the line like the A's. B list is the one in between. It might make the B's and C's try to get on the A list. Hope this makes sense

 

[maxd]

If there was a way to have even the accredited rated from A to C....d and f's shouldn't even be thought about. The A list could have variables such as, flush option, timely pay, withdrawal limits, etc. Only the Cream of the Crop would be the A list, and C would be the buttermilk....still accredited but not top of the line like the A's. B list is the one in between. It might make the B's and C's try to get on the A list. Hope this makes sense

Good suggestion! Assuming that a list of the top "variables" could be determined and casinos could be scored on these items -- even if only a Yes-No score -- then presumably the ratings would pretty much be obvious: full scores = A list and so forth. Based on your suggestion do you think this would do the job? Sounds like it to me but I'm curious to see whether we've got the same thing in mind.

 

[silcnlayc]

Why must they do this??????????/

the remaining amount will be placed back to the player's account

I think once a player withdraws the max amount , they should be allowed to make as many additional withdrawals as they want to and the casinos should allow these funds to sit there till the next go round comes around for disbursement.

I think this is downright awful to return remaining funds back into the account just because you already made max cashout doesn't mean you can't put additional cashouts in a row to hold like doing your own flushing the withdrawals.

This is SO wrong and any casino that does this...should be marked down 2 or even 3 bases from the top! It happens to me on all my withdrawals and I get so tired of coming back into the csino only to find it all returned except the first withdrawal requested.

.

 

[butterflyboogie]

Maxd

We are on the same page, and it really could be simplified. In research it is called qualitative research, where the experience from others are measured and it could be done with a questionaire. You guys have been around for a long time and know what a casino needs to be in order to be at the top of the game. Next you have what the players want to see from these casinos. Now, it is understandable that there is a glitch sometimes when dealing with casinos that allow USA players, however in saying that, there are still some that has risen to the challenge quite favorably. By putting together a questionaire for the players, this info could be combined with your info and there you have the list. However, any casino that wants to be considered should understand that it is to their advantage to get to the A list, so the strong points or weaknesses should be publicly displayed. This could be reviewed just say 2x a year. This would give them the opportunity to run with the big boys, so to speak. On the other hand if the A list starts slacking, they will move down the ladder. Sorry for not placing paragraphs within this post; I'm doing it from my Droid.

 

[binary128]

A suggestion, for what it might be worth.

First, run a poll in which each member can vote for 5 things. If the forum's poll system is not capable of doing this (that is, only 1 vote allowed), then it would be safe to ignore the rest of this post.

This Poll would be for the top 5 categories of importance in approving a Casino. (Again, each member can have up to X votes.)

- Purchasing systems

- Withdrawal systems

- Customer Service systems

- Accreditations & Certifications

- Promotions

- Games - Download system

- Games - No-download system

- Transparency

- Business History

- Terms & Conditions

and any other general categories that others might think of.

The top 5 (or 4, or 6) categories would each then proceed to Round 2. Here again there would be a multiple-vote poll, with each category having a list of applicable elements for that category.

I just re-read what I wrote, and I thought to myself "Shit, I think each one of these categories is important."

Maybe the list of categories could be:

- Business Systems

- Accreditations & Certifications

- Promotions

- Games

- Business History

- Other

Business Systems could then cover Purchasing, Withdrawals and Customer Service. Accreditations & Certifications could also include Transparency.

And like that.

In this way, individual observations and suggestions could then be placed in the appropriate category and sub-category. It strikes me, in reading the posts in this thread, that without this type of structure I wouldn't know where to put some of these things (many of these things).

Issues also frequently arise in the various other areas of the forum - most are discreet, finite things, small snapshots in the grand vista of online gambling. But, however small, many of them are important things to know and keep track of, whether they relate to a single Casino, a group of Casinos, a software provider, or to online Casinos in general. It again comes down to "Where do you put this specific item?"

As I said in my earlier post (in which I also said that I would not post again ), it is not just the data, it is the structure of the data (and the rules that define that structure) that is equally important. This structure, if properly defined, allows each item and issue, regardless of relative size or importance, to be placed in a proper spot.

It's kind of like painting a room in your house - most of the work is up-front prep (what I call the "shit work"). Once all of the various parts of the prep have been done, the actual painting is easy. And the final quality of the job is more often determined by the time spent on the "shit work" than the time spent in painting.

One thing that I think is important - I think that the opinions and impressions of some of the less-experienced players are as important, and in some areas more important, than the opinions of the seasoned veterans.

Seasoned veterans "know the ropes", they have the map through the maze, they know what to watch out for to avoid harm. It has become second nature - in some areas it's a fair guess that they aren't even aware of what they are automatically checking and scanning.

There is no "fault" here - this is just basic human nature. I'm sure that those seasoned veterans paid, and perhaps paid dearly, for those road maps.

However, theirs may not be the most valuable perspective for rating a Casino's "ease of use" for the "recreational gambler". (As an extreme, I'll paraphrase words which have been printed in this forum: "If they don't know what they are doing, then they deserve to lose.")

Terms & Conditions, Game Rules, even navigating the Casino and/or playing a game, should not require advanced degrees. If I tried to explain a Bonus T&C, with wager requirements, percent contribution by game, post-WR purchase requirements and all the rest of it to the somewhat elderly clerk at my local drug store, she'd hit eye-glaze pretty quickly.


This last item is one about which I am completely biased.

Based on my personal history, but based also on several other criteria, I also think that dealing in some way with the Sportsbook Casinos, which to a great extent seem to fly under the radar, would prove to be of value to the Players. The Sportsbook forums barely touch them, but many of them are really excellent (and many of them are really terrible). They're Casinos, and they deserve to be brought out of the "gray zone" in which they currently exist and discussed in a forum which has the knowledge and experience to address them properly.

Chris

 

[ValDes]

Although I am not the most active guy here(yet), please allow me to share my point of view, since CM is just one of the very few websites, asking about players opinion!

IMHO, CM accredited casino list is just fine! No need to add or remove anything! All you have to do is to update it 2-3 times a year! That is more than enough.

What I think will be a good idea to implement is a "Real Player Accredited List"! How?
1. Only Real casino players have the right to vote and measure online casinos! In order to do that players must register with their REAL account name(or whatever the casino log is) under each casino, they want to value!
2. It is up to the reps here at CM to approve the existence of these accounts! (At least we will make them all show up)
3. As long as you have real account in any online casino you can vote and value - no limits for the number of casinos!
4. .....the questionnaire will be a pain, but a quick survey among the members will cast it in just a few days!

Yeah, I know this sounds a little bit hard to achieve, but imagine what power it will be for any casino to proves its quaility! And imagine what will be for any casino to say "Proud to be in top 10 of CM REAL PLayer Accredited list"! Now, that is what I call a real power!

 

[binary128]

RUSTYROO's recent post is a case in point of my previous post.

He provided extensive details of a problem to Betfred. (I can tell you that, as one who is in a position to address these problems, the level of information which he provided far exceeds the norm.)

Betfred's customer service here could most kindly be called grim. Playtech's customer service here could, again, most kindly be called grim.

If I were to apply my company's and my current deployment's benchmarks to this situation, I would use the words abysmal and insulting.

Although RUSTYROO may ultimately receive some resolution to his specific problem through the Betfred CM representative, what his post tells us is (one aspect anyway) of the customer service experienced by the 99.9% of Betfred's customers that are not CM members.

So, where does RUSTYROO's information go? Right now, nowhere. His post will eventually slide into the archives, there will be no impact on Betfred's standing at CM, and it will arise only through a search. In short, it will disappear.

There are dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of similar examples littered throughout the various forum areas. They all share a similar fate - lining the bottom of the birdcage.

Because of that, these posts, these problems, are nothing more than words floating in air. They never land, they have no impact, they produce nothing - they are (figuratively speaking) a complete waste of breath.

Might there not be a place for all of these nuggets of information to be collected within the new Accredited List architecture?

A single small nugget will have the impact that one would expect - not much. Dozens of small nuggets, however, and suddenly you've got a pretty big rock.

If you compare what you are providing in your current Accredited Casinos list with what you could be providing - an entire page per Casino or Casino Group, an entire page per Software supplier - now THAT would be moving your mission statement into the state of the internet as it exists in 2012 (and beyond).

Chris

 

[Casinomeister]

@ Chris

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you suggesting a column with recent threads good/bad be incorporated somehow? Or have a rating system in place for responses in the forum/responses from casino support? One thing that will be in listed is forum participation for casino reps. What are you proposing?

Edited to add:

Or specifically a rating system set up for customer service responses. Is that it?

 

[binary128]

Bryan,

As you may know, "terse" is not in my dictionary.

Purely for the sake of discussion, let's say that you have a category "Customer Service". In this category are the following subcategories:

Response tools:
- Email (Yes/No)
- Telephone (Yes/No)
- Live Chat (Yes/No)

Response to "normal problems" (0 to 5 stars)
- Response time
- Quality of response
- Resolution of problem

Response to "non-normal problems" (0 to 5 stars)
- Response time
- Quality of response
- Resolution of problem

Response to forum problems (0 to 5 stars)
- Response time
- Quality of response
- Resolution of problem

(I'm sure that other CM members would be able to suggest other and/or better sub-categories for the Customer Service category.)

Given this, what would then be needed is some pretty clear definition of the dividing line between normal and non-normal problems, as well as what would be considered an acceptable response time. ("Normal problems" might be those that one would expect to be handled within the Customer Service department. "Non-normal problems" would then be those that involve the inclusion of other departments, etc.)

The less concrete clarity you provide to these definitions up front, the more problems with the system you push off into the future. That is, if it comes out of the gate half assed then it just turns to crap downstream, everyone knows it's crap, no one therefore takes any pride in maintaining it, and like that.

I also think it is important to differentiate between the service received by the forum representative (who is after all under some weight of public exposure) and service received otherwise. I would think that for many Casinos the non-forum response might be that level of customer service received by 90% or more of the Casino's customers.

(I'm remembering one particular forum issue which was relatively complex in nature, but the forum rep's responses were all just single sentences. I'm not even a customer, and I found that both insulting and frustrating. And of course there is the recent "smiley face, everything's sunshine and daisies" sequence of responses to a pile of crap so deep it would swallow a Buick. These examples speak to "Quality of Response".)


I would categorize RUSTYROO's problem as non-normal, in that it appears to be technical in nature. If I were on the receiving end of this problem, the significant points of data would be:

1. He experienced the problem on his workstation, his laptop and his sister's PC.

2. He did not experience the problem in another Playtec Casino.

So, is it a Playtec problem with the Betfred product, or is it a Betfred problem with their systems?


Based on the data provided in RUSTYROO's post, I would rate Betfred's Customer Service relative to this problem as:

Response to "non-normal problems" (0 to 5 stars)
- Response time = 0 stars
- Quality of response = 0 stars
- Resolution of problem = 0 stars


For Software providers, there might be (and probably should be) different categories and sub-categories than those defined for a Casino. If RUSTYROO's problem is indeed a Playtec problem (which is not clear at the moment), then there should be some reflection in the Playtec rating:

Response to technical problems (0 to 5 stars)
- Response time = 0 stars
- Quality of response = 0 stars
- Resolution of problem = 0 stars


In addition, there should be the number of issues that went into that rating. As I mentioned, a single nugget is just that - a single nugget. So this sub-category rating would look like:

Response to "non-normal problems" (0 to 5 stars) - 1 Rating



To refer back to my previous posts - it is the structure, and the definition of the structure, that is the important bit here. I've referenced a suggested structure above only for the sake of clarity in my examples. I'm NOT saying that this is, or should be, the structure.

As I said above, a clear, concrete, quantitative definition of terms is required.

What is an acceptable response time?

- Acknowledgement of receipt of problem - 1 day max
- Request for clarification of data - 2 days max.
- Status report (as appropriate) - 3 days max.

And like that.

That's why I called it "shit work". There's a lot of "head scratching" going on here. Some Players might want the above response time examples to be changed from days to hours, which I think any sensible perspective would label extreme. However, to change the above examples from days to weeks would also be extreme.


BTW, I don't think that "last time the rep logged in" is of value to anyone. I would suggest that a PM be sent to the Rep (it could be something as simple as "There is a thread in the forum that requires your attention.") Otherwise, you might have the silliness of a Rep logging in once a week, or once a month, and immediately logging out again, just to "punch his required CM time card".


And finally - back when CM started there was no "internet search" capability. CM was the organized source for data. Now there is internet search, but the search results, though extensive, are not organized, and there is a lot of clutter, crap and pablum. CM could expand their available data to compete with these extensive search results, but improve on those search results by providing the organization, clarity and applicability that they lack.

You indicated that a re-think might be needed. This is a re-think. It is also a lot of work, and only you can calculate the ROI. But no one says it has to be done tomorrow. Casinomeister 2013.

Chris

P.S. An interesting thought - does the 5-star rating start at 5 stars, 4 stars, 3?

 

[Casinomeister]

Wow! Looks like me be rollin' up da sleeves.

Thanks for that!

 

[Casinomeister]

Well, I've just spent the last couple of hours taking notes here - my hats off to everyone for contributing to this thread. I have some great plans - much of it will be involving members. The accredited section will be kick-ass me thinks - thanks to you.

Just hope it doesn't kick my ass

 

[binary128]

Wow! Looks like me be rollin' up da sleeves.

Thanks for that!

Sorry, man.

I did call it "shit work". Only you can determine the ROI, if any. And my thought that your only competition is the various internet search engines may be completely off the mark. All of this is your call.

However, what would be of great value to me is to know the Player's response to what I have proposed.

To me, data has meaning only if it is 1.) accurate, 2.) organized, and 3.) presented in such as fashion as to (easily & accurately) answer a question, solve a problem, or what have you. Otherwise, raw data is only slightly more valuable than opinion.

As you know, I've dedicated company resources to do similar work. Was this consumption of company resources (money spent) of any value?

On one hand I have the CM response to "my perspective on things", as exemplified by 4 days of chirping crickets in my recent thread on Slot variance.

On the other hand we have the data referenced in jetset's post on people's use of internet resources for online gambling information.

We also have maxd's post about the number of people that visit CM versus the number that post here. (His post ratio was 1 in a thousand.)

The current response is more chirping crickets. That may make your ROI determination (and "shit work load") all the easier.

Chris

 

[TheLastCylon]

Coming in late, but here are some thoughts.

I think that major advances can be made in both the tools given to CM users and in requirements for accreditation.

Tools for users:

• Pages dedicated to each casino with a complete work-up on the casino in question. Data, transaction times, complaint history, everything.

If you go to the Better Business Bureau's website, an organization that is actually pretty similar to CM in purpose, and bring up a company, an entire section detailing the number of complaints, details on those complaints, whether the complaints have been addressed, and comments from users about the company. Basically, an Accredited Casino page becomes an ever-growing body of information about that casino. This full page idea would also be useful for rogue casinos, giving people complete data on why the casino was hit with such an ignominious award.

• Links to relevant threads

This would be a part of the full info page, but I thought it important enough to specifically mention it. Currently, threads about casinos hit the home page, bang around for awhile, then die a quick death. If a thread is relevant to a particular casino, users can vote to have it enshrined on the casino's page. As I was writing this, I realized that Binary128 already covered it. I swear that I'm not stealing his idea.

• Full user reviews for every casino.

The reviews page, perhaps similar to Amazon's reviews, would also give a centralized repository to all customer write-ups. A star rating would also be helpful. I've read some people in the posts above say that the reviews would skew bad for those who lose, and skew good for those who win. Yes. And? That's the way all reviews work. That's why Amazon has the "was this review useful to you?" vote. Bad reviews get voted down into oblivion. Although often, even that's not needed. Something tells me that most people know that a review that reads like "THSI CASINO ISA RIPOF!!!!1 DO NOT PUT UR MUNNY HERE!!!!" isn't a review worth considering.

• The ability to search and organize these data

This could be a pretty unwieldy set of data. The ability to sort the casinos would be of IMMENSE help. Most reviews, best reviewed, worst reviewed, most active, etc.


Additions for casino requirements:

• Validated, audited, posted RTP information.

Yes, I understand that this would trim the list of accredited casinos down significantly since RTG, Microgaming, and Playtech them all do not provide RTP info. But I see that as the point of websites like this: to demand the best and create a system that forces companies to provide it.

• Easily visible information on bonus requirements.

Currently, the terms associated with taking a bonus are frequently hidden, sometimes deeply, in the T&C pages. Most, if not all, casinos don't have a little asterisk or superscript by their advertisements. All they say are "150% your deposit!" I see that as misleading advertising. If they have a massive ad touting a bonus, they should either have the terms relating to that bonus written plainly on the same page, or have a notice directing people to the details. Something simple like "restrictions apply" would work fine.

I think that the previous two recommendations could be classified as simply "transparency". Transparent casinos get accredited, "black box" casinos do not.

• No "robot exclusion" policies in the T&C's.

They may as well say "If the player uses voodoo to win at games, money will be confiscated."

• No pattern betting or "irregular play" policies in the T&C's

Same point as above.

• No "spirit of the bonus/casino" policies in the T&C's

This is one of the weirdest and most widespread T&C problems there is. They use language like "only use this casino for your own personal entertainment. If you play for any other reason, you will be rejected." That's meaningless nonsense -- a catch-all term allowing the casino to do anything.

• All payouts within 24 hours

The last time I cashed out at Pinnacle's casino (hi Binary!), it was processed in minutes. ALL casinos can and should do that.

• Operating for at least two years.

Consumer reports won't recommend products until the company making them has a good reliability history. They may very well review the product and call it great, but will withhold the official CR stamp until they have experience. I see this as part of building a reputation.