Watch my stats drop - Gambling Wages

[Chipeez]

Wow, this thread has got an unexpected turn.. When I saw the screenshot D. posted yesterday I thought it would be fun to see what happend there as most of us seen the strangest things happen to stats.. I was just wondering what the figures would be the 31st.

I just wanted to see if there were any updates today, but instead I had to read through 3 pages of discussion. And now I just have to post my thoughts on the subject and be a part of the derail of the topic. Well so be it.

Fist off I also have an account with GW, still getting clicks and an occasional deposit. It's not that I want the, but it's just that over time there are still active links online. And some I have no clue where they are. I've had similar experiences with a reputable program who asked me to change aff links for better tracking, but I have no idea where those links are. This just happens when you've been online and worked on different sites.

In regards to Robwins question on WHY one would even sign up at a rogue program I can only say that at the time I started as affiliate I had little clue about what was a good or bad programm. I just noticed lot's of players start playing in an online casino with a free chip. As they offer alot of these freebies, I figured it would be good to include these.

Now that I know better and learned from previous mistakes, I would never put GW on a premium spot. (and Daera wouldn't do this either) But you just can't prevent that some active link is on the web somewhere.

I think we all run our business different. One works on a big site and puts all his/her energy in this. There you would have a good idea on where active links are, although I could imagine if you have over 8000 pages you might miss a link when removing stuff.

Some set up alot of sites, perhaps to test something for google ranks, and might even forget about a site they have online and thus about the links that are online there.

I really doubt Daera started this thread to get involved in a discussion on why she got players at GW. I think she wanted to show what could happen to your stats and I think we should see this thread as a warning.

Just my 2 cents..

 

[Simmo!]

I'm gonna jump in here with a thought.

Let's say you post a warning about a rogue casino. It's clear, in black and white, that you don't recommend them or have major reservations. If a player decides to ignore your advice, goes there anyway and loses, the rogue casino makes 100% of their losses. So in actual fact, by posting an affiliate link you have cut their profits of the casino by X%. I'd have though the less money a rogue casino makes, the better?

 

[RobWin]

I'm gonna jump in here with a thought.

Let's say you post a warning about a rogue casino. It's clear, in black and white, that you don't recommend them or have major reservations. If a player decides to ignore your advice, goes there anyway and loses, the rogue casino makes 100% of their losses. So in actual fact, by posting an affiliate link you have cut their profits of the casino by X%. I'd have though the less money a rogue casino makes, the better?

I agree with you Simmo about posting a warning about a rogue casino, no qualms there, but when you add an affiliate link to that warning as I believe you are suggesting, if I understood your post correctly then you are in fact deciding to take blood money, so to speak...I don't see how you could see it any other way really.

"And by posting an affiliate link you have cut their profits of the casino by X%"?? Sure that may be true as well. But that is also like saying it is OK to take the money from Robin Hood because he stole it from the rich, even though we look over the fact that it is ill gotten gain...correct?

How anyone could still feel good about themselves taking money from this rogue program just blows my mind...when most of them know deep down that that rogue program still owes so many players money that they have screwed over during all the years of their existence.
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

I agree with you Simmo about posting a warning about a rogue casino, no qualms there, but when you add an affiliate link to that warning as I believe you are suggesting, if I understood your post correctly then you are in fact deciding to take blood money, so to speak...I don't see how you could see it any other way really.

There's basically two ways of looking at this:

1) It's rogue, they can keep their money and I want no part of it
2) It's rogue and I'm going to cost them money

IMO neither of them is the wrong or right way, just two different interpretations which will divide opinion.

The most important aspect is that the player is given the information with which to make an informed decision.

 

[RobWin]

There's basically two ways of looking at this:

1) It's rogue, they can keep their money and I want no part of it
2) It's rogue and I'm going to cost them money

IMO neither of them is the wrong or right way, just two different methods which will divide opinion.

The most important aspect is that the player is given the information with which to make an informed decision.

OR....

1) It's rogue, they can keep their money and I want no part of it
2) It's rogue and I'm going to cost them and the player money
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

OR....

1) It's rogue, they can keep their money and I want no part of it
2) It's rogue and I'm going to cost them and the player money
____
____

LOL....I think you missed the point I was trying to make Rob. Let me try this...

A while back, I created poker tournament listings for syndication. They went out with my afflinks and a few blogs etc used to use them. In those listings were Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet. We know what happened next so I removed them from the listings, but the old listings and links were still out there attracting clicks. What would you have done?

A) Sent back the affiliate commissions they paid you?
B) or kept them?

What you're saying is that option (A) equates to blood money.

What I'm saying is that as long as the affiliate has updated the player with information as to why they shouldn't be playing there, or removed them totally (which I think is less effective in educating the player), then the affiliate has met their ethical obligations and it's down to the player to make their own decision.

 

[dominique]

Chippeez said it, Simmo just said it and I said it too - you can remove links til the cows come home, and for one reason or another clicks still happen.

It's not easy removing anything from the internet.

If Daera follows every post naming the casinos in question with a warning, then she is doing the best she can, including floodding the search engines with warnings.

 

[RobWin]

A while back, I created poker tournament listings for syndication. They went out with my afflinks and a few blogs etc used to use them. In those listings were Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet. We know what happened next so I removed them from the listings, but the old listings and links were still out there attracting clicks. What would you have done?

I think the only thing you can do in a situation like that is to simply call up, get in touch with the program manager and ask them to close your affiliate account. Otherwise you are still accepting money from a bad or rogue program indefinitely IMO.

A) Sent back the affiliate commissions they paid you?
B) or kept them?

Neither one...I would donate them to a good charity, where they at least could help someone less fortunate out...believe it or not...karma scares the sh*t out of me anymore...

What you're saying is that option (A) equates to blood money.

What I'm saying is that as long as the affiliate has updated the player with information as to why they shouldn't be playing there, or removed them totally (which I think is less effective in educating the player), then the affiliate has met their ethical obligations and it's down to the player to make their own decision.

I think Bryan here does a purdy good job of educating the player without having any affiliate links attached to those rogue programs as one example. I just think that there are better ways to educate the player without using any affiliate links to do it with.

Chippeez said it, Simmo just said it and I said it too - you can remove links til the cows come home, and for one reason or another clicks still happen.

Well it won't matter if you close that affiliate account now would it?

* The main thing that I am saying here guys is that you can choose not to be a part of those ill gotten gains if you really make an effort to do so and make the right choices, we all have those freewill choices available to us.

____
____

 

[daera]

I just wanted to let you guys know that I am talking to Gambling Wages now. Because the month isn't quite over yet, and the New Year's Holiday, I probably won't have answers until next week. But I'll let you guys know the outcome once I know myself.

 

[daera]

Ive been a member of the Hodge for years and i have noticed whenever anybody has posted codes to the rogues a warning has always been posted afterwards telling people they shouldnt play there, and i dont think i have ever seen a banner or live link posted on the forum,
daera, maybe you could do as as Rob suggested and find out where the live links are and kill them,as you know one depositer is one to many.

Thanks for your post Zebedy.

FYI, I did send an email reply to Vipin yesterday and specifically asked if he could see the urls those clicks came from and provide me with them. They're not available in the affiliate program where I can see them myself.

 

[Simmo!]

* The main thing that I am saying here guys is that you can choose not to be a part of those ill gotten gains if you really make an effort to do so and make the right choices, we all have those freewill choices available to us.

I agree with the sentiment, though personally I feel that as long as the player has the correct information, it is ultimately their call whether they choose to heed your advice or not. We should also probably bear in mind that standards differ, and what one person might call rogue behaviour, another may not.

I think it's fair to call out an affiliate who is providing misleading information, but if they are doing the right thing and the player chooses to ignore the advice, or disagrees with it, then I think the affiliate's responsibility has been met. My personal opinion.

It's similar with general consumer reviews sites. You often see someone rate a product low, tell the consumer it is a pile of junk or inform the consumer the retailer isn't reliable, but at the end of the day, the consumer chooses whether or not it is the right product for them and the links are always present.

It's a fine line and it's easy to see why opinions will differ, but the main issue for me here is not who profits, but whether the player is being mislead.

By the way...the charity idea is a good one

 

[RobWin]

I agree with the sentiment, though personally I feel that as long as the player has the correct information, it is ultimately their call whether they choose to heed your advice or not.

I totally agree with you there, hands down. I think that could absolutely be a lengthy thread topic within itself, but what I am trying to focus on mainly is the links and still knowingly accepting money (as in affiliate commissions) from a rogue program.

We should also probably bear in mind that standards differ, and what one person might call rogue behaviour, another may not.

Yep, I understand that but I also understand all too well about the many affiliates out there who do know better and know that this group (The Virtual Group) has an evil past. The affiliates know that they owe legitimate players, legitimate winnings from the past and still refuse to pay them. That affiliate chooses to look the other way and stick their head in the sand and still accept that blood money.

OK, I admit, "blood money" may be a little over dramatic but I know you guys understand what I'm saying here. That is the affiliates choice to keep accepting that money from a program that they know still owes mucho deniro to legitimate players. But yet, still, the affiliate accepts that affiliate payment and looks the other way as far as those screwed over players from the past are concerned.

I think it's fair to call out an affiliate who is providing misleading information, but if they are doing the right thing and the player chooses to ignore the advice, or disagrees with it, then I think the affiliate's responsibility has been met. My personal opinion.

I agree as long as that same affiliate has no links to the casino or program attached to the information. That way even if the player chooses to ignore the advice, or disagree with it, the affiliate would not benefit from that bad choice that the player just made.

It's similar with general consumer reviews sites. You often see someone rate a product low, tell the consumer it is a pile of junk or inform the consumer the retailer isn't reliable, but at the end of the day, the consumer chooses whether or not it is the right product for them and the links are always present.

That's clearly a personal ethics issue there as far as that particular affiliate is concerned. They are telling their viewing audience that the product sucks yet on the other hand they are linking that product up thru an affiliate link and then are also willing to accept money from the company they think has products that are a pile of junk. Kinda like good cop/bad cop.

That scenario also reminds me of the affiliate who runs one website where everyone basically knows who is behind the website and they also only promote the good casinos and several CM Accredited casinos there. But that same affiliate also has a hidden dark side to them as well, where they own other websites that no one knows who owns them where they only promote the rogues and the virtual sites.

It's a fine line and it's easy to see why opinions will differ, but the main issue for me here is not who profits, but whether the player is being mislead.

So does that mean that it would be ok to list a rogue casino such as Cool Cat in your rogue section and warn everyone about how bad they are and how they treat their players and dick them around but at the same time also add an affiliate link to the listing there so they can go visit that site? Maybe they will even choose to ignore your warning and deposit there as well. Does that scenario make it ok for that affiliate to profit from that rogue program and the player too then, just because they simply warned them? IMO, that affiliate is clearly no better than the rogue casino is as far as ethics go.

I still would like to hear someone address the statement I made earlier about just simply closing the affiliate account and no longer participating in those monies derived from them.

By the way...the charity idea is a good one

Thanks, great discussion too, by the way...
____
____

 

[zebedy]

I'm gonna jump in here with a thought.

Let's say you post a warning about a rogue casino. It's clear, in black and white, that you don't recommend them or have major reservations. If a player decides to ignore your advice, goes there anyway and loses, the rogue casino makes 100% of their losses. So in actual fact, by posting an affiliate link you have cut their profits of the casino by X%. I'd have though the less money a rogue casino makes, the better?

But if the casino is screwing the affiliate by inventing figures at the end of the month(which i think Daera is trying to prove by making her post) so all the comissions are lost anyway are you just wasting your time in putting there links up in the first place ?,
would it be better just to post warnings like affiliates did with Grand Prive,
i mean when affs posted warnings about GP im sure they didnt post links to the casino's, and allegedly it hurt them

I agree as long as that same affiliate has no links to the casino or program attached to the information. That way even if the player chooses to ignore the advice, or disagree with it, the affiliate would not benefit from that bad choice that the player just made.
____

In a perfect world that would happen but as you know some affiliates only care about the paycheck,

I still would like to hear someone address the statement I made earlier about just simply closing the affiliate account and no longer participating in those monies derived from them.

IMO it would be better if affiliates had nothing to do with these people altogether and close there accounts, casino's get the word around by affs promoting them , if nobody promoted them wouldnt that hurt them more.

no promoting just warnings, no promoting just warnings , do you think the slogan will catch on

 

[Simmo!]

But if the casino is screwing the affiliate by inventing figures at the end of the month(which i think Daera is trying to prove by making her post) so all the comissions are lost anyway are you just wasting your time in putting there links up in the first place ?

Totally. You're dealing with rogues so if it all goes pear-shaped, then you've only got yourself to blame. No harm in alerting other people like Daera has done though.

IMO it would be better if affiliates had nothing to do with these people altogether and close there accounts, casino's get the word around by affs promoting them , if nobody promoted them wouldnt that hurt them more.

I agree with you and Rob on this. These casinos will only survive if they keep taking money. Affs and players need to work together to cut off the supply.

IMO the best thing is for an affiliate to spread the word without using aff links. But as mentioned earlier, sometimes casinos turn rogue after being good and some links can be outside one's control. So Rob's "blood money" call is apt if the affiliate is still promoting the casino, but IMO not apt if they have changed tack and called the casino out.

 

[AussieDave]

Hi all,

I'm slightly confused...

Cast your minds back three months, it was Gamtrak promoting Virtual Casino Group who effective brought the AU down before it opened.

In the following thread, another CM member is having a go at GamTrak over promoting VCG - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/pr-new-hope-for-grand-prive-affiliates.34941/

It's certainly not the first time people have had a go at Gamtrak for promoting casinos.

So I'm some what bemused as to why two different webmasters are being treated differently, when they are both actively promoting VCG Casinos.

IMO as long as Daera holds and open account with Gambling Wages and allows people to post links to these crap holes on her site(s), it's hypocritical to target GamTrak for doing the exact same thing.


Cheers



Dave

 

[Webzcas]

Anyone who actively allows the promotion of Gambling Wages properties on their portals or forums is in my view not player friendly.

No ifs, buts or maybe. It's 2010, any webmaster affiliate, especially those who have been running sites for several years should know the rogues from the good casinos.

 

[RobWin]

Anyone who actively allows the promotion of Gambling Wages properties on their portals or forums is in my view not player friendly.

I agree but I'll also say it again too to add to the above statement...anyone who inactively and knowingly allows the promotion of Gambling Wages properties on their portals or forums are no better than the rogue sites themselves!

And still no one wants to address my earlier statement? Regarding...Just simply CLOSE that affiliate account!

Surely there is one amongst you that is willing to step forward and address this...where the heck is the owner of this site (Meisterman Himself) in this important discussion here? It would be beneficial I think to hear Bryans views on this as well, IMO.
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

...where the heck is the owner of this site (Meisterman Himself) in this important discussion here?

Your choice of wording - "what the heck.." isn't exactly a friendly call to action, Rob! You could always PM him for his opinion if it's important to you but it is holiday season let's not forget

I'll give you my opinion though - here's what I'd do, but I'd prefix this with the fact that if a program I had on one of my sites was rogue, it would have gone rogue after I started promoting them. In which instance, I wouldn't close the affiliate account but I would make sure affiliate links were removed.

Whether I donated the money to charity or keep it is my business. You or no-one else knows what I do with my money and frankly it would be none of yours or anyone else's business either. If I chose to donate it that wouldn't be because of what anyone else thought of me, nor would I be advertising it, it would be because I wanted to or felt it was the right thing to do.

 

[zebedy]

Hi all,

I'm slightly confused...

Cast your minds back three months, it was Gamtrak promoting Virtual Casino Group who effective brought the AU down before it opened.

In the following thread, another CM member is having a go at GamTrak over promoting VCG - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/pr-new-hope-for-grand-prive-affiliates.34941/

It's certainly not the first time people have had a go at Gamtrak for promoting casinos.

So I'm some what bemused as to why two different webmasters are being treated differently, when they are both actively promoting VCG Casinos.

IMO as long as Daera holds and open account with Gambling Wages and allows people to post links to these crap holes on her site(s), it's hypocritical to target GamTrak for doing the exact same thing.


Cheers



Dave

IMO i think theres a big difference to one affiliate advertising rogue casino's on there homepage of there site with the usual spin,

sign up here and blah blah

, if your new to gambling you wouldnt have a clue the casino was rogue.
but if somebody posts on a forum,with no live links

cool cat nd code xyz

and in the following post a mod posts

this casino is not reccommended avoid depositing blah blah

is that the same as actively promoting them ?
at least people reading the thread has an idea about the casino,

Ive heard the words Actively promoting what do they mean

1/updating links on a weekly basis
2/have links that are years old / forgotten about

At the end of the day if you are receiving a check at the end of the month from these sponsers then i guess it must mean you are actively promoting them, but if all links are removed then you wont be getting any new signups,

another question is
should affs continue to receive payments for the work they did years ago when these casino's were non rogue,





,

 

[RobWin]

Your choice of wording - "what the heck.." isn't exactly a friendly call to action, Rob! You could always PM him for his opinion if it's important to you but it is holiday season let's not forget

Yea, Yea...I know...I'm not always the most politically correct plug in the box but I also don't scratch unless I actually have an itch either! It was actually "where the heck" but that's beside the point ...it was meant in jest anyway. I, like several others here would just simply like to see Bryan take part and a more active role in participating in the more important threads here, that's all. Like he used to do, back in the day. We value his opinions on these matters as we always have, thus one of the very reasons we became regular visitors here and keep coming back day in and day out.

That's not to say that we also don't appreciate your's and the other mods and all the other posters opinions as well too, but certainly a little more of the Meisters thoughts and opinions on some of these types of threads would be a welcome addition IMO. There was actually a thread last week Follow up to the Posted Threads that made mention of this as well.

I'll give you my opinion though - here's what I'd do, but I'd prefix this with the fact that if a program I had on one of my sites was rogue, it would have gone rogue after I started promoting them. In which instance, I wouldn't close the affiliate account but I would make sure affiliate links were removed.

Thanks for your candid answer there Simmo. In a situation such as that and assuming that all links can be found and removed then I could maybe understand why an affiliate would not close the affiliate account. It could simply be due to the fact that there are players that you sent there back in the day before they became rogue that are still making deposits there and are in fact receiving their winnings and the affiliate is still making money off of those players.

Still though, on the other hand, an affiliate with that type of knowledge would have to think that there were other players that he/she had also sent there that were not treated with the same respect as far as their winnings were concerned. Of course this is only my opinion since I am the one typing here.

Whether I donated the money to charity or keep it is my business. You or no-one else knows what I do with my money and frankly it would be none of yours or anyone else's business either. If I chose to donate it that wouldn't be because of what anyone else thought of me, nor would I be advertising it, it would be because I wanted to or felt it was the right thing to do.

Yep, I agree, it's no one's business what you or I do with our money but I do think it's our business as good, ethical and integrity driven affiliates to let the player community know who is promoting these rogue casino sites and still taking money from their affiliate program whether it be thru actively promoting them or inactively promoting them. At least that way the player community is truly informed and they can make up their own mind then whether or not they still want to maintain an alliance with that affiliate site.

I'm actually starting to feel like I am "The Lone Ranger" in this thread here. Am I the only one here in Meisterland who has these types of views as far as ethics and integrity are concerned with regard to still accepting money from a known rogue program?..
____
____

 

[RobWin]

Why can't we nominate posts in this thread here??
____
____

 

[Simmo!]

...the fact that there are players that you sent there back in the day before they became rogue that are still making deposits there and are in fact receiving their winnings...

Brings us back to the definition of rogue and how opinions can differ. If a "rogue" is servicing some players to the level where they are happy to stay loyal, then the player obviously doesn't think of the casino as rogue. If the player is happy, surely the affiliate has met their obligation to the player and therefore, why shouldn't they continue to take their cut from the casino? If the player thinks they are rogue, they will have stopped playing there anyway. And if the affiliate has stopped promoting them based on their own definition of what constitutes rogue, then that seems fair to be.

I'm actually starting to feel like I am "The Lone Ranger" in this thread here. Am I the only one here in Meisterland who has these types of views as far as ethics and integrity are concerned with regard to still accepting money from a known rogue program?..

I think we are all pretty much singling from the same hymn sheet apart from the ongoing revenues bit and as I stated earlier, that seems a very fine line to me.

Why can't we nominate posts in this thread here??

Not sure - sorry.

 

[mojo]

Hi all,

I'm slightly confused...

Cast your minds back three months, it was Gamtrak promoting Virtual Casino Group who effective brought the AU down before it opened.


Cheers



Dave

Gamtrak did NOT bring down the GAU Dave. That is not fair.

Perhaps we forgot.

 

[greek39]

Maybe we would all be better off if the whole Virtual Group just disappeared. Yup 2010 and we still have long time Rogue Programs running around like little kids in a playground. Years of bitching and complaining perhaps something more aggressive is called for.

Why not chew on their super affiliate. Anyone know who that maybe lol? If I could only remember the name. then I could see if the same mannerism toward certain individuals in this thread would apply also. Or maybe all those affiliates who still have open accounts at the Virtual Group but no longer support them.

So lets not pretend this problem only involves two people. The problem is widespread like swine flu.


Tad unfair statement AussieDave.

greek39

 

[RobWin]

Brings us back to the definition of rogue and how opinions can differ.

Well, the way I see "Rogue" now has always been the way I have seen it...no if's, ands or butts about it....

rogue

In general, a rogue is someone who strays from the accepted path, is mischievous, or is a cheat!

ie: A rogue Internet service provider ( ISP ) is one that knowingly originates spam

And again, there is the word..."Knowingly"

Why not chew on their super affiliate. Anyone know who that maybe lol? If I could only remember the name. then I could see if the same mannerism toward certain individuals in this thread would apply also.

Yes, I wish you could remember their name as well. Most peeps that know me here, know that I have never held back my opinions toward anyone...I don't care if it was my mother promoting this rogue outfit...I would show the same amount of disdain toward her as I do anyone else who actively or inactively promotes them... I am consistent in that aspect!...

Or maybe all those affiliates who still have open accounts at the Virtual Group but no longer support them.

Isn't that an oxymoron there? IMO, if the affiliate still has an open account there, then they are in fact supporting this group by accepting their money.

So lets not pretend this problem only involves two people. The problem is widespread like swine flu.

greek39

I agree!
____
____