Hi Joshua and welcome to the jungle.
When I first (remembered) to look for the results (today) … I read the closed thread first.
My thoughts were … glad I didn’t promote them (this due to some seasoned affs I have been talking with … and combining their responses made my decision).
Then I read this thread and as such I really don’t think much of what has come about in respect to it effecting my decison procvess on whether to promote this brand.
I still have my most counted upon method which is actually talking to those that I know … know something about this industry.
experience speaks volumes to me.
so I”m back to where I started with these exceptions:
1) I’m actually inclined to give them a chance because they were not given a fair jump out of the gate if I understand correct … NONE of the second deposits were ever made by any of the testers?
If true then I think the testers need to be more adamant about completing their responsibilities and being aware the damage they can cause when not …
2) Joshua, you’re far from out of the woods. I don’t even hear the sound of cars in the far distant yet so don’t light up any cigars.
A) As the Prof so astutely points out: your approach to tracking leaves us older affs concerned because of the reasons he mentioned way, way back at the start of this thread and ones that I don’t think you’ve ever chosen to address. Such as the cookies not overwriting like the standard. We all know that you are setting up a situation for one person to get rich off the work of the rest of us by having that backwards way of overwriting cookies. And I am as backwards as it gets so if i understand the problem then your people should fully see the flaw and be scrambling to fix it.
Pat, why don’t you go ahead and toss up what you have for us all to see and I”m certain between the bunch we will figure out the situation to everyone’s satisfaction. (I put that one in your category Joshua because its your problem if it don’t look right. fair? And Pat seems pretty adamant there is a situation
C) They only last 2 weeks … a period of time that the testers obviously can’t even seem to find time to get back in and gamble so its a given there are going to be a lot of playrers that download the software and don’t actually sign up to play for a period out lasting that sorry stretch of time.
D) Joshua as you can see there are more issues than just the audit and they should be given as much attention as the audit … perhaps more since there was an error with the audit.
I know the 2 week thing and the way the cookies overwrite are both deal breakers for obvious reasons. Why would i choose to send a player to some place where I”ve only got 2 weeks and then I lose them to the casino by default … which to be quite frank … feels predatory to me … and I don’t work knowingly with those kind of partners.
When I could send them some place that gives me … I believe the Prof wrote 90 days was standard? considerable difference eh?
Sum Up: Joshua I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination that it is unfair to say that your program has a ways to go before being completely aff-friendly but I don’t think your program should be condemned based on the audit.
It should be viewed with the audit aside and I still don’t think its going to be given a lot of thumbs up. But I know I”d withold my thumbs down if I heard a promise of reform on the overwriting and length of time.