- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The problem is that currently “certification” criteria is 100% money only. This leads to certification of crap/rogue operators. Latest example: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casinomeister-warnings/29356-golden-lounge-predatory-terms-shoddy-service.html.
If you want to keep money as only criteria for certification, stop calling it certification immediately and call it just “CAP sponsors” thank you. “Certification” should be much more than just something you can buy.
Certification should mean a list of items
– Response to questions within 48 hours
– Payments Withing a reasonable time limit
– Customer/player issues resolved with a meaningful end
– Terms and services reviewsNow these dont seem that much different, but there must be penalties as well
A set uf guides needs to be created to “penalize” a partner that does not meet these basics, weather there be individual items that are marked as failing putting them in a suspended mode or de-listing.
don’t call it certified call it “listed” or “approved” at best. Certification unnecessarily creates a whole host of expectations and with many operators you are bound to let people down.
Maybe there could be different grades of certification or sponsoring depending on how long they’ve been round, how good their reputation is etc. I agree it needs to be about more than just money though, I actually thought it was.
Whilst CAP is definitely a commercial enterprise, integrity should be of a higher important. As a result, spamming casinos should be booted and lose their certification fee.
Whatever it’s called, I think it needs to take into account the properties themselves – the casinos/poker rooms etc – and how they treat players. I know CAP is affiliate focused, but IMO it’s misleading to “certify” or “approve” an affiliate program when the casinos themselves mistreat players. Aside from the ethical side, it doesn’t help affiliates either as they won’t retain players.
“Sponsorship” would be my suggested route with an added disclaimer to say that CAP doesn’t actually “endorse” a program, to protect itself from future issues based around integrity.
Another issue that needs thinking about is the conflicting interests argument. By which I mean, if you associate a fee with an endorsement, you make it hard to remain impartial when it comes to warning people about problems, or removing programs. It is bound to impact decision making and criticism will be unavoidable.
Incidentally, I see this as one of CAP’s most fundamental issues taking into account recent events and it’s a question that needed to be raised. So kudos for that.
Simmo!;196521 wrote:Whatever it’s called, I think it needs to take into account the properties themselves – the casinos/poker rooms etc – and how they treat players. I know CAP is affiliate focused, but IMO it’s misleading to “certify” or “approve” an affiliate program when the casinos themselves mistreat players. Aside from the ethical side, it doesn’t help affiliates either as they won’t retain players.This +1. The programs that have notable amount of real public complaints should not be “certified” or “approved” in the first place and new operators should not be “certified” before they have been online for like 1 year or so, so that they have proved to be reputable and not produce player or affiliate complaints.
Operators that would like to get certified and which have not been around long enough / have had player complaints in the past could be put to something like “pending approval” list for public monitoring. This should produce good results since they’d have to focus on treating players and affiliates well so that they could get certified after certain amount of time.
And then if already certified programs produce either player or affiliate complaints, they should be de-certified and penalized more heavily. If I’d own this site, I had already de-certified a program that produces so much complaints in like two months time that they end up to casinomeisters player warning list already.
@AiruaL 196522 wrote:
or do one see many complaints on good operators there?
Well, yeah, they do exist – usually by fraudulent affiliates and it gets caught out fairly quickly.
criticism will be unavoidable.
Constructive criticism is something I like and what I am after here. Criticizing and offering alternatives is all good IMO. I don’t think criticism will ever go away, whether it’s in people’s heads or said out loud. I’d much rather see it said out loud so one can see how to make things right. The point is to fix things.
Maybe there could be different grades of certification or sponsoring depending on how long they’ve been round, how good their reputation is etc.
That is what I think would work sort of grading system.
“Sponsorship” would be my suggested route with an added disclaimer to say that CAP doesn’t actually “endorse” a program, to protect itself from future issues based around integrity.
For sure there is a need for a disclaimer.
glad this is being addressed (and in public too) I actually spoke to one of the CAP certified partners the other day at CAP. The certification process for them involved giving money to CAP on a monthly basis… That was it. :flush:
Obviously that coupled with the fact that AP and UB are still pushed here (and were all through the cheating scandals) leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and means CAP has no credibility as regards their “certification”.
Hope to see this changed (seems to be about to happen!).. don’t get me wrong! the CAP community itself is great regardless of the whole certification issues.
CAP.Wouls also be nice if ownership contact was available, and no Im not bringing up very recent events, but the main one that comes up is Grand prive, I would feel much better knowing the ownership, and of course would never touch another affiliate owned by the sam,e people as them.
If you want to continue calling it “Certification” please ensure that:
Payments R on time.
Tracking is working, no tricks with cookies or other shaving techniques.
Managers respond to emails in 24h
Casino is NOT sending spam or not allows spam affiliates. Now there R some casinos, which send spam on a massive scale. That is not acceptable.
Mark newbie casinos, so affiliates know it’s a new operation.Make sure You use 35K USD or whatever amount to test the operation in and out.
I think certification of programs ,especially in past year has been all about money.I love money too and yes I take media deals on my sites too ,nothing wrong with that at all.But I don’t consider myself an ‘authority figure’ in this industry.I do not have webmasters coming to me for advise and guidance on the big ,bad and ugly in this market.
CAP should at minimum have a disclaimer on their website saying that these programs pay money to be here and we do not guarantee any results .Use at your own risk.
Also if rumors are true these ‘certified’ partners are comparing notes on what each are paying.I think they should publish their rate card as most big forums do in other industries.
I respect what you are trying to do here Dominique but at end of the day we can discuss all we want but the decision makers needs to be part of this.As long as one person is still owed money by Cardspike I will not recommend any program to join.I am not derailing the thread but that is the elephant in the room ,we can all be two faced and pretend that everything is great but it is not.If you want to clean house and make this a better forum ,start by de certifying the rogues here ,we all know who they are and SO Obvious to everyone.@casinobonusguy 196533 wrote:
I respect what you are trying to do here Dominique but at end of the day we can discuss all we want but the decision makers needs to be part of this.
[/quote]First I want to collect constructive suggestions on how to do it better, then we will see about getting them implemented.
@casinobonusguy 196533 wrote:
As long as one person is still owed money by Cardspike I will not recommend any program to join.
That is another topic for another day. I explained that there will be more open discussions to follow. Please let’s do this one step at a time, and please do not derail. Work with me, please.
1) I agree that the word “Certification” should be changed.
1a) Some sort of program vetting needs to be done.
2) All vetted and approved programs that can pay the fees should be listed.
3) Don’t believe in the different grading system like Platinum, Gold and Silver. If a program wants more exposure than they should buy more banner space.
4) Indicate how long a program has been listed.
5) Affiliates should be encouraged to post constructive criticism about programs.
6) All criticisms should be dealt with on the programs forum for all to see and not via pm’s or emails where possible.
7) New affiliates could then view the history of selected programs and make their own minds up.So, not too much to change really IMO.
Edit: We affiliates are adults and do not need to be treated like children. All the information you need to make wise choices is out there. It is not about protecting affiliates but more about transparency so that affiliates can make their own minds up.
