- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Well, I for one just want to see it fixed.
We sorely need more US facing software.
I am glad we are doing these audits, it gets the truth out there and everyone can be warned.
I think these audits are great, CAP certified programs are going to know they will be audited and clean up their acts. They never know when the chip may fall on them. :hattip:
Since it’s a 100% failure rate on what looks like all subequent deposits it should be easy to track down the bug. Although it’s hard to believe that such a major bug wasn’t picked up in internal testing it does happen.
Hopefully, other programs will look at this as wake up call to check their tracking systems.
Quote:What I don’t get that how the already tagged players in the first round couldn’t be counted in the second round with their depositsI completely agree and thats what I found most alarming and unexplainable UNLESS cookies are overwritten even on already attributed players. That appears to be whats happening. And yes, since this is a problem at the software level other operators would be effected. Again assuming that both Rome Casino and Top Game are being honest.
One of the problems we discussed, that they thought had been corrected in a previous revision (October), was if players went to the main site and went to various pages within the site the referral cookie was reset and the player was attributed to the house. They BELIEVE they corrected that issue in all instances. I don’t. I think it’s what’s at work here somehow.
I can’t discuss exact percentages but Rome Casino stated their house accounts were in the single digits and they assumed this was due to their SEO work and other media efforts. I believe they believed this and didn’t investigate further as the numbers seemed to be in line with industry standards.
BUT the players may have been attributed incorrectly to a media tracker or another aggressive affiliate who previously tagged the player.
Unfortunately the software attributes players to the FIRST referrer and NOT the LAST referrer. I explained the reason this should not be the case and hopefully this is on their list of corrective actions.
We all know how in the past a similar cookie convention was exploited by spammers and less then reputable affiliates.
In theory they stated it shouldn’t be an issue as cookie latency was two weeks! I explained this was against standard convention as well and latency should be a minimum of 90 days.
All of this along with our audit test data leads me to believe these were indeed mistakes and deficiencies in the system that a start up platform might miss in alpha and beta test internally as they didn’t have a clear picture of what should have been standard protocol.
I always thought that when I sign up a player to any casino, then there will be a record in the database in the background in that player’s record that the referer was me. When the first sign up happens, this linkage is made, and if the program doesn’t allow re-sign ups (like in the case of many rakeback poker sites) then this linkage is for lifetime.
I saw the Top Game reports show checking for duplicates in the case of each player, and they passed that duplication test. How could it be that they thought the second deposits are the results of House’s great marketing activity?
When a player makes a second/third/etc deposit, they cannot do that through the website, but only through the casino software where he/she can be totally authorized and identified, regardless he visited the website again or not.I want to think that these problems are not intentional, but being an application designer and developer myself I can only say that they should fire their testing team very fast, or oh well… something stinks.
For me this issue made complete trust lose in Top Game, even if they correct the problems, I don’t want to watch my back all the time and find out that my hard work could just vanish. Not one US facing program worth this in my eyes. I hope they will correct the issues and others can promote them if they want.
/And this is the time when I’m dreaming about regulation, etc, where these kind of issues just cannot happen because of strict monitoring and controlling.. lol/
Anyway, I cannot say my thanks enough to Prof, Gamtrak and the others who made this audit, well done and thank you for your work!
I just want to chine in here one last time ,by releasing these results rome casino and top games has been tarished regardless of the outcome of a second test.I know we will not deal with them and sure many others feel same way.If CAP is goign to give programs ‘second chance’ to fix things maybe you should give them that chance before releasing results.
Because by relaying their excuses and trying to explain the results away to be innocent it really diminishes the value and purpose of the audits.There are plenty of HONEST programs that are CAP certified , why bend over backwards to help a program that is proven to cheat IMO just because they are new and USA facing. Instead of trying to help these guys we should be yanking their banners and giving these placements to partners who have proven themselves to be worthy of our players.They cheated, they got caught and they’ll get booted from my sites. I don’t give rogues second chances. It wastes my time and energy – both are things which I cherish and I would hate dedicating them to rogues.
Having said that I am glad that the audit found these results so they can act as a warning to every program that has “errors” which favourably affect their bottom line.
I’m just as concerned about the programs that we all trust and assume are doing the right thing, but have not gotten caught yet so let’s focus on getting things right and move forward.
Folks can make up their minds based on the results. Needless to say I’m not gonna be promoting them anytime soon.
I’ve been given the next test site so get ready to begin the next round.:hattip:
The important part is that the information is made available.
What we do with that information is totally up to the individual affiliates.
Everyone has their own opinions and ways of doing business, and everyone is free to do whatever they see fit.
What matters is that the decisions are informed and based on factual information :hattip:
Like Prof said, Microsoft never release perfect software. But we all have a choice – take the risk and live with the results or wait until it’s got a history. Things like this are bad on one hand, but on the other they (should!) provide a valuable learning experience for everyone involved, be it software providers, licencees or affiliates.
Anyone else just get a new affiliate manager at Rome? Bit of a shake-up?
I remember one time when the affiliate program Brandconversions had a somewhat similar issue where depositors where not tracked correctly to the affiliates. They chose to pay out the rev share percentage of the casino’s earnings amongst all affiliates in accordance with previous earnings. I think that would be more than fair. If they don’t they should loose their certification. Think about how much money they have earned from this “mistake” (at least until it was discovered).
No matter what, this is certainly not a program that I am going to promote. It proves one of my biggest concerns in this business!!
Well now that the Audits are in place, they should be part of certification process before the program is listed on CAP.
No, the audit process takes weeks to complete and is a seperate benefit to our members. Remember the primary focus of CAP Audits is to uncover any flaws within a tracking system and then work with the program on getting them corrected.
If a program is un-cooperative or unwilling to correct a flaw then that could be a contributing factor to their being de-certified if the issue presents a serious problem for affiliates.
You can also benefit from the data generated in the audit and use it when deciding who you wish to partner with.
I would hope and believe the vast majority of our certified partners will fly through an audit with no problems to report. The few that do have issues will most likely be very interested in fixing the problem(s) immediately.
Guys in another thread the CAP Audit Team Leader is now stating there may have been an error in the data reported or how it was interpreted. Please see:
Obviously this was a totally unexpected development and I am going to talk with Robin and go through all the data again. If there was an error then we will have to pull the results of this audit and retest following closely supervised procedures. We will report what we find. If there was an error on the CAP audit teams part we owe Rome Casino an apology.
There were cookie issues that did need to be addressed so the efforts of the team were not in vain and a positive change in the Top Game system can be attributed to Robin and her testers at the very least.
I will post more tomorrow after we have re-evaluated all data.
