- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cool idea, Steve!
That is so simple, it’s ingenious.
If I were a player the LAST thing I would do is enter my play data into a program where a marketer(s) had acess to it.
Why would I:
*Create a database of my play that could potentially be subpoened or obtained by the government and used against me in the future.
*Spend the time needed to do this consistently. If I even bothered to do this in the beginning the odds are I would lose interest and not continue to log my play after each session. Or like most real people I would miss entering session data simply because I forgot. This would make the overall data suspect.
*Quite frankly, as a player, I consider it none of your business where I play, when and for how much money. Why would I want anyone else to have that data? What’s my incentive? I want to keep track of how much I spent where? Why?
I am curious BB1 if you play much online would you go and enter YOUR player data into a remote database just so someone else could track your activities?
Just throwing those out there under the assumption that these are real players we are talking about.
Ok, if you are talking about TEST players only then this is a different ball of wax….I think Arkyt already has a game plan for that and it seems sound. Are you recommending automating the process?
I am confused about your concept and wouldn’t mind clarification on the finer points.
I think Steve’s idea was to provide a place for a player to track their play for their own purposes online. It wouldn’t be billed as a place to give the affiliate marketer the info, it would be presented as a tool for the player’s use.
This kind of tracking information would be useful in a couple of ways to a player. One obvious way would be to track whether or not you’ve met your playthrough requirement for a bonus. Another would be to form a more educated opinion about the fairness of the games, or how close they meet statistical norms. Another would be to test some new system the player has come up with.
Anyway–if I misunderstood Steve’s idea, please forgive me and feel free to correct me.
I think Steve’s idea was to provide a place for a player to track their play for their own purposes online. It wouldn’t be billed as a place to give the affiliate marketer the info, it would be presented as a tool for the player’s use.
Are you saying the player wouldnt be made aware that someone else had access to their data? If so then thats VERY SCARY.
I am sure if you did that and they found out you were accessing this data without their knowledge they would scream bloody murder (rightfully so) and you would be branded a MEGA ROGUE by players. Very Draconian if thats whats being proposed.
If you did disclose you were going to have access to the data I dont believe many people would WANT to enter their data for the reasons I mentioned.
Originally posted by Professor
Are you saying the player wouldnt be made aware that someone else had access to their data? If so then thats VERY SCARY.I am sure if you did that and they found out you were accessing this data without their knowledge they would scream bloody murder (rightfully so) and you would be branded a MEGA ROGUE by players. Very Draconian if thats whats being proposed.
If you did disclose you were going to have access to the data I dont believe many people would WANT to enter their data for the reasons I mentioned.
I think that Gmail’s popularity has proven that people’s concerns about privacy are not so great. Agreed that any such system would need to include a disclaimer, but clever marketers could probably even model some of Google’s phrasing regarding the use of the program.
Oh by the way, if players entered their data anonymously how would you know WHO’S players they were and WHO should see them in which stats?
Even if they entered their names you wouldnt be able to match em up with the data we have access to. I suppose they could enter player ID but I have a feeling that would throw up red flags for them and they would be reluctant to do so.
Posted at the same time you did Randy… :3eyes:
I have a feeling the “player advocates” of the world like Casino meister or Jetset would eat your lunch in short order with a program like this and I can’t say I wouldnt be with them in spirit.
They might, but I think sites like mine and Steve’s fly pretty low under the radar anyway–we target pretty small niche markets that are pretty profitable for us.
I would think you’d just add a user id of some sort–make it whatever the player wanted to use, just like a screen name on a message board. You might or might not be able to trace the data back to a specific player in your stats, but it would certainly give you enough data that you could catch a casino if they stopped crediting you for a whale.
If you did that, you could still maintain player anonymity and catch a program shaving your whales pretty easily.
I think my current scheme does everything yours does, except I do not store any data online – I obtain the data through one on one contact with the tester/player through assignments and questionnaires.
>>>>>
If you are interested in any details or have questions please feel free to contact me.
I am in full support of Arkyt and BB1 on this issue, and want absolutely no missunderstandings about my feelings or motivations. I think it is awesome you guys put so much effort and thought into this problem… And I have no desire to step on toes, steal ideas, or anything negative.
The only reason I participate in this discussion is because I have considered these issues myself, and the problems Professor brought up are part of the reasons I decided to do things the way I did.
If/when a “negative audit” occurs, and someone “calls” the casino on the problem, I believe that the casino could drive a truck through the holes in an audit by calling into question my methods if someone other than myself conducted the audit.
What I mean is this:
1) How could I prove that the player I contracted for that audit actually played through my link if I’m not on his system myself? Without access to his/her machine, how do I prove the player wasn’t previously cookied or has an old download way back hidden on the hard drive?
2) How can I prove that this player played when, where, and how much they claim they did? FROM AN OUTSIDE point of view, could a casino create “reasonable doubt” in anothers mind if I simply NETeller another person $300 to play at a casino… then just took their word that they did so?
When I considered all of these “issues” before, it was my intention to set-up the process in a way which would “head-off” a casino programs being able to call the results into question.
I guess what I’m saying is that — for the purpose of individual webmasters knowledge — a multi-party method may be just fine, because in here we are just a bunch of webmasters discussing thigs privately. But… to go public with results, the testing process not only needs to be “tight”, but one must be able to demonstrate this level of control to outsiders so that the results are not easily disputed.
All it would take is one program that can show that a “test” had a flaw… or even a potential flaw… to destroy the credibility of the testing process. At that point, you’d spend twice as much time re-building that credibility as you would have ensuring that credibility was never in question.
Certainly, every method will have some degree of error possible… I am not saying that any one method is better than the other. I think we might need to combine ideas and question one another on this, because the casinos will if we don’t.
I hope I’m making sense… and I hope no one things I am being negative about their ideas, intentions, or motivations.
ok, we are doing a little better here today.
And we are going to stay nice
and smile at each other and be productive and friendly and cooperative Or I am going to bring out this 
and this 
and maybe also that 
So remember that we are all on the same side here and we are only discussing details. There will be none of this:
As far as my opinion on testing: The more the merrier. Some may be in a format that would hold up in court, and some may be aunt Selma telling what happened when she clicked on one of my links – it’s all good.
We need to know, that’s what we need.
Originally posted by Dominique
Some may be in a format that would hold up in court, and some may be aunt Selma telling what happened when she clicked on one of my links – it’s all good.Agreed
Knowledge is power.
I made my statements because (I thought) the eventual goal of this testing was not to keep it to ourselves… but to use it publicly to expose and weed out the problem affiliate programs.
To that end, the tests need to be as far above question as possible. That certainly doesn’t mean I don’t trust or believe in another person’s methods (or that I believe my methods are perfect), just that we need to eliminate the possibility that the results could be debunked by a casino….
Originally posted by Integrity
All it would take is one program that can show that a “test” had a flaw… or even a potential flaw… to destroy the credibility of the testing process. At that point, you’d spend twice as much time re-building that credibility as you would have ensuring that credibility was never in question.Certainly, every method will have some degree of error possible… I am not saying that any one method is better than the other. I think we might need to combine ideas and question one another on this, because the casinos will if we don’t.
I hope I’m making sense… and I hope no one things I am being negative about their ideas, intentions, or motivations.
I agree 100% – we need to be certain of our results. In my case thats why I perform multiple test when ever a negative result is achieved … I try to do so in a scientific manner if you will.
For instance if test one resulted in a bad result I would replicate the test using the same methods if the result was the same I would then attempt to change the methods one thing at a time on additional follow-up testing in an attempt to single out the cause of the irregularities.
I would like to know the reason if possible before I go to any casino program.
And YES if we dont unite and work together on this effort – pool our ideas and move the process forward it can not work. The more individuals that get involved the more eyes/brains there are to find flaws in our techniques.
Its not so much about weeding out rogue affiliate programs as it is about eliminating the causes of potential errors. If we can duplicate a methods results and identify errors then we will have fire power to see that those errors never happen again. At the same time if negative results are replicated and clearly appear to be intentional – I confident we will have a back logue of data and thus have plenty of fire power to slap the scum back into last year!
Arkyt,
I agree that, if “issues” are discovered they need to be revisited and replicated, hopefully leading to finding the cause. What can we do about this potential problem on our end:
It’s admirable to spend our own money to conduct these tests, but it’s just not going to be realistic to do so in the long term.
We all know that if 30 webmasters “agree” to pool resources, the burden won’t be evenly distributed. Then some may not contribute what they agree to… then some may feel they are unfairly contibuting more that their fair share… and it starts to fall apart.
Right now, if we just conduct a few tests, it may not appear to be a big deal. But if we ever get to where we are conduction a half-dozen tests a week, at $150 to $300 a test… we’re looking at $5,000 to $6,000 a month minimum…. well over $60,000 a year.
Solving the funding issue is paramount to long-term survivability.
