Changes in signature rules

[The Dude]

As the mass PM states, I'm killing the URLs in signatures.

The reason for this is that it's virtually impossible to monitor the URLs. Some members either are not aware of the rules that govern these, or they disregard them.

Signatures will only be allowed for Moderators, and i-Gaming reps. That's it. If you have a hyperlinked sig, you may want to change it to text before I turn the URLs off, They will look fugly if you don't.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

As the mass PM states, I'm killing the URLs in signatures.

The reason for this is that it's virtually impossible to monitor the URLs. Some members either are not aware of the rules that govern these, or they disregard them.

Signatures will only be allowed for Moderators, and i-Gaming reps. That's it. If you have a hyperlinked sig, you may want to change it to text before I turn the URLs off, They will look fugly if you don't.

Thanks for your understanding.

How many bullets do you have?

 

[The Dude]

Just so there are no misunderstandings, rule 4.2 is being changed to the following Content Restrictions Please do not post any ad-copy or advertisial language. References to websites are not permitted.

 

[RobWin]

Fixed mine!
____
____

 

[aksana]

Thanks, done it.

 

[mojo]

I never did put my siggy on so no problem here.

 

[JHV]

To comply with the new regulations, I have removed all my affiliate links to Golden Palace, Cirrus Casino (*chortle*), Grand Prive casinos and...with some reluctance...my signature links to Sluts Alley also.

 

[KasinoKing]

I wont pretend to be not bothered, because I am.
I am also perplexed at this sudden & severe action seemingly out of the blue.

OK, so I had a LOT of links in my signature, but there was no restriction, so why not?
If Bryan had asked me to reduce them or whatever I would have been happy to do so, of course.

Having links in my signature here undoubtedly helped my websites be more successful, and I really do appreciate that. But similarly myself and the other regular affiliate posters here have also contributed significantly to the CasinoMeister forum success in my opinion.
It was a two way thing; I have links to CM on all the main pages of my sites (that's about 40 pages) - should I take them off now this is a one-way deal...?

If there was a perceived problem why not just limit links to 1 or 2 max?
It's Bryan's forum and I will obey his rules, of course.
But I'm not going to pretend to be happy about it.

KK

 

[vegetagirl2008]

I had removed all of mine yesterday..I will find a other alternatives to promote my site.

 

[RobWin]

I wont pretend to be not bothered, because I am.
I am also perplexed at this sudden & severe action seemingly out of the blue.

OK, so I had a LOT of links in my signature, but there was no restriction, so why not?
If Bryan had asked me to reduce them or whatever I would have been happy to do so, of course.

Having links in my signature here undoubtedly helped my websites be more successful, and I really do appreciate that. But similarly myself and the other regular affiliate posters here have also contributed significantly to the CasinoMeister forum success in my opinion.
It was a two way thing; I have links to CM on all the main pages of my sites (that's about 40 pages) - should I take them off now this is a one-way deal...?

If there was a perceived problem why not just limit links to 1 or 2 max?
It's Bryan's forum and I will obey his rules, of course.
But I'm not going to pretend to be happy about it.

KK

The more I have thought about this today, I do emphasize with you KK. It will be the good ethical affiliates that will be hurt the most by this since the next google crawl for me will be tomorrow and my backlink count will drop significantly as well as PR most likely will too. I too have Casinomeister listed on 30 static pages and then since mine is a blog site there are another 128 backlinks to Casinomeister there from the archives and search pages.

The thing is though, our sites will be hurt and impacted a hell of a lot more than Bryan's is here though. The more I have thought about it today...I have to admit too that I am really dis-heartened by this move after all of the time, effort and hard work I have done this year to become an affiliate and build my site up to what it is now and now it will suffer immensely the devastation of losing all those backlinks from here..I'm not just talking about the home page link and a couple of article links I had in my signature either. I'm talking about the 100's of backlinks that were crawled from my forum posts here that led back to my site and google counted...

Just wish I had spent more time building more reciprocal backlinks instead of putting so many of my eggs in this one basket so to speak...no offense Bryan. I'm like KK, this is your forum and I greatly thank you and very much appreciate the fact that you allowed me to have my links in my signature for the time that you did.

The blackhat guys have definitely beat this ole boy now... Life's story and highway, turn left and take the shortcut or turn right and try to be ethical and do the right thing and end up halfway back at the starting gate. Two steps forward and three steps back.
____
____

 

[bb28]

I've been giving this thread some thought this afternoon. First I have no personal motive in stating my opinion as I'm not an active affiliate and I have no sig, so with that out of the way.
Do you think that you could reconsider this decision, please? The reasons are that the good webmasters here have put in a lot of hard work and time into their pages and other than the possible sign up they could gain from here, I would say their PR will be hurt greatly by removal of sigs. I understand that you'd like to stop the misuse and that you or Max or the mods don't have the time to monitor it as closely as it needs, but maybe there are a few of us who would volunteer to be watchdogs for you.

Thanks for your consideration.


Another thought.....maybe some day in the future, you might could add an approved webmaster section with criteria much like the approved casino list.

 

[RobWin]

It was a two way thing; I have links to CM on all the main pages of my sites (that's about 40 pages) - should I take them off now this is a one-way deal...?

KK

I'm just thinking out loud here now, but if all of the webmasters that also have reciprocal links or just links for that matter pointing back here to Casinomeister were to all of a sudden remove those, would that not also affect the SERP's back to Casinomeister here?

No more than I know about SEO other than what I have learned this year is the fact that having many, many backlinks to your site are absolutely, undoubtedly the easiest and fastest way of showing up in the first pages of search results because all of those backlinks are what 95% of your google ranking?

Now if all of those or a large percentage of them were to suddenly disappear and the new kid comes along to do a google search for something related to a casino, then Casinomeister may not be ranking up there where they could find it or the info they were looking for directs them then back to some rogue affiliate site and not to Casinomeister. Who does that benefit? I think everyone here would agree that we want new peeps to find Casinomeister so they can get "edumacated " on what Rogue casinos are.

Someone correct me here please if this is not the way websites rank normally.
____
____

 

[zanzibar]

I had removed all of mine yesterday..I will find a other alternatives to promote my site.

I have to say I am surprised that webmasters openly admit to seeing this site as a "marketing vehicle" for their own endeavours. I too run some affiliate websites but would not dream of going to another forum and plastering my links all over every post I make, then complain when the forum owner decides to stop the practice.

If you are scared of linking to CM because your website visitors may never come back to your site then perhaps that is saying something about the value of your site to visitors. If SEO is all you care about, then you should be aware that linking out from a site to an established "authority domain" in your site's field can actually be positive for your rankings. Take a look at the bottom of the pokerlistings homepage for example, do you think they link to google or dmoz out of the goodness of their hearts?

RobWin, yes lots of aggrieved affiliates pulling their links to CM could have a small negative effect on this site's search rankings, but the removal of 10000+ (? just a guess) outgoing links from this site will probably have a far greater positive effect to this site than that, due to the net gain in "link juice" to internal pages on this domain.

 

[LaurieJim]

Let me see if i have this right, i can no longer go to KK's or Robs or Bingot's site from here if i wish to see what new casino they may have a promo on?

As a player i always liked to check out the sites and can understand why they would be upset, looks as if they have put alot of hard work and sweat into their respective sites.

The sites i have visited do give good advice and make mention of this forum, which is a good thing, for new players, i sure wouldnt want them to get hooked up with a rogue promoting affy...........just a regular ole players take on it...........laurie

 

[chuchu59]

Yes you can Laurie. Just click on the username and then the homepage of that member. I clicked Rob's username and then homepage and was diverted to his site. As long as their usernames are in GREEN and any member wishes to enter their sites, he can still do so easily.

 

[LaurieJim]

Yes you can Laurie. Just click on the username and then the homepage of that member. I clicked Rob's username and then homepage and was diverted to his site. As long as their usernames are in GREEN and any member wishes to enter their sites, he can still do so easily.

.....well i feel so DUH now lol thanx Chu

 

[vegetagirl2008]

I have to say I am surprised that webmasters openly admit to seeing this site as a "marketing vehicle" for their own endeavours. I too run some affiliate websites but would not dream of going to another forum and plastering my links all over every post I make, then complain when the forum owner decides to stop the practice.

If you are scared of linking to CM because your website visitors may never come back to your site then perhaps that is saying something about the value of your site to visitors. If SEO is all you care about, then you should be aware that linking out from a site to an established "authority domain" in your site's field can actually be positive for your rankings. Take a look at the bottom of the pokerlistings homepage for example, do you think they link to google or dmoz out of the goodness of their hearts?

RobWin, yes lots of aggrieved affiliates pulling their links to CM could have a small negative effect on this site's search rankings, but the removal of 10000+ (? just a guess) outgoing links from this site will probably have a far greater positive effect to this site than that, due to the net gain in "link juice" to internal pages on this domain.

First of all I do not under no circumstances use this site as a vehicle to promote anything. So you well know I removed my links as I felt they should not be there in the first place. I have no reason to spam my links to get paid. I have a full time job and this is only to make a little cash on the side. In no way shape or form will I spam anything I detest it. Maybe I should of worded it differently. But please make no mistake that was not my intention. I would rather put a graphic signature there instead. This is why I refrain from posting in the introduction thread.

 

[RobWin]

I have to say I am surprised that webmasters openly admit to seeing this site as a "marketing vehicle" for their own endeavours. I too run some affiliate websites but would not dream of going to another forum and plastering my links all over every post I make, then complain when the forum owner decides to stop the practice.

If you are scared of linking to CM because your website visitors may never come back to your site then perhaps that is saying something about the value of your site to visitors. If SEO is all you care about, then you should be aware that linking out from a site to an established "authority domain" in your site's field can actually be positive for your rankings. Take a look at the bottom of the pokerlistings homepage for example, do you think they link to google or dmoz out of the goodness of their hearts?

RobWin, yes lots of aggrieved affiliates pulling their links to CM could have a small negative effect on this site's search rankings, but the removal of 10000+ (? just a guess) outgoing links from this site will probably have a far greater positive effect to this site than that, due to the net gain in "link juice" to internal pages on this domain.

But I thought that google recently changed that, and the way that link juice was distributed between internal pages?
____
____

 

[RobWin]

.....well i feel so DUH now lol thanx Chu

Don't feel DUH, heck..I did not realize that that feature was there either. Bryan must have snuck that one in on us today...
____
____

 

[vegetagirl2008]

I had removed all of mine yesterday..I will find a other alternatives to promote my site.

I didn't mean this quote. I removed my links and demoted myself to Meister Member. I will never use my links on Casinomeister for monetary gain. I apologize to anyone that may have been offended on the above.

 

[suzecat]

Don't feel DUH, heck..I did not realize that that feature was there either. Bryan must have snuck that one in on us today...
____
____

Oh Robbbbb! You're back Nice to see you

 

[RobWin]

I didn't mean this quote. I removed my links and demoted myself to Meister Member. I will never use my links on Casinomeister for monetary gain. I apologize to anyone that may have been offended on the above.

vegetagirl2008, I did not see anything at all wrong in what you said about removing your links, just a simple statement that you made to acknowledge that.
____
____

 

[RobWin]

Oh Robbbbb! You're back Nice to see you

LOL Suze, I didn't realize I had left but I wouldn't swear to that though..
____
____

 

[JHV]

I didn't mean this quote. I removed my links and demoted myself to Meister Member. I will never use my links on Casinomeister for monetary gain. I apologize to anyone that may have been offended on the above.

Yep, same as Rob, I read your post initially exactly how you intended it - and very much respected your position. Then when you clarified, I re-read and totally could see how someone could get the wrong impression. Trippy perception bias or something.

I'm no SEO expert by any means, but I think zanzibar has it right (although Rob then says he's heard Google changed the algorithm). But under the 'stable' (?) algorithm of recent times, every SEO guy (that seemed to really know their stuff and had impressive SERPs) I've spoken to over the last year or so would agree with zanibar's summary. I'd actually be very interested to see what the results would be - my gut feeling is that CM.com would benefit greatly from the removal of the thousands (?) of outgoing links.

Unlike zanzibar, I do actually kinda sympathise with KasinoKing and Robwin and guys who have 6000 posts and really have been valuable members for a long time - I guess if some kind of compromise could be found for them (which I think chuchu59 refers to), they definitely 'deserve' it (assuming, as I do, that they are definitely the "good" type of affiliates who aren't all about the $ but willing to speak out against or cut ties with a casino if the situation calls for it).

I just hope we could get to a point where everyone feels safe saying "Hey Xxxxx, please comment on this thread - you're a Yyyyy affiliate and opinionated, surely you have something to say about Yyyyy's actions here?" - without it being seen as a troll or an attack on that person - something I'm not yet comfortable with doing just yet, but excited that maybe, just *maybe*, we're heading in that direction?

But I would hope that if Xxxxx consistently avoided commenting in negative threads about casinos they promote, they could be called out publicly for it - perhaps not in a "You're an unethical affiliate!" type of tone, but more a "Come on mate, you really have to step in here and give your opinions - I know it's a tough spot for you, but it's important you at least state a position, please don't sit on the fence here!" - or something? I dunno...just kinda thinking out loud / spit-balling....

 

[vegetagirl2008]

Yep, same as Rob, I read your post initially exactly how you intended it - and very much respected your position. Then when you clarified, I re-read and totally could see how someone could get the wrong impression. Trippy perception bias or something.

You had me at wrong impression..the rest just went right over my head.

 

[RobWin]

Yep, same as Rob, I read your post initially exactly how you intended it - and very much respected your position. Then when you clarified, I re-read and totally could see how someone could get the wrong impression. Trippy perception bias or something.

I'm no SEO expert by any means, but I think zanzibar has it right (although Rob then says he's heard Google changed the algorithm). But under the 'stable' (?) algorithm of recent times, every SEO guy (that seemed to really know their stuff and had impressive SERPs) I've spoken to over the last year or so would agree with zanibar's summary. I'd actually be very interested to see what the results would be - my gut feeling is that CM.com would benefit greatly from the removal of the thousands (?) of outgoing links.

Unlike zanzibar, I do actually kinda sympathise with KasinoKing and Robwin and guys who have 6000 posts and really have been valuable members for a long time - I guess if some kind of compromise could be found for them (which I think chuchu59 refers to), they definitely 'deserve' it (assuming, as I do, that they are definitely the "good" type of affiliates who aren't all about the $ but willing to speak out against or cut ties with a casino if the situation calls for it).

I just hope we could get to a point where everyone feels safe saying "Hey Xxxxx, please comment on this thread - you're a Yyyyy affiliate and opinionated, surely you have something to say about Yyyyy's actions here?" - without it being seen as a troll or an attack on that person - something I'm not yet comfortable with doing just yet, but excited that maybe, just *maybe*, we're heading in that direction?

But I would hope that if Xxxxx consistently avoided commenting in negative threads about casinos they promote, they could be called out publicly for it - perhaps not in a "You're an unethical affiliate!" type of tone, but more a "Come on mate, you really have to step in here and give your opinions - I know it's a tough spot for you, but it's important you at least state a position, please don't sit on the fence here!" - or something? I dunno...just kinda thinking out loud / spit-balling....

Great post JHV...

I'm sure zanzibar is correct though about the link juice and all, hell...I could write a book about what I don't know about SEO ...LOL
____
____

 

[JHV]

I'm sure zanzibar is correct though about the link juice and all, hell...I could write a book about what I don't know about SEO ...LOL
____
____

I could do a Lord of the Rings trilogy on my SEO cluelessness but *slowly* learning I think.

Oh, to *solve* the secrets of SEO without having to participate in any Black Hat or spend the GDP of an African nation on buying targeted backlinks dressed up in keyword-rich content....the Holy Grail!

(Pity [for me] I'm like hella lazy and much prefer to be gambling than attempting to even rummage around for the Grail...)

My strategy at this time (so brilliant I probably shouldn't even share it publicly) is to cross my fingers and hope some amazing genius kid who's a SEO god somehow finds me. I know - good plan, right? Great plan!

 

[zanzibar]

vegetagirl2008 .. don't sweat it, I just picked that quote at random. I could have picked a few others. Sorry I didn't intend to personally have a crack at you.

Google is changing things all the time, in the end we can only go with educated guesses. Don't believe anyone who says otherwise!

To the best of my knowledge (warning kludgy analogy coming up), you can think of the link juice filling up a glass - and every website has their own glass. The more reputable the site (in google's eyes), the bigger the glass. Every site that links to yours sends a little juice into your glass - the more reputable the site, the more juice they send you (all other factors being equal). Now every outgoing link from your site tips a teensy bit of juice out of your glass and into theirs. So when you reduce the number of outgoing links on your site, you keep more juice for yourself, which helps your pages rank higher.

To answer RobWin's question google *may* have changed the way it redistributes the juice internally within a site recently, but the fact remains that the net juice is still higher when you have less outgoing links.

Of course it aint that simple though and there are likely 10s if not 100s of other factors that come into play. Most SEO "experts" are fairly certain they employ some kind of "web of trust" algorithms which is why many big sites like pokerlistings link out to authoritative domains to try to associate themselves with a site google views as trusted. So in the end it can't hurt much to have a couple of links to casinomeister if you run a gambling affiliate site, as all the evidence suggest that google rates this site highly.

As for a compromise, there are ways of stopping links from sending juice out - for example you could add a rel="nofollow" tag to all signature links, and ask that no sigs contain more than one link or something.

On a personal preference though, I don't really like sigs at all - they break up the discussion on a forum. I find it far easier to just scan straight down and read the conversation without having to skip the same repeated text and ads on every post. But thats a whole other story!

Anyway all this is getting away from the fact that no matter what kind of website you have, make it useful for the human(!) users and the search rankings will follow because users will link to it themselves. And there's nothing that can beat word of mouth from happy visitors.

 

[4 of a kind]

After reading a post from an affiliate on a casino here, be it positive or negative, I will usually go to his or hers links just to see if the post might of been bias. I can't remember in particular which threads it may have been in, but recall several times thinking after seeing the casino in question one that an affiliate promotes, "well that explains that view".

Regardless how honest and sincere one might be, I think the people that read this forum would instantly draw a conclusion on posts written by affiliates one way or another. If its a negative post, (of course he or she don't promote it) If its positive, (of course he or she promote it). This of course excludes any posts written about known rogues.

Although I've seen many great, intelligent, if not some of the best posts made here by people who just happen to be affiliates, there views still run the risk of being judged bias.

Personally, I could care less about links and never pay any attention to them. Only if I'm trying to figure out if in fact their post might have been biased.

I also agree with Zanzibar, that they are also at times annoying. Especially when you have to keep scrolling past these huge signatures to get to the next post.

 

[The Dude]

Okay, before everyone here gets all crazy about this - it's really no big deal. The SEO juice and whatever is a moot issue since the sig links are "nofollow" they have been for quite a while. Linking partners are linking partners, and those links are at the bottom of this page.

The reason for this decision is abuse. Too many Best Bonuses, Best Casinos were popping up, and this is something that is too hard and time-consuming to police. As I mentioned earlier, everyone including webmasters, has their member profile where they can add links and other information. Hell, you can even start your own blog. And no one is stopping anyone from creating sigs that state "I'm a cool webmaster - check out my profile's 'contact me' page" or whatever.

Some of you are making this much more than what it is. There are plenty of tools at your finger tips that can enhance your webmaster experience here, you just need to go look for them.

And come to think about it, just to show you that this is nothing against our webmaster members, PM me your website URL and I'll exempt it from "nofollow". If it appears in your user profile (google spiders these), you're good to go.

 

[JHV]

You gonna hang around for awhile zanzibar? I've gotta decide how much I'm going to lose on the Lions / Bulldogs game in an hour or and also exhausted but would you be cool to chat SEO in a new thread on the w/e or next week?

Or should I be starting that thread like RIGHT now to increase my chances of stealing / begging SEO smrts from you?

My little kid tilted at a bad beat sig is cool right? Or you guys find all sigs annoying? (I can ditch the little fella - he shouldn't even be gambling anyway.)

/end hijack

...resuming normal programming....

After reading a post from an affiliate on a casino here, be it positive or negative, I will usually go to his or hers links just to see if the post might of been bias. I can't remember in particular which threads it may have been in, but recall several times thinking after seeing the casino in question one that an affiliate promotes, "well that explains that view".

4 of a kind (and others..): If you spot a pattern of what you believe might or is likely to be bias in such a scenario...do you think it's a positive thing for the forum to bring it to public discussion or no?

I would think if you prepared a "case" and presented it fairly - the only people who'd get really offended would be the ones on whom you've hit a nerve, right? I'm not a casino affiliate, but if I was, I think I'd be happy to respond to such a concern in a public setting - but then again, I don't think I'd be the type to be biased either so it's hard for me to put myself in those shoes, so to speak...

 

[RobWin]

Okay, before everyone here gets all crazy about this - it's really no big deal. The SEO juice and whatever is a moot issue since the sig links are "nofollow" they have been for quite a while.

Well something has not been working right then regarding the "nofollow" for at least the last 5 or 6 months if that's the case. Google Webmaster Tools is showing me where I have 567 backlinks from here and everyone of them is from forum posts with the exception of 2 that were being picked up from my profile page. I could actually post a pic to show you this but there is no need unless you really want me too.

Your other idea about the profile page and blog are good ideas too and I sincerely appreciate that..
____
____

 

[The Dude]

Well something has not been working right then regarding the "nofollow" for at least the last 5 or 6 months if that's the case. Google Webmaster Tools is showing me where I have 567 backlinks from here and everyone of them is from forum posts with the exception of 2 that were being picked up from my profile page. I could actually post a pic to show you this but there is no need unless you really want me too.

Your other idea about the profile page and blog are good ideas too and I sincerely appreciate that..
____
____

You're whitelisted - that's why. So are you KK.

 

[RobWin]

You're whitelisted - that's why. So are you KK.

:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy

You da man Bryan, I don't care what Webzcas and Spear and Max and Simmo say about you.....you da man in my book!!!
_____
_____

 

[4 of a kind]

4 of a kind (and others..):If you spot a pattern of what you believe might or is likely to be bias in such a scenario...do you think it's a positive thing for the forum to bring it to public discussion or no?

Yes I think it would be positive.

I being a recent new member here, would not bring to light my opinion of a biased post. Not knowing exactly what the personal agenda might be for any one individual, along with not knowing what is considered the norm here yet. Especially when most affiliates here have been long time members with thousands of posts.

 

[lots0]

Rob, I have many links that point to the site in my profile from Casinomeister and I have never used links in my sig.

The profile link to members sites has been there as long as I can remember.

For the SEO novices... vBulletin (the software the powers CM) allows the passing of PageRank from links listed in the user profile when the user posts, as long as the user/member is whitelisted by the forum. This explains why there are links showing up from CM to your site... when all the sig links were no-followed.

So in other words... If you are concerned about the the Passing of PageRank from CM to your site... Just make sure the link in your profile is up to date and that Bryan has you white listed.

Also, If you have a lot of links from one site to another, there is an issue of diminishing returns... A few links are good... A lot of links are good as well... but not better than just a few... get my drift?

 

[KasinoKing]

As the mass PM states, I'm killing the URLs in signatures...
That's it. If you have a hyperlinked sig, you may want to change it to text before I turn the URLs off, They will look fugly if you don't.

I see some people still have their links, so until you actually turn them off I've put a very discrete one in too.

KK

 

[WagerWitch]

I see some people still have their links, so until you actually turn them off I've put a very discrete one in too.

KK

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Be vewwwy vewwwy qwwwiiiiiwwwit.... LOL!

 

[wangpoker]

CM, could you whitelist my websites: bc518.com and betting88.net? Like Robwin, most of my external backlinks are from casinomeister, so it's important for me.

My sites are in Chinese, so I am not exploiting any members on CM.

Thank you.

 

[maxo]

I am new to this forum and its maybe weird to do my first post on this topic, but hope you can get me.

Casinomeister, from my perspective it's very good to have CLEAN forum without tons of URLs and ads bull*hits in signatures. Good for readers, too for google and at the end the same good for reputable posters, because whole forum going to move to higher authority level.

I believe that google and other SE's have special algorithms how to handle forums. Google can see that this is link from forum signature and it's possible ads etc..
Which quality conversation needs to have ads or links on almost every single post?!


All reputable (affiliate) veterans with 1000+ posts, don't be scared that you loose your PR from sig links, you are just fine if you have decent link from your Profile page, because your profile is linked from all your posts, and after this URLs cleaning process your profiles gets higher value because whole forum gets higher value. It's all about reputation of each individual member/poster. Google can see how many "Users Say Thank You" you get from other "reputable members" and other forum tools and things.

And spammers, they never reach "good" reputation level, even better if moderators must UN-rel=nofollow/whitelist their profiles.


These thoughts around google are just my speculations, so take it with reserve, but I always trying to be optimist.

Hope it make some senses, sorry for my language ;-)

 

[dendrite]

It actually think this could be a nice test for whether signature links really do carry any weight with google, especially as Casinomeister is one of the most reputable (high authority with google?) online gambling brands out there. I know the reason they are being taken away is because of spam, but as it turns out it's a bit like a big seo experiment and I like watching how experiments like this progress

So, it would be good if webmasters let people know if they experience any changes in terms or SERPs when the links are removed.

When are you planning to switch off the links, Bryan?

For the moment, my links are still in the sig, so I'll follow my stats to see if there is any effect after they disappear. I wonder if there will be bigger effects in Yahoo and bing, rather than google?
__________________
USA Vegas casino slots reviews at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

UK slot machines reviews at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[KasinoKing]

On a personal preference though, I don't really like sigs at all - they break up the discussion on a forum. I find it far easier to just scan straight down and read the conversation without having to skip the same repeated text and ads on every post. But thats a whole other story!

Casinomeister, from my perspective it's very good to have CLEAN forum without tons of URLs and ads bull*hits in signatures. Good for readers, too for google and at the end the same good for reputable posters, because whole forum going to move to higher authority level.

Just a little note to those who don't like seeing the links (and I myself don't like those which are too long, too big, or have graphical elements) - you can turn them off by going to your profile (User CP), then "Edit Options" and un-checking the box in "Display Options".
Then you'd never have to see another signature again!

Old Attachment (Invalid)

I believe that google and other SE's have special algorithms how to handle forums. Google can see that this is link from forum signature and it's possible ads etc..
Which quality conversation needs to have ads or links on almost every single post?!

Well to start with CM has already stated that sigs were "No-Follow" and so not picked up by search engines.
To be quite honest, I don't give a rats-arse about Google rankings (I'm not going to pretend I even understand their importance), but I believe my websites provide valuable information which helps players have a better and safer online gambling experience. That's why I like to have my links in forum sigs. No-one is forcing anyone to click on them, or to click on the casino links on my sites if they don't want to. It's the player's free choice.

My 2c.

 

[4 of a kind]

but I believe my websites provide valuable information which helps players have a better and safer online gambling experience.

Don't the accredited casinos listed here serve the same purpose?

Just curious about this next question. If CM lists the same casino as you, and a player signs on from your link, aren't you taking away from CM's income,? or does he even get a cut from his accredited list?

 

[The Dude]

Don't the accredited casinos listed here serve the same purpose?

Just curious about this next question. If CM lists the same casino as you, and a player signs on from your link, aren't you taking away from CM's income,? or does he even get a cut from his accredited list?

It really has nothing to do with money - it has to do with managing the signatures. Maybe I'll modify the sig rules at a later date, but for now I'm just going to make it simple for me and disallow URLs and ad copy language. Once we get this under control we can take steps to go forward.

I didn't think this was such a big deal - sorry this has become such a big issue.

 

[JHV]

Don't the accredited casinos listed here serve the same purpose?

Just curious about this next question. If CM lists the same casino as you, and a player signs on from your link, aren't you taking away from CM's income,? or does he even get a cut from his accredited list?

I've been wondering this exact same thing without saying it as frankly, it's not really any of my business. My mentions on this subject have purely been about the potential for new posters to assume this was just a large commercial bazaar where every poster is quick to help you with directions, but trying to sell you trinkets and souvenirs along the way.

But I'm was definitely curious - not in a negative way, but more a "this is a unique approach to commerce" curiosity. I've been on forums for a decade, and I've never seen anything like this - let alone at the levels prevalent here until recently.

KK, obviously you have huge posting history and are a valuable member of Bryan's forum and provide invaluable assistance to new players with your posts. But it is...Bryan's forum - and they came here for CasinoMeister, not for KasinoKing (at least I did, and I going out on a limb in assuming almost everyone else did also) - and by blasting them with links whilst you assist them with your (no-doubt) helpful advice, they are more likely to sign up from those handy links right in front of them rather than go to the Accredited List.

I obviously don't know Bryan personally, but my initial read on him is that he's pretty chilled about this sort of thing, actually amazingly chilled. Which I think, puts the onus on us posters not to put him in a position where he even needs to ask? I dunno - that would my personal reaction to a seemingly easy spot to make very good coin - I'd reign myself in so that my friend or the site owner doesn't need to...
** I think everyone agrees this new policy was (obv) not triggered by a desire for a greater share of profits, but instead to ensure the medium/long term future of the forum (I'm merely stating I personally think that if it was motivated by the latter, from a commercial standpoint, it would be 100% justified - I own forums where close friends of mine are valuable posters - but it would be a cold day in Hell where they could "compete" with my poker rakeback offers tagging their posts with their affiliate links - and, thankfully, no one has ever put me in a position where I'd had to nip it in the bud - which I would do, instantly...and 'nip' probably wouldn't be the right descriptive verb).

But if I'd been letting them do so for awhile, and then changed policy...and my policy reversal resulted in heavy decreases in their posting levels or resulted in them no longer posting at all - I'd be disappointed in them and would wonder if all their posted "advice" was merely their way of positioning their links in front of mine when new players come on and ask poker strat questions. But that would be MY thought process - I'm a born cynic, only optimistic in behaviour through retardation and the acquisition, over time, of a nasty habit of ignoring the twin voices of Reason and Logic that scream advice at me non-stop.

I had a look through your website - you've done a lot of hard work over time, anyone can see that.

I had to giggle (I'm a school-girl) when I read this:

If you are totally new to casino gambling and know little or nothing at all about it, I suggest you download one of my favorite casinos, Intercasino and play in Practice Mode to get a good idea of what its all about. (I suggest this casino because it uses CryptoLogic software which you can play for fun/practice when off-line).

This site is new (March 2006) and I would welcome any feedback about it (good or bad!) as it will be in constant development & refinement. E-mail me any time here: [email protected]

Still interested in feedback on that particular site? I have some....if you are

sweet sassy molassy, I'm a silly billy - I just realise now I already effectively shipped you that feedback in the form of a genuine question...which went unanswered.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/intercasino-software-glitch.32784/

I'm often ignored though, and by god sometimes I SHOULD be ignored, so it's not an axe I'm grinding and I'm not trolling - I'm just being cheeky, this is purely jovial banter....

But getting back to the topic at hand, I'll tie it in an example of how a new poster could be forgiven for thinking "Well, it's pretty obvious this place has no interest in complaints about casinos they work with - just casinos they don't promote!" (I say this because that's pretty much what I was thinking when it seemed a lot of affiliates would avoid threads discussing controversy relating to casinos linked in their signatures, but vitriolic in their criticism of casinos with whom they clearly weren't promoting - and I thought that until very recently when I was pleasantly surprised to discover that's not the status quo at all...and that there ARE posters here who are very passionate about ethics in online gaming as well.)

 

[jas2587]

I've been wondering this exact same thing without saying it as frankly, it's not really any of my business. My mentions on this subject have purely been about the potential for new posters to assume this was just a large commercial bazaar where every poster is quick to help you with directions, but trying to sell you trinkets and souvenirs along the way.

But I'm was definitely curious - not in a negative way, but more a "this is a unique approach to commerce" curiosity. I've been on forums for a decade, and I've never seen anything like this - let alone at the levels prevalent here until recently.

KK, obviously you have huge posting history and are a valuable member of Bryan's forum and provide invaluable assistance to new players with your posts. But it is...Bryan's forum - and they came here for CasinoMeister, not for KasinoKing (at least I did, and I going out on a limb in assuming almost everyone else did also) - and by blasting them with links whilst you assist them with your (no-doubt) helpful advice, they are more likely to sign up from those handy links right in front of them rather than go to the Accredited List.

I obviously don't know Bryan personally, but my initial read on him is that he's pretty chilled about this sort of thing, actually amazingly chilled. Which I think, puts the onus on us posters not to put him in a position where he even needs to ask? I dunno - that would my personal reaction to a seemingly easy spot to make very good coin - I'd reign myself in so that my friend or the site owner doesn't need to...
** I think everyone agrees this new policy was (obv) not triggered by a desire for a greater share of profits, but instead to ensure the medium/long term future of the forum (I'm merely stating I personally think that if it was motivated by the latter, from a commercial standpoint, it would be 100% justified - I own forums where close friends of mine are valuable posters - but it would be a cold day in Hell where they could "compete" with my poker rakeback offers tagging their posts with their affiliate links - and, thankfully, no one has ever put me in a position where I'd had to nip it in the bud - which I would do, instantly...and 'nip' probably wouldn't be the right descriptive verb).

But if I'd been letting them do so for awhile, and then changed policy...and my policy reversal resulted in heavy decreases in their posting levels or resulted in them no longer posting at all - I'd be disappointed in them and would wonder if all their posted "advice" was merely their way of positioning their links in front of mine when new players come on and ask poker strat questions. But that would be MY thought process - I'm a born cynic, only optimistic in behaviour through retardation and the acquisition, over time, of a nasty habit of ignoring the twin voices of Reason and Logic that scream advice at me non-stop.

I had a look through your website - you've done a lot of hard work over time, anyone can see that.

I had to giggle (I'm a school-girl) when I read this:



Still interested in feedback on that particular site? I have some....if you are

sweet sassy molassy, I'm a silly billy - I just realise now I already effectively shipped you that feedback in the form of a genuine question...which went unanswered.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/intercasino-software-glitch.32784/

I'm often ignored though, and by god sometimes I SHOULD be ignored, so it's not an axe I'm grinding and I'm not trolling - I'm just being cheeky, this is purely jovial banter....

But getting back to the topic at hand, I'll tie it in an example of how a new poster could be forgiven for thinking "Well, it's pretty obvious this place has no interest in complaints about casinos they work with - just casinos they don't promote!" (I say this because that's pretty much what I was thinking when it seemed a lot of affiliates would avoid threads discussing controversy relating to casinos linked in their signatures, but vitriolic in their criticism of casinos with whom they clearly weren't promoting - and I thought that until very recently when I was pleasantly surprised to discover that's not the status quo at all...and that there ARE posters here who are very passionate about ethics in online gaming as well.)

ahhh been waiting on this post here ever since KK decided to not answer your question who knows maybe he didn't see it but it could be seen when ever you would mention Rusty who can but chose's not to respond to your post about him
that you have a dislike for KK because he didn't answer the question you put to him here Link Outdated / Removed

but that is for KK to answer not I just noticed tho is in some of your prevous post that you was itching to call out KK but never did wow you finally did it imagine that

maybe he didnt answer your question as alot of others didnt cause it was all ready posted in a long an drawn out post that you posted when you 1st started here an was asked an answered

you have it out also for Intercasino an you dont hide that fact we all have seen it in your post
just my thoughts on Your post an no before you get down on my writing an the way I typed this or that
I am not a writer never claimed to be an never will

Cindy

 

[dendrite]

This is an interesting debate

I welcome the move to get rid of affiliate links in the signatures, for the sake of the quality of the forum

Without the links, visitors to the forum can feel confident that the posts in question are not there just for marketing reasons (no matter how helpful their posts are)

OK, so.... (sharp intake of breath)

Would it not be good idea, though, if ALL links in signatures were banned, including those of the moderators?

Surely it would be great for visitors to be reassured that the moderators were not just posting for marketing reasons too?

Or, if you did that, would you start to see some of the moderators refuse to moderate, having lost a valuable way of marketing their businesses?

Just interested in your thoughts...

 

[JHV]

ahhh been waiting on this post here ever since KK decided to not answer your question who knows maybe he didn't see it but it could be seen when ever you would mention Rusty who can but chose's not to respond to your post about him
that you have a dislike for KK because he didn't answer the question you put to him here Link Outdated / Removed

but that is for KK to answer not I just noticed tho is in some of your prevous post that you was itching to call out KK but never did wow you finally did it imagine that

Cindy

Ah Cindy, I don't dislike KK! Actually, it's very unfair on KK for me to use this particular example when really I just saw so many examples of what I (at the time) thought was evidence that the CM forum was just a bazaar of vested interests (I no longer believe it is what I believed it to be - if I still did, I'd never post here again - what would be the point, right? I got nothing to sell and not looking to buy - so have no business in a marketplace.)

My thread with suggestions of things that I felt had the potential to weaken the forum was only worth the effort once it became apparent to me that there are many here who DO care about ethical gaming, and are not just here because it's a hella convenient place to increase your CPA / Rev Share income.

If I thought the forum had become merely a marketplace (as I did briefly), I'd just leave everyone be. I misread the mood of the forum initially - as I likely misread KK (when Rusty responded and he didn't, I was like "boom - there's the reason right there in his links") - but, like you say, he might not have seen my question, or if he did see it, he probably felt I wasn't worth responding to (completely valid position and CORRECT way to treat someone who you believe is a troll, as KK may have believed then, and might still believe me to be).

I only used it as an example because I was reading KK's website and he's asking for feedback CLEARLY dated as posted in 2006 - he's OBVIOUSLY not still looking for feedback! Come on, it's obvious I'm being cheeky - hell I think I even clarify I'm messing around.

Everyone hear knows how I feel about InterCasino. I'm making jokes about it now rather than ranting - surely that's better, no?

-------

But I think it's a good example of my STRONG belief that a free-for-all position regarding links in signatures potentially weakens the forum. KK's made 6000 posts on CM forum - either this forum is his entire "Business Strategic Model" (which I don't believe for one second, as he's reacting with enviable calm and restraint if it was) or he genuinely is one of the forum's most valuable posters. I'm going with the latter of the possibilities now...

...but that day, when I made that post, you can probably see I was reaching the brink of my frustration in my tense attempts at staying reserved and polite when genuinely posing the question to both Rusty and KK. And I was on the brink there not because of KK or Rusty, but because I'd spent a lot of time leading up to those posts staying quiet reading through threads were I thought I saw similar patterns.

I'm as susceptible to bias as anyone else. I might have viewed all those threads with bias, seeing what I was looking for rather than keeping an open mind. But I believe my arguments regarding the signatures in the links is still valid - it creates obvious conflict-of-interest concerns and suspicions (some which may not be valid, but some which most CERTAINLY are - and I think we all know that's the case, at least to some extent.)

I think I say somewhere earlier in this thread I do feel bad for Rob and KK and posters who have put all their eggs in one basket, as I think Rob likened it to - and I think Bryan, as he's historically been known to do, has found a great compromise for those guys.

 

[4 of a kind]

** I think everyone agrees this new policy was (obv) not triggered by a desire for a greater share of profits, but instead to ensure the medium/long term future of the forum

For some reason I wasn't really concerned about the money end of this stuff till recently reading in a post somewhere else where an affiliate was complaining about 25% of deposits he was owed from one casino for about $500.00 dollars. Line up a few deals like that, equates to not bad side cash for what looks like not much work.


But if I'd been letting them do so for awhile, and then changed policy and my policy reversal resulted in heavy decreases in their posting levels or resulted in them no longer posting at all - I'd be disappointed in them and would wonder if all their posted "advice" was merely their way of positioning their links in front of mine


I totally agree here...

I know CM was surprised this thread got so much attention, but I find this subject rather interesting, especially when I sense some tone in certain posts.

In addition, I also realize this stuff is none of my business, but assumed the discussion was in an open forum opened for discussion.

 

[bb28]

4 of a kind said.....
"Line up a few deals like that, equates to not bad side cash for what looks like not much work."


I'm trying to decide if I should go pop the popcorn now or later.

On a serious note, if you had ever worked on a website I don't think you would have said that. A website is a lot of hard work and it's not something that you do once and you are done.