The problem is that the "top" books all advertise on the same sites, so what books would be watched?
It is a very difficult thing to do something lie this. And honestly, I think it too late to even worry about it.
The boos that have been around for awhile, consistantly pay people, and have little or no controversey are the ones that are the lesser of all the evils.
Any new places are at the mercy of public opinion. Having people vouch for them is useless as well.
How many books have been visited by Shrink or other "trustworthy" posters on here, found to be top notch joints with deep pockets, only to be tit up in less than 6 months?
Bottomline is, while in theory it seems like a decent idea, it is basically pissing into the wind.
As for funding these sites. I know several forums that don't have a single book advertising on them. They either sell subscriptions to the site or they sell picks from their administrators.
Obviously people like free, so most won't pay for anything, even if it would make the ethics of the site more true.
It also goes beyond advertising. What about books that have agreements with sites and their administrators on bonuses to their own accoounts for steering people their way. Or allowing them to bet above and beyond their limits, either for themselves, or their buddies?
And that also opens up a whole can of worms, because then the books themselves might take issue with it (something they allowed in the first place) and then they are crucified as a bad book when it all blows up. So for sleeping with the enemy in the first place, they ruin an otherwise excellent reputation.
It also goes hand in hand with advertising fees. If/when books don't pay fees they are also berrated and flamed to no end by people. But not a single BETTING issue can be found when they didn't pay.
So it is a very fine line, so fine that most people won't trust the principles anyways. That is the problem, cynicism can be a bad thing, but not when it is a realistic expectaion.
It is a very difficult thing to do something lie this. And honestly, I think it too late to even worry about it.
The boos that have been around for awhile, consistantly pay people, and have little or no controversey are the ones that are the lesser of all the evils.
Any new places are at the mercy of public opinion. Having people vouch for them is useless as well.
How many books have been visited by Shrink or other "trustworthy" posters on here, found to be top notch joints with deep pockets, only to be tit up in less than 6 months?
Bottomline is, while in theory it seems like a decent idea, it is basically pissing into the wind.
As for funding these sites. I know several forums that don't have a single book advertising on them. They either sell subscriptions to the site or they sell picks from their administrators.
Obviously people like free, so most won't pay for anything, even if it would make the ethics of the site more true.
It also goes beyond advertising. What about books that have agreements with sites and their administrators on bonuses to their own accoounts for steering people their way. Or allowing them to bet above and beyond their limits, either for themselves, or their buddies?
And that also opens up a whole can of worms, because then the books themselves might take issue with it (something they allowed in the first place) and then they are crucified as a bad book when it all blows up. So for sleeping with the enemy in the first place, they ruin an otherwise excellent reputation.
It also goes hand in hand with advertising fees. If/when books don't pay fees they are also berrated and flamed to no end by people. But not a single BETTING issue can be found when they didn't pay.
So it is a very fine line, so fine that most people won't trust the principles anyways. That is the problem, cynicism can be a bad thing, but not when it is a realistic expectaion.
