The idea of being a "watchdog" site is quickly losing its appeal IMO. You have no choice but to take some advertising from the books and from that point everyone will say you are shilling for them or protecting them. I can't see the value in it. Being a discussion area maybe, but someone claiming to be a watchdog I doubt.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
You have no choice but to take some advertising from the books and from that point everyone will say you are shilling for them or protecting them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true. The model is changing from sites that just recommend books to sites that not only recommend books, but stand behind their evaluations by protecting funds sent to those books. As more and more people get burned by stiff books, this model will become more dominant.
I think there are a few instances where advertising money or other kickbacks have been taken, but, at least at the surface, there was no real indication of impropriety, shilling, or protecting of the book in question.
RX and most others just recommend (or don't if the book is not worthy)
SBR, etc takes it a step further by attempting to objectively rate the books based on criteria, although the criteria themselves need more definition (what exactly does an A book have that a B book doesn't?) and the raters need access to private information (finanical information)for this to work.
Others are "protecting" player funds that come from advertisers, sometimes without any "recommendation" of the safety of the book outside of the protection program.
In any case, honesty is the best policy in this business, and whoever is the most trustworthy (which may take years to establish) is going to be the dominant force.
You have no choice but to take some advertising from the books and from that point everyone will say you are shilling for them or protecting them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true. The model is changing from sites that just recommend books to sites that not only recommend books, but stand behind their evaluations by protecting funds sent to those books. As more and more people get burned by stiff books, this model will become more dominant.
I think there are a few instances where advertising money or other kickbacks have been taken, but, at least at the surface, there was no real indication of impropriety, shilling, or protecting of the book in question.
RX and most others just recommend (or don't if the book is not worthy)
SBR, etc takes it a step further by attempting to objectively rate the books based on criteria, although the criteria themselves need more definition (what exactly does an A book have that a B book doesn't?) and the raters need access to private information (finanical information)for this to work.
Others are "protecting" player funds that come from advertisers, sometimes without any "recommendation" of the safety of the book outside of the protection program.
In any case, honesty is the best policy in this business, and whoever is the most trustworthy (which may take years to establish) is going to be the dominant force.
"Not true. The model is changing from sites that just recommend books to sites that not only recommend books, but stand behind their evaluations by protecting funds sent to those books. As more and more people get burned by stiff books, this model will become more dominant."
Smartest comment I've read on the forums all day, and no doubt-the time has come to "put your money where your mouth is"--Which will be good for the solid books, and bad for those on the fringe begging to get their foot in the door with a little ad $$.
Smartest comment I've read on the forums all day, and no doubt-the time has come to "put your money where your mouth is"--Which will be good for the solid books, and bad for those on the fringe begging to get their foot in the door with a little ad $$.
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more. Those three plus Covers and Krackman's Bettors Pub, would be a helluva coalition to watch out for the players. Maybe there are a couple of other sites that would be good to add to that list. But I don't think any new sites popping up would or will mean much.
Good thread, I agree that the wave of the future (and the past) is to guarantee posters money. Not through insurance or escrow but by setting aside revenue generated by the watchdog site. Makes the "dog" think long and hard about putting a book up
MW paid out around 70 dimes to posters 2 years ago and is again guaranteeing players. So it can be done.
[This message was edited by The Major on April 28, 2004 at 05:34 AM.]
MW paid out around 70 dimes to posters 2 years ago and is again guaranteeing players. So it can be done.
[This message was edited by The Major on April 28, 2004 at 05:34 AM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevy:
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more. Those three plus Covers and Krackman's Bettors Pub, would be a helluva coalition to watch out for the players. Maybe there are a couple of other sites that would be good to add to that list. But I don't think any new sites popping up would or will mean much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,
I totally agree with you...
Well said...
THE SHRINK
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more. Those three plus Covers and Krackman's Bettors Pub, would be a helluva coalition to watch out for the players. Maybe there are a couple of other sites that would be good to add to that list. But I don't think any new sites popping up would or will mean much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,
I totally agree with you...
Well said...
THE SHRINK
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevy:
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more. Those three plus Covers and Krackman's Bettors Pub, would be a helluva coalition to watch out for the players. Maybe there are a couple of other sites that would be good to add to that list. But I don't think any new sites popping up would or will mean much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that Krackman sold his interest in Bettors Pub. ????
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more. Those three plus Covers and Krackman's Bettors Pub, would be a helluva coalition to watch out for the players. Maybe there are a couple of other sites that would be good to add to that list. But I don't think any new sites popping up would or will mean much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that Krackman sold his interest in Bettors Pub. ????
Shrink, thanks my friend.
Assassin, your probaly right. It's been awhile since I have been to The Bettors Pub site. Would love to see Krackman posting more often here at the RX. Krackman is a big part of what has made this site great over the years. He's one guy who I have a ton of respect for.
Assassin, your probaly right. It's been awhile since I have been to The Bettors Pub site. Would love to see Krackman posting more often here at the RX. Krackman is a big part of what has made this site great over the years. He's one guy who I have a ton of respect for.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevy:
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevy, you might be really surprised if you knew what has been going on recently on that front.
I think it would be better for the players if all the more established watchdog sites (RX, MW, SBR) for example, worked together more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevy, you might be really surprised if you knew what has been going on recently on that front.
