Do review Sites Still help bad casinos?

[noorman0]

-snip-
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all,

I think that would be odd. In fact, I would be very suspicious if a review site had no negative reviews at all.

Even beginners would know they were visiting a review site for their safety. Site managers simply need to maintain integrity and implement strict moderation instead of weeding out low-rated casinos. If only good reviews were visible, it would be like a recommendation site.

[Orpichukwu]

A good example of one casino which has a bad reputation on this forum but is still selling outside due to its ads and reviews on review sites is 1xBit and its associates.

Feels like some review sites only care about affiliate money. As long as they earn, they will still list these casinos even if there are already many complaints.

Those review platforms don't only make money from affiliates; some of them are actually being paid to publish and moderate the type of review which is being posted about a casino.

[joeperry]

Honestly, I don't think so. Review is very important especially in gambling as trust is one of the main key to have loyal players and if most gambling sites review your platform as low rating, do you think people will choose it over with high ratings? Though I agree with you that publicity is still publicity since they will still receive traffic in their platform however I'm not just sure if there are people who will deposits in their website, they might have high exposure but the conversion would be pretty low.

I think the review sites do a good job if they are really putting low scores, imagine if a bad gambling site were not listed and some people bump to it without knowing anything about it since they can't see any reviews regarding it. So I think the review site is doing a good job, as long as it keeps being fair and the reviews were not bias. Also, yes, they might earn affiliate from listing them even though they gave it poor score.

[Rockstarguy]

They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

I think this is what should be done for beginners to have awareness and to understand the casinos they are interacting with. However, since the reviews are not very transparent based on the ratings of gamblers in these casinos, it is better for gamblers to make a significant effort to conduct their own research to learn more about the casino and whether it is reliable for gambling. If you really want to know how good a casino is, you shouldn't depend on only one site.

There are many places on the Internet where complaints from gamers can be found. The volume of positive or negative feedback about a casino will indicate whether it is suitable for gambling.

[Slow death]

I noticed that some casinos already have bad reputation in forums, many complaints, delayed withdrawals, even scam issues. But when you check review sites, they are still listed, just with low ratings.

For me, this is still publicity. Even with bad reviews, they are still visible. New players might still click, see the bonus, and register. Most people don’t really read deep.

Feels like some review sites only care about affiliate money. As long as they earn, they will still list these casinos even if there are already many complaints.

They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

I believe that most review sites think like this: a casino could only be considered a scam if the casino withholds withdrawals or blocks accounts. If a review site receives a negative comment about a casino, and even if they see proof, the casino continues to allow withdrawals from the review site, then the review site will consider the accuser a liar. Unfortunately, this is the thinking of many review site owners; they have the same bad behavior as those sites run by big scammers (Ponzi scheme monitors).

[nimogsm]

There are two points to consider here: a review site might also be dishonest, so how can one evaluate it objectively? Secondly, paid reviews are always obvious; they're fairly uniform and don't contain even the slightest criticism, only praise. I think anyone who sees this will be wary. Humans are naturally more likely to write negative reviews than to spend time praising someone.

[rezakurnia66]

Honestly, nowadays many gambling casino have an offer for paying review for all user and most of them only giving positive review for getting payment won't make review honestly. I don't think review site for the gambling casino most helpful right now because many review not giving the fact of that casino and always giving positive review only.
Usually I check at any site is free review all weakness about casino gambling from withdrawal problem, account suddenly freeze and its helpful for the user only to know about the gambling casino is really trusted or not. If you see on the casino gambling its self actually only publish the positive review and won't publish yet if any one has bad review.

[bakasabo]

I dont think that reviews are helping bad casinos to stay on the market. Even bad casino have their own customers. In fact, I would not call many casinos as bad. People think they are bad only because they have lost money. Or have problems with withdrawal or KYC. If there is a really bad casino, that only scams customers, than review wont affect its reputation, because they will be closed/disappear faster than a persons go searches for casino review and reads it.

[sompitonov]

I think it helps, but its effectiveness is diminished because players try to find real information rather than rely solely on reviews. Or they look for them in trusted places, where real information has been written about other casinos before, so to speak, they trust the credibility of sources or forum users with a high rating or authority. I also think many players have long ago found their favorite places to play and like them, and they probably don't want to switch, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try new casinos. In any case, if I want to play somewhere new, I'll find out about it from any source, and if I don't have enough information, I'll simply not rush to register there.

[Agbamoni]

What do you guys think?

Of course reveiws still have bad casinos, and people still make use of them. It will take someone to know about the advantages and disadvantages of review platforms to judge a casino. However, many gamblers are wiser now, due to orientation and publicity. Most are now aware that the reviews are paid, and these platforms dont mind listing anything provided it was paid for.

[Localhostspeed]

Feels like some review sites only care about affiliate money. As long as they earn, they will still list these casinos even if there are already many complaints.

They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

I don't know for other people but if I see a casino that doesn't allow gamblers withdraw their money because of one reason that is not strong, I will not want to have anything to do with that casino again. It is one person today that may not have who to speak for them, the day I'm going to be their victim, I may not have who is going to speak for me too, this is why reviews are very necessary for any casino and I don't even care about the bonus or any sponsorship.

The truth is that all most all casino sponsored alot of campaigns to reach out to plenty of people. However, if you are not a gullible person, you should be able to differentiate a content that is sponsored and a contents that is based on neutral ground. You don't need a soothsayer to tell you that is content is sugarcoated and the person pushing the content is trying to make impression for his followers so they can use the casino.

[Woodie]

If a review site was going to only list the good casino's, then what happens when ratings remain good but they turn it villains ? It means the next crop of players will be affected.. like a pyramid scheme kind of thing..

But truth be told, these review sites can never be 100% truthful because casino's themselves can pay players for a vouch which breaks the system all together, otherwise let's just all do our due diligence when it comes to choosing where to play from..

[icebar]

The work of a review site is to share a user's positive or negative experience about the sites. That is, what problems are seen on the mentioned site. Why is the interest of general users in this site decreasing, etc. When someone understands well and shares their opinions, it is definitely good for the gamblers. I think that if for some reason there is a negative view, it should not be deleted completely but rather given the opportunity to read by others. But if it happens that there is a serious complaint and it is a scam, then of course you should be aware of that. Review sites can definitely be effective for beginners. If they don't like it, they should avoid it.

[Pi-network314159]

Feels like some review sites only care about affiliate money. As long as they earn, they will still list these casinos even if there are already many complaints.

They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

the fact is that everyone is looking for the goodie bag and they dont care if what they are promoting or doing review for is good or bad, all they are interested in is the money. you talk about review site to be Stricker, what if being sticker as you said will affect their business? like i said everyone is looking for the money and dont fucking care if the casino is good or not, if they want to be strict they will find it hard to make money. haven't you seen some review campaign in this forum that pays participant $5-$6 to do a review on a gambling site on playstore and this site are just new casino that people barely know of, if they are legit or not. but for the sake of the money everyone will be very much interested to participate. now how can you make it strict for guys here not to participate because of caring for the reputation, when even the review manager is looking forward to make his profit too regardless of the image it portrays.

[leonair]

I noticed that some casinos already have bad reputation in forums, many complaints, delayed withdrawals, even scam issues. But when you check review sites, they are still listed, just with low ratings.

For me, this is still publicity. Even with bad reviews, they are still visible. New players might still click, see the bonus, and register. Most people don’t really read deep.

Feels like some review sites only care about affiliate money. As long as they earn, they will still list these casinos even if there are already many complaints.

They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

Review sites can give a good rating to any site, but that does not mean that the site will become good. However, I do not know how many people trust a gambling site after seeing it from a review site and gamble there. However, if that review site is popular and trusted, then that review site can help any bad casino site by giving it a good rating. However, in this case, even if gamblers go to that site and gamble, they will come back from there after being cheated once and will not trust that rating site later. In this case, that rating site will lose their reputation. Therefore, I do not think that such a popular site will help a bad casino site by giving it a good rating.

[Hispo]

Actually, I kind of disagree with your point of view.

I believe it would be more constructive for gambling communities to have access to review webpages which showed  negative feedback, rather than completely ignoring what would be going on with those low quality casinos.

Let us take for example what happened to 1xbit, which is an obvious scam casino.
They try to silence voices which point out their scam system, so more people continue to fall for it, webpages would actually be doing a favor to scam casinos if they get delisted.

[Patikno]

Some users don’t really read feedback anymore, they’re more focused on the bonuses being offered. That’s usually what catches their attention first.

And honestly, I think some review sites are not that transparent. They’re the ones who sort, approve, or reject reviews, so they can easily control what shows up. If they’re getting paid by casinos, then there’s a big chance they’ll manipulate the ratings.

That’s why for me, I don’t really trust casino review sites that much. I trust the forum more, because people here are more honest and share real experiences, good or bad.

I completely agree with you; this forum does feel more honest for viewing reviews, especially regarding casino reviews. Honestly, I don't trust casino review sites out there, because I feel they are prone to manipulation, and because anyone can write a review, including the casino itself. Well, I am not accusing them, just stating a possibility. So, I think this forum is more trustworthy for viewing user reviews, especially those from trusted users. Plus, if there is something odd about a review, we can discuss it here, and there will be users ready to correct any errors. Those are some opinions.

[Wiwo]

Third-party review platforms are paid, and for that reason, their reviews most of the time don't reflect the real operations of the site. Just like who pays you dictates the way you do the job, so we can never get a near 100% review from those review sites, such as Trustpilot and the rest.

That is why it is very important to search and read through forum posts to get better information on those casinos.

Some bad casinos even have good reputation ratings on those review sites.

[Abu-Naim]

For me, this is still publicity. Even with bad reviews, they are still visible. New players might still click, see the bonus, and register. Most people don’t really read deep.


They say good or bad publicity is still publicity, and in gambling this feels true.
I think review sites should be stricter and just not include these casinos at all, instead of giving low scores and moving on.

What do you guys think?

I think since the reviews are publicly published and everyone can see it, so no should be responsible for your lost if you decided to go and try your luck just for the bonuses after seeing the negative feedback and n the reviews.

I don’t think bad reviews should not be published because some people can use that as their tool to check reputable casino and gambling platform, so it is useful also to avoid leading the general public to get scammed.

As a gambler, it is your responsibility to take your time and understand any casino platforms you are to use, read their terms and condition and to understand how it works to avoid losing money.

[Davidvictorson]

What do you guys think?

Review sites should have their own rating. Some review sites do such a terrible job at verifying who really writes reviews on their websites. In this day and age where bots are automated for most things, one cannot tell any more. As bots writing reviews, people are also paid to write reviews too and are told to give positive feedback.

I like to think that reviews sites are not as trusted as the go-to source for online casinos credibility and reputations as it used to be. Some of the reasons I have already highlighted.

We look on forums like this, check social media for what people are saying about these casinos and then go ahead to make a betting decision.