Checked your real money tests and it was bizarre seeing you give a proven scam site like BC.Game 8/10 when you had to complete advanced KYC verification regardless of how long it took while you gave a site like Stake 6.5/10 for mandatory KYC.
OP tested using small withdrawal amounts, which rarely run into issues. Lol.
I think it would be better if the OP didn't display a score on the site at all, or test them with different funding levels and then draw a conclusion instead. It’s also quite surprising that other people's reviews carry a 5% weight.
That’s a fair criticism.
Most of the tests we’ve published so far have been done with relatively small amounts, so they obviously can’t tell us how the same casino would behave with medium or large deposits and withdrawals.
This is something we want to expand. We plan to run more tests on selected casinos with different funding levels and over a longer period, rather than treating one small test as enough to draw a broad conclusion.
The 5% weighting for external/player feedback is also part of the rating model we’re currently reviewing. As we recalibrate the individual categories, we want to use more data and, where possible, give broader community feedback, documented complaints and reputation a more appropriate place in the overall assessment.
I like the concept, real first-person tests are definitely more useful than just repeating what the casino says about itself. Right now it feels more like a blog with personal experiences than a rating platform where you can compare casinos and draw conclusions. Will be interesting to see how the project develops.
That’s actually a fair description of where the project is right now.
The first-person tests are still a relatively new part of the site, and at the moment they are closer to documented player journeys than a large enough dataset for comparing casinos properly.
The direction we want to move in is exactly that: more tests, clearer scoring criteria, repeat tests where possible, and a better separation between one particular test result and the broader casino rating.
Hopefully, as we collect more data, the tests will become much more useful for direct comparison rather than just being a collection of individual experiences.
It is not bad if we can get an idea of how a particular gambling casino should be trusted or reliable with their services, however, it must also be noted that not all the reviews that were made can be genuine or reliable, as seeing online randomly and across different platforms. I suggest that you don't vouch for any casino when it comes to what they can do or not, except that you only share your suggestion or view on them and leave it to every user to decide on the risk they are willing to take from having a deal with any casino.
I agree with that.
We don’t want a single review or test to be taken as a guarantee of how a casino will behave with every player. Even our own real-money tests only show what happened with that account at that particular time.
The goal is to document what we can verify, explain the limitations clearly, and give readers enough information to make their own decision rather than simply telling them that a casino is “safe” or that everyone will have the same experience.
Nice OP, other reviews websites are focusing more on the games and yours is with those features about deposits and withdrawals although it's also part of the reviews of the others and you have the bonuses too.
I know that this service has profit as well but if some casinos will pay you for advertisement, I hope that it will still be genuine review that you're going to give them.
Yes, that separation is very important.
The purpose of the real-money test is to report what actually happened during the test, whether the result is good or bad. A commercial relationship with a casino shouldn’t change what we report about deposits, withdrawals, KYC, bonuses or support.
As the project develops, we also want to make the distinction between advertising/commercial placements and editorial or test results as clear as possible, so readers can understand what they are looking at.
Check their ANN threads within this forum properly and you will understand that Stake is one of the most reputed crypto gambling sites while BC.Game is on the opposite spectrum.
OP should put a strong disclaimer on this test on their platform; it will appear that you are recommending that BC.Game is far better to play on Stake, when, in fact, when it comes to reputation, Stake is doing better than BC.Game, that will send the wrong signal to the gambling community.
I agree, and this discussion has made that especially clear.
The 8/10 BC.Game test score and the 6.5/10 Stake test score describe those particular hands-on tests. They shouldn’t be interpreted as saying that BC.Game has a better overall reputation than Stake.
We need to make that distinction much more visible on the test pages. A clear disclaimer is one option, but we also want to separate the hands-on test score from the broader casino rating more clearly in the layout itself.
Otherwise, the numbers can easily send the wrong message when they are viewed without the full context.
👉Since several of you have raised good points about the scoring system, I’d also be interested in hearing how you would approach it.
If you were building the rating system yourselves, how would you weight categories such as withdrawals, KYC, bonuses, support, reputation/community feedback and the other parts of the casino experience?
And based on what you’ve seen on Bitcointalk over the years, which casino brands would you say have maintained the strongest and most consistent reputation here?We’re currently reviewing both the scoring model and the brands we want to test next, so your input would be really useful for us.
