More Reviews Feedback Sought

[The Philosopher]

I spoke at length with the Major today about the sportsbook reviews section of the website that we are putting together, and we wanted to get some feedback on some points from you. First a little background.

Besides working out the various details of the project, it was important to me to make sure that the general vision that I have for it and that the Fellahs have for it is consistent. I didn’t want to get significantly into the project only to realize that we have incompatible ideas about the purpose of the project and what the general approach needs to be.

The way I see it, there are two importantly different general ways to approach a project like this. One approach is to treat it as a way to promote the advertising books. In that case, we’d see our role as primarily providing additional information to you about the advertising books and facilitating your ending up with the one(s) that best fit your needs. The financial incentive here would be pretty direct and obvious. The advertising books-—who pay the bills around here and would, in effect, be the only reason there’s any money available to pay me to do this project—-would benefit by being included in the review section.

The other approach is to treat all books equally, advertiser or non-advertiser. In that case, the idea would simply be to provide the most objective and informative reviews possible for any and all books, with no “quid pro quo.” Being reviewed wouldn’t be something you get in exchange for your advertising dollars.

In this second approach, where would the money come from for the project? Well, it would have to be more indirect than in the first case. The idea would be that putting out a high quality, objective, more inclusive set of reviews would appeal to readers more than doing something that’s perceived as shilling for certain specific books, that that would enhance the prestige of Major Wager, that that would draw more traffic to the site, and that ultimately that increased traffic would bring in more advertising revenue.

In other words, do we structure the project in such a way as to kiss up to the advertisers, or do we structure it in whatever way we believe is objectively “best” for the readers, and trust that in the long run that will indirectly boost the site revenue?

I’ve made it clear in my communication with the Major that the more I feel we’re taking the first approach, the less comfortable I am being a part of it. I’m enough of an idealist to want to put the best, most uncompromised product out there that I can, and to hope that the Fellahs can find some way to make that work financially, which is to say I think the second approach is the one we have to choose.

I was pleased to discover that this is very compatible with the Major’s vision for the project. He too believes that we cannot sacrifice objectivity and become shills in order to make the advertisers happy. The purpose of the reviews is to tell the truth to the readers, not just to drum up business for the reviewed books.

Now, related to this, here’s what we wanted some feedback from you guys on. Should we do the Major’s List books first, or just do all the books at random, and why?

Perusing all the watchdog sites and gathering together all the books that have some representation or endorsement on at least one such site, I’ve come up with one hundred or so “reviewable” books. So it’s a matter of treating all of them equal in terms of what order to do the reviews in, or doing all the Major’s List books first before starting in on any others.

If we were to say, “Do the Major’s List books first, because they’re the ones paying the bills,” I would not feel comfortable with it, for the reasons stated above. Once you treat being reviewed as a perq that comes with being a paid advertiser, then where do the compromises stop? If the fact that they pay gives them the right to expect to be reviewed first, does it also give them the right to a favorable review?

So I think that is the wrong road to start down. On the other hand, one could make a case for a non-random ordering based not on kissing up to the advertisers but on what’s genuinely best for the reader. I mean, if the typical Major Wager reader is going to play mostly in Major’s List books, then maybe those are the ones they are most interested in reading about. There’s no point in my reviewing a bunch of books if you are simply going to skip most of the reviews to get to just the ones for Major’s List books.

So here are the choices for you to select from:

1. Do the Major’s List books first, as these are the books that are most relevant to visitors of this site. Only once those are all done, branch out into reviewing other books.

2. Do all the books in a random order. Give no priority to Major’s List books.

3. Some compromise option or some other option you would suggest that is not mentioned here.

I’ll tell you that I lean to #2, but as long as it’s done for the right reasons, I would be comfortable with #1 (or #3 if you come up with something good there). I believe from speaking with the Major that he’s open-minded about doing it any of these ways. Thus this really is up in the air enough for your feedback to be the deciding factor. Whatever you post in the next day or so that you think is the fairest or most useful way to go is very likely what we’ll end up doing.

[Bman66]

Philosopher,

I would say definitely #2. If you do it in a random order, no one will know where you're coming from or going to. Plus, I feel that you'll get a truer representation of the book being reviewed. It will keep them on their toes, and even if they're not on the Major's list, they may eventually end up their if they're found to be a good out.

Bman66

[Bookiebar]

No question it obviously has to be #2.

In a years time who knows which books will still be advertising on this or the other sites.

100 books though thats a hell of a lot of betting need a hand

[Bookiebar]

Philosopher,

Also should add that their are 30 odd advertisers on this site, so you piss a few off with a bad review, who cares.

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. These reviews can only make this site stronger and losing a few from a potential bad review or two I would guess isn't going to kill MW (one would hope not ! ). So reviewing all of the top 100 books would mean that a decent book is always on hand to jump aboard so to speak.

[This message has been edited by Bookiebar (edited 03-29-2001).]

[The Major]

I know it is a lengthy post but please read it and comment. This is what will shape the selection process these reviews will take and like everything at MajorWager, it is for you the player so we are all ears.

The Major

[This message has been edited by The Major (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Spearmaster]

I agree with #2 and #2 - perhaps you might just want to try the books you feel like trying out without checking the list first. Undoubtedly you will be reviewing some of them in your travails anyhow.

Another idea might be to take a poll as to which books visitors would like to know more about, and proceed from there.

Whichever way you do it, it will certainly be interesting reading and lots of useful information.

[The Devil]

I think a bunch of answers to Philo would be good....I have seen a preview of the new set-up...Believe me it's the nuts....Nowhere and I mean nowhere will you see anything that compares to this.....

Philo has no restrictions....If an advertiser isn't up to par...Philo will say it....these will be honest evaluations....no weight will be carried by Russ or myself....

Give your thought now....It will only make it better for you in the long run....

The Devil

[Minnow]

I guess I am in the minority, but
I am mostly interested in the books that advertise here. For my needs, there are plenty to choose from, and I am just not interested in taking a chance with a non-secured book no matter how splendid the review.

Frankly, I don't see a conflict of interest, as I am confident that Philo's reviews will be unbiased, advertiser or not.

One of the things I love about Major Wager is the fact that so many advertisers respond to questions and concerns in the forums.
If a person were to have a problem with one of the 100 or so worthy non-advertisers, then what?

Perhaps a compromise is in order. Maybe.. one advertiser, one random, advertiser, random..?

This isn't a huge deal for me, either way. If there is a review of a non-advertiser, I would still probably read it, and even appreciate the work that went into it, BUT..
I will continue to only do my business with the advertisers here.

I like it that MW has done the "background" homework for me, and I don't have to sweat out the "sounds great, BUT, what if.." factor.

Just my (smallfry) opinion!

[The Devil]

Very well thought out opinion Minnow....I'm sure your more in the majority then minority....I'm also sure a few non-advertisers that read this are taking note of what you said....

The Devil

[Samurai]

Do them in a random order, but with a very strong preference to those books that offer more options for the player (i.e. I would do Olympic much earlier than Las Palmas). Books offering more to their customers should be rewarded for that.

[Matt Keats - Direcbet.com]

The Philosopher,


I welcome and applaud the approach of MW and The Philosopher towards the new Sports book review part of the website.

From an advertisers point of view to be reviewed objectively, for the product, value, service, and loyalty we provide our clients is much more valuable than by how much money we pay in advertising fees.

This approach will certainly set MW apart from all other similar sites.

Advertising $$$$ should have no bearing in the outcome or the time of a review.

The value to advertisers from sites like this, is the readers being drawn back to the site to have input and opinions on subjects in the industry, and the more quality content MW provides increases the flow through of readers and posters to the site which gives the ultimate benefit back to the advertisers.

To further that line of thinking, I agree that option #2 is the best way forward for readers, posters and advertisers, however I would add that the readers and posters are the backbone of this site, without them there is no site. So I would maybe add that a survey of posters of some description of say the top 20-30 sites they would like reviewed first could be done, then tabulated and that would give The Philosopher a solid starting point of what the readers and posters want to see. These could be done in total random order so you are covering both bases.

Once again this is a great idea and I look forward to seeing the developments.

I appologize for the long post

Thank You

Matt www.direcbet.com
matt@direcbet.com

[Winston2]

I also would prefer #2 for a couple of reasons, and would actually be quite disappointed if you picked #1. First, I already have accounts at a number of books listed by the Major. If you review one of these, you will not be telling me anything I don't already know. Secondly, and this is a compliment to Major Wager, I already trust the books listed here. This is not to say that all books listed above are equal, their not. However, I feel comfortable posting up with any book on this site and finding out myself how they fit my tastes. What I don't feel as comfortable with, is going outside the books listed here. Because of this I know I'm probably missing out on some great books. I hear Minnows point about non-secured books but I understood earlier posts to mean your reviews would include some analysis of a books financial stability. While I would not be given the $500 security at one of these other books, I'm willing to take this risk ($500 will hopefully ((knock on wood)) never make or break me). Finally, I already get lots of feedback on the above books right from this forum. This is a pretty vocal crowd. If you can't get a bet in 2 minutes before game time at a Major Wager book, or they have lousy customer service or cancel bets unjustly, I know I'll hear about it. My vote is for #2.

[KidVegas]

I pick #1...If a book is paying money to this site they should have priority to get reviewed before a book that does not.

[Sportsbank]

#1..........I'm interested in the books on the Major's list first and foremost. After
you've reviewed them, do the rest.

SB

[KingOfTheSquares]

Option 3:

I can think of a number of books that I would pose as "standards" in my universe. I would preferentially start with those. My list is below (each for my own "unique" reasons). I think between you, Major, & Devil, it would be possible to come up with about 10 books with which the rest can be compaired. My paltry list:

Olympic
WSEX
Aces Gold

Otherwise I vote for #2

[kosar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:[/size]<HR>Originally posted by KidVegas:
I pick #1...If a book is paying money to this site they should have priority to get reviewed before a book that does not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would that be the case, Kid Vegas?

Did they pay for a 'review' in their advertising agreement?

As far as I can tell, this new venture is extraneous to any advertising agreement. Isn't that the point?

I agree with the part of Minnow's post that suggests reviewing 1 advertiser, then 1 random book. Back and forth.

That would keep all of the kiss-asses happy, and also provide some sort of balance.

[pokerjoe]

Because I, and probably most of us, pretty much now limit ourselves to listed books, I'd just as soon see them reviewed first.

I understand there are solid books not yet advertising here. But there are enough listed here to keep you busy for a year.

And of course, don't hesitate to knock the advertising books.

[KidVegas]

kosar, Majorwager recommends books that are on his list, I am in the opinion they should be reviewed first.

[turkoman1963]

While I truly liked Minnow's suggestions, I'm leaning towards Option 2 with the idea that you DO take a poll and find out books that the readers are interested in.

For instance, while I do not know them, some books, like cybersports.com, don't interest me in the least, while others, like JAZZ or DARWIN interest me a great deal because I've heard buzz about them.

In some respects, Philosopher, perhaps you can treat this like a restaurant reviewer who seeks out the joints others are talking about that have "buzz" -- and perhaps from there, blend in the Major's books at random or do a one book on and one book off the list kinda rhythm.