Feedback: Member blocking (Page 4)
Best Online Casinos
Hot Topics10th May. 2025 at 12:36 am CEST
-
Wochik, today at 12:16 am CEST
-
Langhans_innen, yesterday at 09:12 pm CEST
-
Spielheld, on 8th May. 2025 at 10:47 pm CEST
-
Druff, on 8th May. 2025 at 07:15 pm CEST
-
Langhans_innen, today at 12:05 am CEST
-
Inter010, yesterday at 11:28 pm CEST
-
MisterL, yesterday at 11:05 pm CEST
-
sundance, yesterday at 10:51 pm CEST
-
frapi07, yesterday at 08:35 pm CEST
-
bruffl, yesterday at 08:12 pm CEST
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 07:53 pm CEST
-
fros7byte, yesterday at 06:32 pm CEST
-
DerLorax, yesterday at 06:04 pm CEST
-
frapi07, yesterday at 02:52 pm CEST
-
Donnie, yesterday at 11:28 am CEST
-
Olli_Eule, yesterday at 11:14 am CEST
-
Langhans_innen, yesterday at 10:56 am CEST
-
Bonusfan, yesterday at 10:48 am CEST
-
Labi95, yesterday at 09:21 am CEST
-
Viktoria671970, yesterday at 02:22 am CEST
-
Gamer, on 8th May. 2025 at 05:39 pm CEST
-
gamble1, on 8th May. 2025 at 01:22 pm CEST
-
Labi95, on 8th May. 2025 at 10:04 am CEST
-
Donnie, on 8th May. 2025 at 09:48 am CEST
-
x00NY, on 8th May. 2025 at 12:02 am CEST
-
Sanioli, on 7th May. 2025 at 11:40 pm CEST
Health becomes the lottery dream of the ...
Could the Interstate Gambling Treaty fail in 2021? And then ...
GambleJoe Team
JulianCommunity-Manager / Complaint Specialist
CounterSoftware developer
MatthiasProject manager
DanielFounder
Community Forum-Moderators
Members who assist the GJ team in moderating the forum.
Andre
gamble1
Langhans_innen
Saphira
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
But still, you can pick up there again how bad the rating function on GambleJoe is actually. Has already been talked about. Because honestly, even the last Curacao Klitsche would still get a mediocre rating here, if the selection of games fits and you had fun due to layout / performance, etc.. But that would be absolutely moot if the casino then doesn't pay out or does Verification chicanery. I don't think it gives a realistic picture of a casino to simply throw all possible rating criteria into one Pot and cook up an average
On the other hand, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head. Perhaps one could delete the fun factor. Since only a few understand how you could evaluate that anyway
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
Shit, I was seen through by the clever upola. here suck up, then I will soon nen moderator in GJ, by this new world power I will throw Angela Merkel from the throne and rule Germany...
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
upola you know I did not want to offend anyone here, I'm happy when I can exchange here, and my thread should not hurt anyone, I do not have much idea in gambling and so the page Gamblejoe came to me very right, I have to say that I'm honest, I actually sit here and cry, am very hurt.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
I hope you at least use the handkerchief that I gave you
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
Well, I write smart words, I'm brave and smart.
There you tell me but nothing new.
I thought there is more from you...so one can deceive. **shoulder shrug**
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Liked this post:
Julian, 
Nik89
What more should come? Should I also say that I think your spelling is great? I think compliments should be used sparingly, otherwise it quickly becomes too much
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
You should or must improve it
Hold a different weighting in the points
For almost everyone, the quick Verification and payout is the most important
Well, and I already wrote that the ratings gradually no longer have any significance.
As you can see, it is enough for Gamblejoe that they pay out at all
Well, what do I need the support, if they pay out quickly
It is too much mixed with unimportant.
That's why every casino with halfway good values gets away.
It is enough if you can log in and the site runs smoothly, for ne ok rating.
Sorry but for me this no longer works.
I stay with my favorites, have no more nerve to beg Caro every time so that she takes care of my payout. I'm sure she has other things to do. Only because the casinos shoot up like mushrooms from the ground and are included here.
Play at your favorites, you know what you have.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
It would be cool if they are constructive suggestions, so not just "the rating system needs to be improved".
Feel free to suggest what you think a casino rating should consist of, and we'll discuss it at the next team meeting.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
I can't find it right now, but I had a discussion about it here in the forum some time ago
The problem is this: Of course, the quality of a casino is measured by various factors. On GambleJoe there are currently 6 criteria for evaluation. I do not know if all these criteria in the same ratio result in an overall rating. For now, I'm going to assume that they do.
Suppose I play in the new casino XY. Casino XY has 7000 slots from 100 manufacturers. They are all nicely sortable by filters, run flawlessly and additionally there are hidden Bonuses for achievements like "4 wins in a row" or "3 times free spins triggered" to be found in many games. Then there is also a revolutionary Cashback system without turnover and for the first 3 deposits 50 free spins each without turnover requirements. For the first withdrawal I have to verify and the support is super helpful and nice, just says it can take a while. Then the harassment starts and I have to constantly submit any documents that make no sense at all. Notarized proof of registration for example. Or information about my income. In the end I also violated very strange bonus rules like betting more than 5% of the bonus amount on one line or playing a Jackpot game that doesn't have a progressive jackpot. They want to deny me the payout.
Now how do I honestly rate the hypothetical Casino XY?
Fun factor: 5 (due to smooth performance and hidden bonuses)
Game selection: 5
Bonus: 5
Support: 4-5
Initial payout: 0
Subsequent payout: -
Cut: 4
Thus, a very good casino
I can't think of a direct solution to this. A weighting perhaps. The problem is, if a casino has a relatively poor selection of games and, for example, only 5 major providers for slots in the program but for it smoothly and within an hour verified and paid out, then that is worth much more than a super broad casino with which you have trouble for weeks. Even if the point game selection is certainly important, it can not be rated the same as first payout. The point support is also difficult. That depends partly very much on the individual employee and says little about the casino itself. The fun factor is very spongy. If I am only losing, I have little fun but the casino has no influence.
And last but not least, the huge problem that Christoph himself has addressed here in the thread: Spinia has no game selection of 0.5 stars. But if the casino really does not pay out at all and crosses the casino has also not earned an average rating of 2.5 - 3 stars, only because of the super selection and the great layout of the page. These are absolutely negligible points when it comes to dubious casinos. These points should find weighting when everything else runs TOP. Otherwise, it is somehow completely indifferent.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically