Quote:
Originally Posted by TMM_John
You're guessing wrong. I know you defend CCBill blindly at every turn, and you're free to do so if you'd like, but please don't do so by making things up regarding NATS.
|
I'm not making things up about NATS. I'm making an educated guess that PROGRAMS that use NATS usually report second page clicks and don't figure 1st page clicks in their conversion ratio reported to the affiliate.
I know in the past this was the case (back when I used to promote other programs) and if one was to search here at GFY they could find numerous threads supporting my statement.
So which is the truer statement today: A or B or C
A: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 1st page uniques.
B: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 2nd page uniques.
C: Most programs that use NATS report both 1st and 2nd page ratios.
Please don't confuse my statement that NATS is not capable of counting ratios using 1st page clicks. I'm sure that NATS can and does. But it's my understanding that in the past many programs that use NATS report ratios using the 2nd page click in order to make their ratios look better to their affiliates than other programs reporting ratios with just 1st page clicks. (like CCBill)
Are you saying this is not true anymore? (as i know for a fact it once was)
Maybe both ratios are reported now (or capable of being).
When someone comes in here and says they have a 1:250 ratio I automatically assume 1 of 3 things.
1: that's a 2nd page ratio
2: they are extremely filtering their traffic before sending it through the affiliate link
or
3: they are lying
Because 1:250 (1st page click) ratios are a thing of the past and have been for quite some time.
There are a few exceptions but we are speaking here in overall average general terms.