<b><font size="4">Claim:</font></b> Adult.com shaves enormous amount of our sign ups.<br>
<br>
<b><font size="4">Background:</font></b> We were promoting AmateurPages.com - site of adult.com by
redirecting type-in traffic using frame redirection that the domain name
registrar - enom.com provides from many domain names including uncensored.com,
uhoh.com, grils.com, amatuerpages.com(with adult.com?s permission) and other
domains to AmateurPages.com<br>
<br>
We started promoting them in July 2003. At that time, the subscription price was
$29.95 per sign up. <br>
Adult.com was offering a 71% revenue share from all sign ups
you generate. <br>
Statistics including tracking and payment processing were being
handled by a third party ? iBill.com. <br>
Our traffic, according to
<a href="http://www.royalwhois.com/images/fu_lensman.htm">screenshots</a> was
generating an average of 5-7 sign ups a day (see yourself for an exact number).<br>
<br>
On October 2003, adult.com has lowered the subscription price for
AmateurPages.com 3 times from $29.95 to $9.95.<br>
They changed the affiliate program as well from 71% revenue share to $25 pay per
sign up.<br>
They took over the statistics tracking and from that point all sales were being
tracked by adult.com.<br>
We were sending the same amount and quality traffic from the same traffic domain
names but our conversion ratio dropped several times.<br>
<br>
Since the price was lowered 3 times, conversion should have risen. Even if we
assume that the surfer didn't react positively on the price drop, <b>how could
it react negatively that conversion dropped several times?</b> Even then, lets
assume further that surfer reacted negatively, which is not any realistic, <b>
why would adult.com keep the $9.95 price if it converted 3-4 times worse when
they could have changed the price back at any time?</b> I believe the price drop
didn't have a bad impact on conversion ratios but the problem was that Lensman
was now deflating the number of sales webmasters generate.<br>
<br>
<b><font size="4">Findings:</font></b> When this analysis was posted on the
board, Lensman showed up deleted post(s) and making 3 statements:<br>
<br>
Quote 1<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><hr>
<p><i>Originally posted by Lensman <br>
</i><b><br>
It does look like your traffic from 1-5 to 1-7 has a problem, I'm not sure if
our engineers fucked something up while we all were in Vegas. Or maybe it's a
fluke.<br>
<br>
Regarding your shaving accusation, you are totally full of shit. <br>
<br>
The stats from August are from a different processor and a different period.
They are from trails and rebills, and your second stats are non-trials and a
very limited time period. <br>
<br>
Your are cordially invited to visit our offices and look at our systems and
code, we have nothing to hide.<br>
<br>
And it's pretty low to do this shit, if it's even real, Miln. </b></p>
<hr>
<p>Quoting Lensman's post.<br>
1. <b>"It does look like your traffic from 1-5 to 1-7 has a problem, I'm not
sure if our engineers fucked something up while we all were in Vegas. Or maybe
it's a fluke." - </b>Lensman admits that the claim is true - the stats are
unrealistic. Making several assumptions of flukes or a possible screw up on
their part.</p>
<p>2. <b>"And it's pretty low to do this shit, if it's even real, Miln." </b>-
Admits that it's pretty low reveal shaving sponsors even if they are real and
probably not low to shave your own affiliates.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quote 2</p>
<hr>
<p><i>Originally posted by Lensman </i><br>
<b>I just checked, and Miln2 is a fake character created by another webmaster
here. </b></p>
<hr>
<p><u>^ <b>First bullshit</b></u> Lensman tries to pull to dilute our claim of
shaving. He has our name and our company name in his system as we are one of his
affiliates. I'm not a fake character, he knows I've been promoting
AmateurPages.com from June and sent 1000s of sign ups to that site. He has our
company name, address and phone number. <br>
<br>
<br>
One day later he comes with another post.<br>
Quote 3<br>
<br>
</p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><hr>
<p><i>Originally posted by Lensman </i><br>
<b>I just got off the phone with our head programmer. Here's the deal:<br>
<br>
Mlin's the one that has the missspell of AmateurPages.<br>
<br>
His site is down right now, but here is the Google Cache:<br>
<br>
<a target="_blank" style="color: #CCCCFF" href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:
http://www.amatuerpages.com/"><br />...pages.com/</a><br>
<br>
The page will be blank, but view source.<br>
<br>
Look at the page, he is started opening
<a href="http://regular1.amateurpages.com/?w=AP59551" target="_blank" style="color: #CCCCFF">
http://regular1.amateurpages.com/?w=AP59551</a> INSIDE A FRAMESET. <br>
<br>
The master domain is amatuerpages.com, not amateurpages.com. THEREFORE OUR JOIN
COOKIES will not read his traffic. <br>
<br>
That's cheating. He gets the exit traffic, not us. That's not the deal.<br>
<br>
HE TRYS TO SCAM US, then when our system does the right thing, he calls us
shavers!<br>
<br>
Mlin2, you've just fucked yourself. </b></p>
<hr>
<p><br>
1. <b>"Look at the page, he is started opening
<a href="http://regular1.amateurpages.com/?w=AP59551" target="_blank" style="color: #CCCCFF">
http://regular1.amateurpages.com/?w=AP59551</a> INSIDE A FRAMESET." <u>< Second
bullshit</u> </b>Lensman tries to make. If you check the
<a href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:www.amatuerpages.com/">source of
google cache for amatuerpages.com</a> you will not find any frame set. You will
find one frame - frame traffic redirection that points to our AmateurPages.com
affiliate link.<br>
<br>
<br>
2. <b>"The master domain is amatuerpages.com, not amateurpages.com. THEREFORE
OUR JOIN COOKIES will not read his traffic." <u><The Third Bullshit </u></b>
Lensman tries to make. If that was the case, how come for over 3 month their
system was recording our sales including the
<a href="http://www.royalwhois.com/images/shaven0.gif">screenshotted sales </a>
for January 2004 ? It also recorded hundreds of our sales from Oct 2003 to Dec
2003.<br>
<br>
<br>
3.<b> "That's cheating. He gets the exit traffic, not us. That's not the deal."
<u>< The Forth Bullshit</u></b> Lensman tries to make. If you know html, or copy
and past the
<a href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:www.amatuerpages.com/">source of
google cache for amatuerpages.com</a> into your HTML editor, you will see that
there is one frame and all traffic goes to AmateurPages.com affiliate program,
therefore it's not possible to affect exit traffic in any way. Moreover the
redirection is being done trough eNom.com, there is no hosted page on the
domain.</p>
</font>
<p>4. <b>"HE TRYS TO SCAM US, then when our system does the right thing, he
calls us shavers!" <u>< The Fifth Bullshit</u> </b>Lensman tries to make. As you
can see above,
<a href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:www.amatuerpages.com/">source of
google cache for amatuerpages.com</a> showes no FRAMESET as Lensman claims and
no exit traffic could have been possibly manipulated therefore no one scammed
them. He thinks that <b>"their system does the right thing"</b> which is an
obvious shaving.<br>
<br>
<b>Q. Why Lensman will try to make so many bullshits ?<br>
A. He tries to hide his scam, otherwise he wouldn't bother.<br>
<br>
Q. Until what time will adult.com resolve on <a href="http://www.thieves.com">
Thieves.com</a>?<br>
A. Until they show the real stats and pay us all the difference they have stolen
from us.<br>
<br>
Q. I have some information to add to this story. How do I proceed?<br>
A. If you have hard evidence of adult.com's illegal activities, contact us,
we'll cover the cost of the lawsuit and all corresponding expenses.</b><br>
<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
</font>
<p> </p>