jayeff

In an ideal world, sponsors would ban all "grey" sites (although I'm not sure exactly what is grey about ones such as have been mentioned in this thread). But the majority are a minor problem and it wouldn't be much work at all to routinely check bigger affiliates: particularly since it would be possible to exclude from such checks sites which have proven over time to be legitimate.

The problem is that most sponsors are short-sighted. Despite today's positive response, AFF has a long record of turning a blind eye to cheats (so long as they themselves are not being cheated). I guess such sponsors ask why should they spend whatever such checks would cost, unless forced to? Why run the risk they might find - and be forced to terminate - successful affiliates?

It isn't necessary to dig into (for some) abstract issues like ethics for the answers. Sooner or later every scam is halted, so the people involved in them are not long-term revenue generators, but so long as they do operate they are hurting others who are in business for the long term. Thus every cheater costs sponsors money in the long run, no matter how indirectly. Sponsors really show themselves up when they support cheats who do not even increase their short-term income.

Without sponsors' support, many cheats would disappear overnight and if sponsors will not deal with this themselves, legitimate affiliates should switch their support to sponsors who will. Unfortunately, most affiliates don't think much about the future either: something that unprofessional sponsors realize all too clearly...