Originally Posted by NanoBot (Post 17751578)

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 17751629)

"Proven" is a tough one. Exactly what does that mean? But in my experience look towards the top and you'll see quite a few. Any programmer will tell you that almost anything is possible. You could set it to simply discard a % of clicks and sales or you might do something more complex such as shave off 80% of all growth (from an average past baseline) so it might appear to the affiliate that their traffic and sales levels are about the same over time when they have actually been rising a much greater level than shown (a very clever trick). Or perhaps you might set a minimum conversion ratio. The affiliate could really be doing 1:300 but the program is set up to never allow the affiliate to be shown ratios better than 1:1000. The extra sales are pocketed and the affiliate just thinks his traffic is average when it's actually much better. Also don't assume that everyone is treated the same. That rep checking you out for fraud when you sign up just as well could also be deciding what to set the shave factor to. Think about it. What better way to be selective about it?

Most people who are relatively sure aren't going to come out and say it on the boards (especially not here) because they don't want to risk all the drama. But hit up a few close webmaster friends in private and ask candidly and you might be surprised. Some will be misunderstandings or bullshit but others will be real.

Btw, someone good with numbers and familiar with techniques could conceivable reverse engineer (in addition to simple test signups) any shaving algorithm. It's not something that is impossible to detect but it seldom is. There have been whitepapers on the subject in the past.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751682)

I understand your point of view fine sire. However, "technically possible" is not PROOF of accusation that some company is doing something. CCBill could "technically possible" skim sales as well. Not paying the affiliate or the website owner while allowing access. We could play these 'possibilities' all day long. That does not make them fact.

I require more than speculation from some stranger on the internet before I pass judgement on another company. While many on GFY relish smearing someone's business and livelihood over speculation, and agenda setting. I require a bit more meat on the bone.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 17751481)

Doesn't mean much. People often tend to specify different ways of acting with different people. It's easy for a sponsor to come up with a justification for shaving their affiliates (or partners).

"I do most of the work anyway."
"I'm the one taking most of the risk."
"Affiliates are overpaid for what they do. They don't deserve that much."
"Most of these guys are just part timers. I'm only taking their beer money."
"Everyone shaves. I'm not as bad as company X."
"They should be happy I allow affiliates"
"If they don't like it let them make their own site"
"I'm only protecting myself against affiliate fraud."
"They'd be working at McDonalds if it weren't for me."

etc.

I don't know whether these particular allegations are true or not but I would not be surprised. If you don't think you are being shaved in general within this industry I think you're incredibly naive. Sure not everyone does it but it's very common and often it's not even hidden all that well. Usually the sponsor's attitude about related things kind of tips their hand to show what they think of the relationship between themselves and affiliates. After all, chances are if they have the guts to openly take sales from you they also have the guts to do so behind the scenes too. Numbers often give it away as well.

Originally Posted by Deej (Post 17751919)

If you were just using them as an example... poor use of choice and words...

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn (Post 17751855)

How about creating a more descriptive header that says C4S or Clips4Sale shaving accusation insteadof just "Shaving accusation"?

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751943)

You completely missed the point, but with you, that's nothing new.

Carry on.
:pimp

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751612)

"Shaving" is something done by shady companies, or those on their way out of business. Not companies who are making money hand over fist like Clips4Sale.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751951)

That wouldn't make it quite as spicy now would it?
:upsidedow

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober (Post 17752023)

Actually, thats the complete opposite of my intention when I made this thread.

UIf I had a sig or an agenda and wanted views, I would have said CLIPS 4 SALE in the title. But I didn't, because I didn't want to appear to be accusing them myself.

I simply wanted to pass on what I had seen, to those interested.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 17751559)

:eek7

not sure if it's that easy, at least in my case the security script and my own DB would not let this happen

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 17751676)

Just to back up my statement here is a very old one which is focused on click shaving (when PPC was more common). Most have undoubtedly already seen this one.

"Detecting Hit Shaving in Click-Through Payment Schemes"
http://www.usenix.org/event/ec98/ful...ter/reiter.pdf

Originally Posted by Forest (Post 17752356)

shaving in the adult industry??????????????????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751659)

There is something to be said for actually knowing the owner (Neil) for the better part of a decade. Not just spit balling accusations around, and feeding the flames, based on some unknown stranger on the message board giving half the story.
:2 cents:

Originally Posted by rayadp05 (Post 17751030)

I have personally known Neil for 5 years now. I have been over at his house on multiple occasions and he has always been a real nice and trustworthy type of guy.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 17752905)

You mean like all the people that knew Bernard Madoff for many, many years and thought he was a great guy etc. etc. etc. etc... Fact is, if you're not looking at the books, then you have no idea what's really going on and just how "standup" a guy is.

Originally Posted by Argos88 (Post 17752702)

never liked this clips 4 sale site.. they really suck...

the only guy that likes them is this BARE FOOT sucker spammer..

nobody else.

.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17751612)

"Shaving" is something done by shady companies, or those on their way out of business. Not companies who are making money hand over fist like Clips4Sale.

Sounds like some piss ant with an axe to grind against C4S. Probably for getting their store cut off for not having licensed content or some variant.
:2 cents:

Originally Posted by Zyber (Post 17752844)

Thanks. Just had a quick look at it.

This system relies on Javascript being run on the user's browser. It trusts that the browser's DOM events are untampered. It might detect manual click fraud from real humans.

The system does not seem to take into account that hitbots exists, which could emulate all of the HTTP traffic.

Originally Posted by GonZo (Post 17752858)

I remember you making a marketing statement years ago about a cascading billing system that bragged about the feature where you could turn shave on or shave off... if memory serves me correctly.

Originally Posted by woj (Post 17753490)

That shaving "algorithm" he described sounds like bs... it makes 100 times more sense to shave 10% or 20%, etc instead of some awkward 1-9 "skip" system...

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17753526)

Maybe I read it wrong but it sounded like the alleged script didn't count every 10th sale, making it an auto 10% shave.


edit- I read it wrong. the way it's built (is it exists) allows for up to a 50% shave. Goddamn.

Originally Posted by woj (Post 17753490)

That shaving "algorithm" he described sounds like bs... it makes 100 times more sense to shave 10% or 20%, etc instead of some awkward 1-9 "skip" system...

Originally Posted by woj (Post 17753532)

"[if] your 'skip sale' number was set at 1 which means for every 2 sales 1 sale would show up in your account and so on."

it sounds like 1 = 50% shave
2=66% shave
3=75% shave, etc

sounds like 50% is the lowest shave possible, unless the system allows fractions, like shave=0.5, but that's quite awkward I think, it makes way more sense to just do 10% shave or whatever...

Originally Posted by Tjeezers (Post 17751966)

Than there is something called " Greed "
When a company is on its way out caused by a economical crisis, it is not by definition impossible they handle the same strategy like the bigger companies did to survive, car companies, banks, phones, etc, they cut back. And you can call it shaving or cutting, but when shit hits the van, and your boat is overloaded, first thing you throw away are those things you can buy new again somewhere else. In this case, your affiliates.... Internet is a very fragile instrument, often under or over estimated, and for sure there are people daily making choices between good and right, and those people are everywhere.

These managers who sell shaving as an " Dump your baggage to safe the boat " strategy do not have to work by definition for shady companies. The word shaving is now replaced by good sounding synonyms that sound acceptable and are sold to us in smoke cloud lines, we should feel better. Lot of sponsors play with their affiliates on that way. I dont border me calling them out here. But they used also strategies this year that actually cut in the pockets of the affiliate, and brings them cash on the long run with a higher result of earnings for them. I mean, I call it shaving, someone else calls is a Cut Back. And some people call it a budget necessary evil.


So your " i`ll draw a line between good and wrong " is just not doing it for me. You cant tell me Shaving is by definition connected to shady companies.

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17753600)

Woj and signupdamnit, you guys are right.

It doesn't make alot of sense to shave at 90%. I mean, short term of course it does, but long term the program's conversion would be so awful that the program would lose the traffic.

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 17753663)

Doesn't make sense to shave at all. Though it's tough to prove it's not hard to reasonably detect. If someone shaves me at 1% now how do I know they won't increase that to 50% when times get tough for them. Honesty is the best policy. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Forest (Post 17753444)

i didnt make the statement. i made the mistake of marketing it for them without looking deep enough into the platform. YES it had a built in shaver and someone found it and posted it.

Originally Posted by Forest (Post 17752356)

shaving in the adult industry??????????????????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:1orglaugh