100 whiney webmasters complaining about shaving.

Third party affiliate programs are NO PROTECTION against shaving. Consider the following two scenarios:

1). Your sponsor has two CCBill (or any third party system) accounts "A" and "B". The sponsor has an affiliate program on account "A". You send your clicks through CCBill's counter/cookie script using your affliate id from account "A". Your sponsor sends some of your traffic to account "A" and some to account "B". You get credit for only the signups on account "A". Anything that goes to account "B" you don't get credit for.

2). You send your clicks through CCBill's counter/cookie script, using your affiliate id. Then after your traffic hits your sponsor's site he redirects some of it back through the counter/cookie script under a different affiliate id before send it to his join page. You only get credited for all of your clicks but only some of your joins.

It took about two minutes to think up those two scenearios. There are probably several more, especially when you through multiple billing companies, payment methods, multiple sites, etc. into the mix. If a sponsor wants to shave you, you can't do anything to stop it. If you think third party is some magical solution you're an idiot.

The only way to limit your exposure to shaving is to shop your traffic around from one affiliate program to another until you find the one that pays you the most. Then continue shopping around
a portion of your traffic so you'll always know who will pay you the most at any given time.

ah, well when I use a third party counter, I use Sextracker. I liked hitbox stats better, but they changed thier stuff and it's popup hell now, even to see your stats there you get bombarded with consoles. I have found Webalizer to be useless.

Strongly agree whit Choker on this one! Not an attorney, but have spent a bit of time in court and put an ex through law school...

Not if you have a good legal team. :Graucho

Who said to state a sponsor is shaving?

All you're doing is stating counting results. I imagine you get a lot of webmasters who buy traffic and then bitch that the numbers aren't in perfect sync with what they show as receiving on their sponsor stats. And that was one of the reasons the tests were performed.

So what is there to fear if these tests are as accurate as you say they are?

As I said before. If they are true and honest you are not libeling any company just stating factual test results, that were performed in mass duplication to ensure their integrity.

I don't see what the problem is here.

Why post if you aren't willing to back up your claims in black and white for everyone to see and judge??

That might be so now but there are some analysts who are suggesting that computer sales and the take-up of internet access in the US may have just about reached its peak.

While the same figures for places outside the US just continue to grow and grow.

Correct
A court would ask me one thing...Where is your proof they are cheating you?

If I could not provide enough proof, I could be counter sued for slander.

ok...
We all know the people shave. Thats one thing.

What cocker has pointed out that many people are failing to see is that some people are shaved MORE than others.

HE has two referal codes. One sponsor. Same amount and souce of traffic.

Referal Code "A" reports in the stats a nicer ratio and more uniques...

Referal Code "B" reports a worse ratio and less uniques being reported.

Both with the same amout of traffic sent, and both sending to the exact same program.

This is what he is trying to say.

More the reason to join the Boneprone Family. If the sponsor knows you are family chances are they will give ya referal code A and not shave you like they do the B group...

Why?

Because we are BP4L bitch.

Bow to the Power.

More than likely its because the shave module is programmed to sync with the historical duration averages of the affiliate's membership sales.

So Affiliate A might average 4 months average re-bllings per subscriber

And Affiliate B might average 2 months average re-billings per subscriber.

So the code adjusts accordingly to balance things out.

How is it that so many in this thread totally missed that and started on about stuff like 2nd page clicks being counted? Oh well :)

it is amazing how few people actually understand the nature of his post.

the point is not that hits are not being counted, that can be for thousand if not tens of thousands of variables. the point is they are not being counted the SAME for the two seperate affiliate codes.

here is a simple example.

say i drop 10,000 (ten thousand) marbles out of my second story window into a large bucket being held by my partner, some will miss, some will bounce out, alot will get caught in his huge bucket. say a total of 7,500 marbles stay in the bucket.

now say i collect all 10,000 marbles run back up the stairs from the same window and drop them all again. this time a LARGE portion of the marbles do not stay in the bucket, this time i only collect 3,000 marbles in the bucket. after close examination i notice someone has replaced my first bucket with a second bucket, this one filled with giant holes.

same type of marbles, same window, same method of dropping them, two different buckets, one complete bucket, one with large holes in it.

this is the point he is trying to make. not the fact that all the marbles did not land in the bucket, but the fact that the first bucket caught a hell of alot more marbles then the second bucket. that is the problem, both buckets should catch roughly the same amount of marbles. but when one of the buckets has a bunch of holes in it, well, it hardly stands a chance.

Choker is having a hard time trying to explain 10 times the same thing. Just 5% orn less of the GFYers read and think before posting.

He is just said that when he sents traffic with his affiliate ID, the sponsor "TEST" counts about 90% of the hits sent and converts 1:1400.

Then lets say I join this same sponsor "TEST" and buy traffic from Choker. He just change his affiliate ID to mine and BAM, just 60% of the hits are counted and the ratio goes to 1:3000.

Looks like some guys are VIP or PREMIUM affiliates (no shaving)and the others have the shave machine turned on.

I would love to see a page with these tests (Choker's X any other affiliate ID)... if the sponsor looks his referer stats and see that the traffic is coming from Choker's program at least the affiliate who bought traffic from Choker will have his account changed to VIP or PREMIUM (no shaving) :Graucho .

Jer

Some smart posts while I was typing.

Thought of it and lots of guys have advised me to do this, hell I hold license to like over 200k pics, but making and running a paysite just does not apeal to me. As far as contacting you, I already did and am waiting on a icq back from you from 2 weeks ago.

Was just about to say that. it seems we all jumped at the same time.

this is what i've alwayse experienced.. that's why i started my own..

spam traffic: 20 - 40% shave of clicks and sign ups
webmaster getting 1 - 3 sign ups per day: 10 - 20% shave
webmaster getting 4 - 10 sign ups per day: 15% - 30% shave
webmaster getting 10+ sales per day: 20 - 30% shave with 2 - 3 days per week of 40% shave

LOL

lol

also seems to go by the time of the day.. first 1 or 2 sign ups come in quick after the new day starts.. then slows down.. then at night when the most sign ups should be rolling in.. they seem to not be anything big..

for 5 months with my sites i had the same traffic every day all day.. stayed at an average.. didn't jump around .. maybe + 5 - 10 sign ups that day or - 5 - 10 sign ups that day.. but 80% it was withing 5 sign ups difference.. if it's the same traffic it's not just going to die off 1 day.. never happened to me once

I shave all the time and you'll still make more with Pornkings then anyone else. LOL

at least you are honest.

please see my sig on another board.

"Compare apples to apples and see who sends the biggest check at the end of the day" - in response to me bitching about shaving to a sponsor.

I hope the free-hosted gay galleries I made for you are converting great :winkwink:

That is because you want to be known as Mr. Smooth.. ;)

I'm not saying you should go to court with the information you posted here, but you could atleast, and anyone else with this experience, tell us what sponsor is not worth promoting because of serious shaving.
Atleast that way we can keep us, adult webmasters, updated about the good and the bad sponsors.

Maybe someone, maybe you choker, can put up a professional website where with some kind of script you can track down if people (maybe people that use your CTTS) give bad comments or good comments on a certain sponsor.
So just a list with all the sponsors out there (with your ref in it so you can even make some bucks) and maybe even a search option so people can search into the sponsor database and look up if there are good or bad comments, and make the best sponsors 'green', the neutral sponsors 'gray' and the bad sponsors 'red'.

You could set something like this up choker, with your CTTS, it might get a very populair place to check out for some good sponsors or see the bad ones.

Just one of my ideas, think about it...

All you've proven there is that after a while, the viewers of each site get sick of a given sponsor, or have already signed up. No proof of time-delayed shaving.

Unless the dented marbles fell differently, the wind changed, you lost some marbles after the first test, or any number of other things changed...

ok. then use my second model.

two windows. two buckets. color coded marbles (so you cant say marbles from window 1 fell into bucket 2). drop them at the same time. let the chips (or in this case marbles) fall where they may.

like i said, choker should run a test that alternates the affiliate code with every other sufrer.

count up the hits sent out from afiiliate code A and B, compare. then compare them to what the sponsor reports.

you take 100,000 hits, divide it evenly, over time, run it 10 times and then post the results. that would be undeniable. anyone who says it isn't is a certified moron.

This has been a long thread for sure (this Q is from page 1).

I'd pay for that script!

Cause they are fucking idiots.

There we go!
:thumbsup

Choker,

first of all, to answer your question. No, it is not proof of shaving. Why? Because you have the simple problem that a test this short does not tell you anything worthwhile. Run it for 2 months, then it might be a good test.

You also did not give a lot of details on how you tested this. The way which would make the data somewhat reliable would be to send for example 20000 surfers randomly to the one and to the other affiliate code. Sending 10k to the first and then 10k to the next has WAY too many changes you do not account in, the 2 most important being:

a) Time of day of where the surfer is.
b) Network usage/congestion at the time

Your way of tracking if they count well is also very dangerous. Obviously, they will never count as many hits as you did. They will always have around 5% less simply because of network congestion and people closing browsers while all these damn Location headers make the browser hop all over the place.
Then, taking b) this can cause for quite significant changes in the tracking on the sponsors side because you might just happen to hit hickhups on the net.

a) is very important simply because people tend to signup more or less depending on the time of day. And a) of course also changes the basic mix of what countries the surfers are from.

Oh, and btw, [spam on] SexTracker do by far not have the best stats ;) They are buggy, slow, inaccurate and still have the same features as in 1998[spam off]

Give me some more details on how you did that test exactly to maybe workout a more exact setup to really get some good info from this kind of stuff.

What about using steel balls rather than marbles? Or maybe frozen peas! What if you caught the marbles in a hat rather than a bucket?

Choker:

I'm relatively new to this business but I've accepted the fact that many sleazy sponsors shave and based on my own stats, I believe that there are a smaller number of sponsors who are honest and don't. What is even more disturbing, is the shave % is different depending on who you are.

Would you be willing to tell us about sponsors who don't shave or at least are consistent across multiple accounts. I don't think you can sued for a recommendation....... The omissions will probably be obvious.
:Oh crap

In 9 years I have seen only 3 actual proof's of shaving complete with screen caps. Only 3 and yeah those were bomb mad page views and the webmasters that proved it ended up out of business or just built there own program for there traffic channels.

When definitive proof comes to light then I think we got something but otherwise... It is truly Rhetoric and posturing.

These days I personnally do not even trust hardly any Traffic Brokers to send traffic correctly and if they so wish they themsleves can shave the traffic and blame it on the sponsor to the purchasing client.

Some brokers are good, some are bad, and just because a broker comes out saying and screaming shave does not mean he is on the 100% up and up. Its dirty hands everywhere trying to grab something pure and when its not achieved a scapegoat will always be made.

This whole thread is really nothing more than the same ol "Sponsors Shave " rhetoric without definitive proof.

Even dropping marbles into a bucket will have various results and someone will always have theories why there were less or more on the various instances.

You can shave other ways will CCBill, they have the option to shave all rebills right in the admin.

maybe 3 years ago...

the best sources of traffic cant feed them all now

Thanks, but the tests I ran are enough to convince me of shaving on some affiliates and none on others. You make some really great points, but to be honest, if nobody wants to consider my results, it's no skin off my back. I just posted them as "heads up" to everyone. A lot of people touch on the fact that sponsors are starting to not rely so much on affiliates and get their own traffic. I am seeing this more and more every week. And in totally honesty, this is better for my model anyway. Of course I would rather deal with 1 sponsor buying a million hits a week, than 20 affiliates buying the same traffic. Big sponsors are coming to me and other brokers more and more to buy traffic directly. I have said it for over a year now that the days of affiliates are numbered, and I stand by that statement. If every sponsor I send traffic to decides to shutdown tomorrow, I will still survive as the model I created does not depend on anyone type of income stream. HOWEVER..........most guys are not like this, they are TOTALLY dependent on their sponsors. If I were in thier shoes, I would start my own paysite TODAY. Depending on one source of income in this business is not a smart thing to do. How many guys went out of business when these processors recently went bye bye?? I know most of you will flame me for this, but what if those same sponsors had big TGPs when thier processors went to the beach with thier money? Well at least they would have had a backup to get thierselves back on their feet.

:Graucho

Other than the occasional newbie who actually thinks that 3rd party counters are accurate, nobody has ever doubted my stats. When my stats say I sent 1000 hits, I sent 1000 hits.

Well guess when this all changed???
When I started to sell paysite traffic to affilate accounts.

So this puts me in a position that I have to be accountable to not just the buyer, but to the buyers sponsors stats versus my scripts accuracy??

So this is what brought on the need for this test. And as a result I will no longer sell traffic to affiliate accounts. Paysites directly yes I will continue to. If anyone ever thinks my stats are wrong, they are welcome to use a script that counts and displays the stats in, versus what my script says.

Christ man. Have you ever tried to catch a steel ball in a hat?!?!? It's fucking almost impossible.

So in otherwards you are saying your not willing to take the bullet when the ratio's go bad and ya needed the buffer.

Your position is not an easy one, thats a given.

At least now you have made a decision on how your going to keep going:)

I know sponsors who are building their own TGP's. Not to mention the fact that stopping affiliate programs will greatly reduce the amount of free porn and make free loaders to join a pay-site.

But of course they can. Traffic is traffic, it's not going to change with or without affiliates.

Want to put some money where your mouth is?

I'll make a friendly wager with you... that within 12 months ALL referral programs as we know them are not at all the same. You can make a list of 'features' and we'll come back next Labor Day weekend and see if there aren't more differences than similarities.

Correct. I am accountable to the buyer, not the buyers sponsor. I don't want or need a buffer. That is why at first I had the rule of not selling traffic to affilate accounts. But so many guys wanted me too, I caved in and did it. And since then all I am hearing is that "Choker my sponsor stats do not match up yours, what is going on here? Well if I tell them their sponosr is shaving them, I put myself in a bad situation. So it's a no-win situation for me. Best thing to do is avoid it entirely. If a paysite owner buys traffic from me and his stats do not match up to mine, then we have a problem I can actually solve without making someone look bad.

By changes do you think Sponsors will continue to put less emphasis on affiliates and generate/acquire thier own traffic?

So many things factor into the whole scenario Choker, I don't know that there's one specific point you can say shaving for sure.

We've had people buy our galleries traffic and completely suck with it, when we've sent it ourselves to the same sponsors and done well -- and we don't always announce that it's our reseller codes to our sponsors, just so we can get a gauge for what is really going on.

With the galleries traffic specifically, a different page can mean the difference between a .5 and 5% CTR, and can also influence sales, since we are pre-selling a surfer if we are doing our job right, before they even get to a tour.

At the end of the day, it's all about the money tho, stats don't mean diddly if your checks not a good one and in the mail relatively soon.

or.. dont do direct link to sponsors.. make a redirect.php that ALL clients that do paysite traffic must host themselves that will track clicks.. alot of clicks dont register from aol's ip's because they have thousands of users on the same ip

Or you can send it to PD and get an accurate count at the front door. :) and convert better than everyone.. :2 cents:

I think that with the changes required by Visa and Mastercard regarding cb ratios and what is and is not acceptable from both the site owner and the resellers (and this part is independent of whether or not you use your own merch acct or an IPSP) there is no way that it cannot change.

The sites with the most chargeback, credit and fraud issues are obviously the sites with resellers.

If I were Visa and I looked at different models, and came to the conclusion that resellers were bad news, I could force a change...

Just some food for thought.

i dont need to bet, things changes all the time
i know that , i have been in this bizz since -96
all i say is that paysites roll isnt so huge today as 3 years ago
more and more free site people start their own paysites
and feed it with their own traffic.

Yeah, but this is a lot of hassle. There are enough paysite owners themselves buying this traffic anyway. And any hits that go to a category that does not have a active buyer in it, is sent to a active tgp order in that niche. And if no active TGP order in that niche, it is sent out as general traffic which is a little cheaper. So the hit is not wasted. In fact I sell the same hit to a tgp or paysite for the same price. Yes I love the word "redundant" LOL