Originally Posted by p1mpdogg

whatever, he clearly does better than 1:1500 and he says we shave and continues to send traffic.

we shave then, i admit it.. send the traffic.

thats the answer everyone wants to hear right?

he should just stop sending traffic to us and save it for OC Cash since they rock so much and are a 'class act'

Originally Posted by badboyyy1974

Q'On some of things you say in your post seem like paranoid delusions to me. You're slandering certain sponsors based upon nothing but 'gut instinct' and absolutely no facts.

"when a program's conversions ratios are erratic, that makes me suspicious" ... "more often than not, they are adjusting your account to insure profitability."

This may or may not be true, but you have posted absolutely zero evidence of this IMO.

Are you seriously trying to say that just because your sales are erratic with a particular sponsor, then therefore that sponsor must be a dishonest thief? I mean come-on get real man!

Here's an example that has happened to me: Bang bros averages 1:430 with me this year (which would be pretty good if only it was 1st page uniques) ... usually their sales are fairly stable, but from time to time i see huge fluctuations with their sales.

What i've noticed that sales seems to be closely related to which model they are featuring that week. The week in May when they featured that bigtits beauty Brandy, the sales soared high, i was getting ratios of about 1:250 ... but this past seven days there's been some ugly bitches and i'm getting ratios worse than 1:2000 2nd page uniques. Which is totally fucked up. But am i calling them dishonest shavers? of course not! I totally love Bang Bros! So, tell me Q'on do those eratic conversions make BangBros dishonest shavers?? of course not!

But that seems to be pretty much the logic you are using to slander those other programs. It's rediculous to be making such wild connections with such strong conviction.

Even if a program was shaving, don't you think the best way to shave would be to slice a small percent EVERY WEEK. And therefore the conversions would be stable from week to week. Who the fuck in their right mind would shave the hell out of one week, and then remove the shave to give massive payouts the next??

Using 'eratic conversion ratios' as your evidence for shaving just doesn't cut it for me :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by EpicJim

...anyone see that this was just a feeble attempt to get attention to his so-called "board?"

Originally Posted by badboyyy1974

Q'On some of things you say in your post seem like paranoid delusions to me. You're slandering certain sponsors based upon nothing but 'gut instinct' and absolutely no facts.

"when a program's conversions ratios are erratic, that makes me suspicious" ... "more often than not, they are adjusting your account to insure profitability."

This may or may not be true, but you have posted absolutely zero evidence of this IMO.

Are you seriously trying to say that just because your sales are erratic with a particular sponsor, then therefore that sponsor must be a dishonest thief? I mean come-on get real man!

Here's an example that has happened to me: Bang bros averages 1:430 with me this year (which would be pretty good if only it was 1st page uniques) ... usually their sales are fairly stable, but from time to time i see huge fluctuations with their sales.

What i've noticed that sales seems to be closely related to which model they are featuring that week. The week in May when they featured that bigtits beauty Brandy, the sales soared high, i was getting ratios of about 1:250 ... but this past seven days there's been some ugly bitches and i'm getting ratios worse than 1:2000 2nd page uniques. Which is totally fucked up. But am i calling them dishonest shavers? of course not! I totally love Bang Bros! So, tell me Q'on do those eratic conversions make BangBros dishonest shavers?? of course not!

But that seems to be pretty much the logic you are using to slander those other programs. It's rediculous to be making such wild connections with such strong conviction.

Even if a program was shaving, don't you think the best way to shave would be to slice a small percent EVERY WEEK. And therefore the conversions would be stable from week to week. Who the fuck in their right mind would shave the hell out of one week, and then remove the shave to give massive payouts the next??

Using 'eratic conversion ratios' as your evidence for shaving just doesn't cut it for me :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Nysus

BY THE WAY:

[In reference to / quote pulled from: http://board.getpaidbaby.com/viewtopic.php?p=3177#3177]
[the board was already posted here Eric, and seems more like an article to me which it should be converted; sorry though.]

"How Do I Know?
my traffic is pretty stable & converts just about the same month to month with all my top sponsors. when a program's conversions ratios are erratic, that makes me suspicious. some moves they're making are affecting my ratios because the traffic i send hasn't changed. perhaps they've removed trials? (like mobbucks)... but more often than not, they are adjusting your account to insure profitability. to them, they don't consider that a bad thing."

That sums up everything extremely well as to why shaving exists, and people can prove that it exists; and if anyone's wondering, stable is different from erratic. Stable would mean that his top sponsors all are possibly having the same fluctuations as eachother, whereas the erratically changing sites

There are always different levels of shaving too; basically whatever the webmaster thinks he can get away with before the affiliate will pull the links and him/her lose the traffic.

Hope this is a good final post. ICQ 129060301 - I will check it occasionally, doesn't mean I'll respond though, sorry. OR [email protected] which I will basically be disregarding.

Cheers,
Matt

Originally Posted by EpicJim

And exactly how does this make us look "somewhat guilty" because we are the only ones with the balls to stand up for ourselves?

anyone who says we shave...i will come out and say we do not...simple as that...I offered up a solution Q'on did not like it...so i figured we would get thread views out of it...worked out quite well as webmaster signups are up the last 2 days....thanks for the thread Jay! :thumbsup :thumbsup