I should do that too to all the sponsors whom own me money.
Good thing to start with in 2007

Jesus dude...

I'm in if it happens. I have few sponser that I suspect of shaving bigtime. One of my worst sponsers in Australia which I know I can do nothing about though.

first of all, why the fuck would you use someone you suspect of shaving?


second, Rawalex, I think you'd be surprised at the number of sponsors who *don't* shave. When you're battling 1000s of other programs for WMs, the last thing you want to do is have bad ratios. I think you're WAY more likely to find programs giving WMs fake joins to keep them around, to stealing joins from them.


oh, and about a lawsuit forcing a program to show all of their confidential stuff because you *think* they're cheating, well, bring an Ipod so when you're laughed out of court it doesn't sound as bad.

And you have evidence ofcourse?

awesome that they won :)

So only smaller programs shave? The major programs are the only trust worthy programs? Somehow I cant follow that logic.

pay your affiiates. lesson learnt.

Isn't AFF / CAMS one of the biggest (major sponsors)? :1orglaugh

What they are doing with zango is shaving. But not only are they shaving their own affiliates by using zango, they are shaving everyone else's signups to other programs.


yeah only trust the big ones, :1orglaugh . they never do anything "shady". They may pay you every week but do you think you are getting the full amount that you should be ?

Your assumption is that they are only shaving signups... that isn't the case at all. Some programs are shaving hits as well, creating better ratios by just not showing all the traffic.

Some programs use tracking methods that allow surfers to get lost while in the tour, or make it very easy for toolbar and malware people to switch out an affiliate code as they enter the signup page.

Some programs create intentional traffic leaks on their front pages, and then only count "second page" clicks... so you have no idea how much traffic got shaved off.

When programs shave off traffic, they can then shave off sales and keep things in ratio. If they have off 100 hits a day, they can shave off a couple of sales too and everything will still be about the same.

There is one program (quite famous, really) that counts somewhat less than 10% of the actual traffic sent to it, as they use a form of unique counting that would make Serge jealous. Their 1 in 200 ratio looks really great unless you track your own hits and realize it is 1 in 2000!

fiddy lawsuits

let this be good example for cheaters

The shavomatic tool that was in MPA3 allowed the program to shave both joins and hits. So they could give you any ratio they wanted.. Or MPA2 what ever it was..

Thats not true. The big guys fuck up too, they just take more people down with them when they go, i.e. iBull.

Yeah, thats another good point.

For those of you that think this is awesome, you are making a mistake, it is one more thing that the gumbent will use against us. Showing that we are crooks, and even cheat our own kind.

Should have tried to settle it the old fashion way. Break some legs.

the only way it is justifable is if the processor goes down or stops paying.. other than that, there shouldnt be any shaving.

You may be right. Certainly sounds reasonable. However the obvious question would then be why none of these super-honest sponsors make any serious attempt to set themselves apart from the rest? After all, given the suspicion with which sponsors are generally viewed, being seen to be honest would surely be a major marketing advantage...

It seems to me that those who can get away with skating close to, and post-Zango, publicly over the edge, are mainly able to do so because no-one is offering a fully credible alternative.

Well, I don't know about that. I went with NATS specifically because of its "not able to be shaved" reputation and found out it doesn't matter. My webmasters are using me because they heard from others that my ratios are good. never was NATS talked about as a reason for joining my program.

Webmasters as a whole aren't the brightest people. offer $100 a join and shave the shit out of them and they'll stand in line and apply their own shaving cream. :winkwink:

you assume webmasters don't know how many jits they're actaully sending to a sponsor.


nonsense. please explain how programs "make it easy to switch out affiliate codes"

you'll lose that argument in court. Counting second page clicks and having traffic leaks will get you laughed out of court.

again, you assume that affiliates have no idea how much traffic they are sending. You're also assuming that they don't understand what their bottom line is telling them.
this will also be laughed out of court.
I think in this day and age suspected shaving is groundless. there may be a few criminals but thinking it is a widespread problem in the industry just doesn't ring true.

this is why I only promote programs that have history with paysites and people who are active in the industry that i can reach on the phone

Shavers, crooks and assholes better beware.