John, what is the normal process for the sponsor to apply non-verified sales that have become verified to an affiliate's account. Is it totally up to the discretion and action of the sponsor or is it automatic and done by nats?

Ba. You're smarter than that. Not telling fucking DJ on GFY is not the same as refusing to tell a Nats client who asks.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

BoyAlley made some great points besides the "no telling" part.

If the "defraud system" can be abused because people know how it works, then it's useless anyway.

Basically it's refusing to tell an affiliate what needs to happen for them to get credit for a sale.

Affiliates already know that a sale has to pass through scrubbers by a third party processor like CCBill or through a gateway. And, affiliates know, and we as an industry accept for good reason, that a % of valid sales will get turned away in exchange for protection from heavy chargebacks and fraud.

Now, NATS is coming in with a layer on top of that. What % of valid sales won't affiliates get credit for? What stops affiliates from getting credit?

If a gateway or processor like CCBill has approved the sale and will payout on it to the program, why wouldn't an affiliate get payment at that same time as well?

Why is NATS trying to be a fraud detection system now? Yet another HUGE mistake on their part IMHO. Just serve up the damn promotionals in various fancy manners, provide affiliates with their link codes, and count the damn sales. Leave the fraud detection to companies that specialize in processing.

This is the type of stuff that's going to make affiliates BlubberCunts itch....

I assume they'll either get refunded / not processed or credited later as it isn't a system to scam away sales from webmasters.

Yeah me too.

You are NOT getting paid for the unverified signups. Ever.

The program gets to keep these money.

Thats what I was wondering about too.

He has a point though :2 cents:

These are the kind of questions that NATS should be addressing in this announcement.


Instead they throw us the fact that YES, there is some "fraud detection system" and NO, we are not allowed to know anything about it.

I couldn't have said it better myself.. :thumbsup

Boy Alley for president!!!

Much of this seems to come from the (in my opinion) misguided desire to pay affliates immediately for sales. In order to do this without risk to the program, the program has to apply much higher standards to signups to avoid fraud.

Perhaps it isn't fraud that is an issue, but the entire concept of instant pay. To me this seems to be a concept just begging for a good credit card scam.

For programs considering instant pay, I have a suggestion: Spend some money on new promotional products, customer retention, etc... I would rather wait 15 days to get paid fore very sale and know that you are working hard to retain the customers longer, rather than getting the (pointless) high of seeing my epass account go up by $11 every time I make a sale... except that 30% of those sales might not be good, so I guess I wouldn't even get that, right?

Verified signup was explained yesterday to DarkJedi..

The word verified is a huge clue. You get paid once the signup is verified, in this case when some requirements are met, such as the member logging in, then the webmaster gets credit.

FlashCash has always done this.

No it was not.


Link?

BoyAlley, the need admin access to make sure you had it setup correctly, not watch you like a big brother. If was open for anyone to use I could set my current pps program to use it. Now if I use it, NATS makes sure, you, the webmaster, isn't being screwed over by the program.

Will I use it? I will be at some point, but it will be to track fraud better and not for webmaster payments. Having this is will let me release my pps to the public, I need to to track fraud, it's that bad.

First page, post yesterday.. I explained what it probably is, however I used trials as an example, it should have been for all sales. Maybe I knew this because I read the terms of flashcash, not sure.

No, you do not get paid for unverified signups until they become verified. I didn't think there was any confusion there. If you don't like the numbers, don't use the program. We are requiring and making sure that any program that uses the feature is fully up front with you about the #s (how many are verified and how many non-verified you have). If you don't like the #s, don't use the program. They're not lying to you about it or trying to fool you. They are doing what they have to do to offer the services they offer.

No offence, but I'd like to hear the explanation from NATS, first hand.
They are the software developers after all.


Unless these unverified signups get refunded or voided out, affiliates should get paid on them.

Its comedy that they would not even tell us what it is or the concept behind it.

Is it a riskier transaction? ie, a user that doesnt log in (first of all, the site/client is responsible for a large part of those, as they could be having user/pass/access issues on the site, and they could control that), but if it's in inherently an issue of a riskier transaction, then apply the credit when the chargeback or refund comes in. Or even 'hold it' for a month or 2 until you are comfortable paying it out, if its not refunded or charged back by then.

The way I see it, it is part of a module now and NATS requires ppl to report both unverified and verified. Once you see these two fields in your stats, its quite obvious who is using this module. You alternatively have the option to see who is using it by viewing the license.php file. Im certain MOST programs will not use this as most are NOT right now.

Also, this module is relevant to instant payouts since that is the reason for the fraud control. If youre not using instant payouts, then I dont see why you would be concerned.

In any case, I dont see how this is something to point the finger at TMM, instead of expressing yourselves to the programs that use this module. If all else fails, move on to another program as most ppl already do.

(Note: Score-Cash IS NOT using this module.)

Why should NATS have to explain it? It's right in the flashcash terms, it's FC's job to explain it, since they use it, and they do in the terms. FC has done this for years, I'm not sure why you don't see that either.

Oh, and I agree with you, that an better payout solution could be done with this product.. It really could be a kick ass product later on. But that takes time.

So are they credited/voided if they don't become verified within a certain timespan? Don't assume everyone will just nod and smile without some simple, basic information. Being an affiliate requires a lot of trust. Trust in their program, trust in their billers, trust in the backend software that they run. The more information you share with the affiliate base, the more trust you will build for your backend software, and indirectly for the affiliate program(s) that run it.

That would be up to the sponsor program and I would suggest asking them that. We can't control their credits & refunds.

Ok, so lets assume this isn't NATS. Most, if not all major aff products have massive build in fraud protection and the ability to setup and payout many different ways. CE used to do the craziest program payouts and setups.

Anyway, each program tells you how the program works, you read the terms, you look at the program, and you decide if it works. (not nats here, just any random program).. Now, should the software creators of mpa, truestats, ect.. always explain for the program owners what the program is doing? No, of course not.. That's the programs job, not the software creators.

Just so we're clear, you're dead set against people using NATS to commit fraud, but you leave it up to the affiliate program to commit fraud, this way. Am I reading that correctly?

I think you need to review the definition of fraud.

We require them, as said in here a number of times, that we require them to fully disclose to you the # of joins both verified and non-verified. If you don't like the fact that they use the feature or the %s, then don't use the program. We take on the responsibility to make sure they are being up front with you. We can't force them to conform to a specific business model.

sig spot on this one.

Because they built it maybe?
Because it's acting all fucked up?
Because there are tons of question about it that no one wants to address?

Why does it even exist with all the processors anti-fraude systems and scrubbing?

I have no idea man.

It's impossible to get any answers out of anyone.

NATS, could control the payouts/programs. But that is up to the program owners. I can charge you or credit you for chargebacks/refunds. I can fine you, I can split processing fees, eat them, or make you pay them all. I can force to pay on active trials, or not pay you on web900 signups or pay you less of a % on check signups. It's my program, to run my way, my style. Just like every program, nats or not..

NATS is bad ass, it can be different from the rest, we don't all have to be the same.

I would like to take a minute to post in here and try to return this conversation to a rational discussion.

DarkJedi, if you have issues with FlashCa$h the place to address them is at [email protected] or better yet, since this has gone so far already directly to me at [email protected] I have already ICQ?ed you but I you haven?t replied. The FlashCash forum is in the process of being replaced and is not being regularly checked anymore.

If your ratios or % of verified signups have changed since the switch to NATS I need to know that. To me you are a valuable partner and if something is wrong I want it fixed so that you will also be a happy partner. NATS will do everything in their power to make sure that if there is a real problem it is fixed, it doesn?t matter if you and John get along or not, they want me to be happy, I want you to be happy. We are all working towards the same goal here if we can put aside the anger and get the problem solved.



To briefly discuss the idea of verified signups; we are one of the only, if not THE only program to offer instant payments on FREE trials. This is a huge fraud magnet, requiring an enormous amount of man hours and technology to detect and prevent that fraud. We have found the delicate balance between very strict fraud prevention/detection and good conversion ratios, but it is a fine balance. Verifying that a signup is real is the price to be paid for being able to be paid instantly for these free trials. There are various methods that are used to verify a sale, some are already public, some are not, but detailing them for everyone makes them all useless. If you are concerned that this process is too strict please get in touch me and we can talk about it.



These are all very valid issues for any webmaster to raise, but raising them in this way on gfy where they will quickly morph into charges of scamming and shaving doesn?t help the problem get solved and in the end everyone looks bad.



I would also like to specifically address the claim made yesterday that ?All of the FlashCash webmasters are having the same problem?. This is simply not the case. In general our ratios and % of verified signups have stayed the same before and after the switch to NATS. I realize that this is GFY and we all get carried away, but please refrain from making broad generalizations like this as again no one gains from this.

wow......

Is this a joke? Open a program and you will never ask that question again.

Processors don't catch shit for fraud. They scrub CLEAN sales and let the bad ones through. 99% of the time "WE" ask the processor to check for fraud, not the other way around. We catch it first..

NATS needs, MORE.. A LOT MORE fraud protection build in.

You're right, the (possible) ability to modify the fraud detection to cause more sales to go into non-verified and then not pay out on them on the affiliate program's part isn't fraud. It's just a skim, no big deal. Free found money. Since you didn't answer the question if people can control those fraud detection settings, I'll assume they can be tinkered with. What's 1% of an affiliates sales.. 5%.. 10%.. Hell, even 30% like some on FlashCash's forum are posting about..

Seems to me a great idea is going to cost a lot of programs scrutiny under the affiliates watchful eyes because of some very big gaps in information on how their traffic and sales are being treated.

TheDoc: Soon enough, no sales will pass to the affiliates with all the "scrubbing", yet as BoyAlley points out, the programs will still collect on the sale.

Seems weird, no?

I think this may be the module that makes everyone wonder if in fact all sales get reported in the system. I am thinking NATS needs to back away from this obvious sinkhole of signups.

No, they can not control what makes a signup verified or not verified. However, anything can be fucked with in some form or another. That is why we, as stated above, are requiring that if someone is to use this module we must maintain access to their systems to make sure they are not. Flashcash's overall #s are no where near 30%, DarkJedi just likes to make things up in order to try to make his point rather than using facts.

As far as affiliates scrutinizing the programs they use. They would be silly not to keep an eye on things.