GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   NATS 4 vs NATS 3, who's downgraded? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=922886)

jact 08-20-2009 02:03 PM

NATS 4 vs NATS 3, who's downgraded?
 
If you've gone to NATS4 and regretted it, or you've already gone back to 3 please let me know. We're just about to make the jump to NATS and I'm requesting to start in 3 but they don't seem to want me to? I don't want to have to downgrade and change links... again...

MaDalton 08-20-2009 02:25 PM

well, there is a very big program who just did that after 3 or 4 days. back to V3 that is

LotzaDollars 08-20-2009 03:38 PM

What are your reasons for wanting to go back down to V3?

webgurl 08-20-2009 03:38 PM

twistyscash.com downgraded last week i got an email from V4 to V3
I think Dukedollars did as well ....

wargames 08-20-2009 03:43 PM

I like 3 way better 4 stats are wack :(

Easton 08-20-2009 04:12 PM

we're on v3 and i refuse to upgrade to v4

TheSenator 08-20-2009 04:18 PM

As an affiliate v4 has more tools that are useful to me.

wargames 08-20-2009 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wargames (Post 16214712)
I like 3 way better 4 stats are wack :(

Gotta love Nats and John 1 of the issues was fixed (sponsor related) before my post and the other will be on the next nats patch. Nats is the best :thumbsup

kaori 08-20-2009 04:41 PM

as an affiliate, I tend to have problems with NAT v4 on Firefox and Opera..
IE is great though...

bdld 08-20-2009 04:42 PM

v4 is more time consuming for an affiliate to use. the only thing i like is the stats info.

Major (Tom) 08-20-2009 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webgurl (Post 16214690)
twistyscash.com downgraded last week i got an email from V4 to V3
I think Dukedollars did as well ....

We had nats v4 installed. We never flipped the switch because we needed Doc to get more familiar with it. That's the only reason. I would love to be on v4.

:)
Duke

jact 08-20-2009 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker (Post 16214987)
We had nats v4 installed. We never flipped the switch because we needed Doc to get more familiar with it. That's the only reason. I would love to be on v4.

:)
Duke

Good feedback.

jact 08-20-2009 04:49 PM

BTW this thread absolutely is not bashing TMM in any way. I'm just looking for people with experience with 4 to sound off so I know what I'm talking about tomorrow in my meeting with John.

robwod 08-20-2009 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdld (Post 16214968)
v4 is more time consuming for an affiliate to use. the only thing i like is the stats info.

:thumbsup +1

The default FHG system is just disgraceful in how many clicks it takes just to get a set of links, as compared to v3.

When it comes down to it as an affiliate, I only use v4 sponsors as an absolute last resort when I can't find a sponsor who offers more easily accessible FHG's with comparable content.

The exception to this (in my experience) is Medium Pimpin, who have a superior custom FHG system to circumvent the inferior default FHG system inherent in v4.

Incidentally, while the stats are a nice touch, most all nats4 sponsors I have tried are dreadfully slow compared to their v3 counterparts.

TMM_John 08-20-2009 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod (Post 16215064)
:thumbsup +1

The default FHG system is just disgraceful in how many clicks it takes just to get a set of links, as compared to v3.

When it comes down to it as an affiliate, I only use v4 sponsors as an absolute last resort when I can't find a sponsor who offers more easily accessible FHG's with comparable content.

The exception to this (in my experience) is Medium Pimpin, who have a superior custom FHG system to circumvent the inferior default FHG system inherent in v4.

Incidentally, while the stats are a nice touch, most all nats4 sponsors I have tried are dreadfully slow compared to their v3 counterparts.

How would you design the FHG listing if you could design it any way you wished?

(also, you shouldn't see any performance issues on v4, if you are, please let me know where you are seeing them)

mpahlca 08-20-2009 05:23 PM

I still think Nats really hasnt done enough its better than all the alternatives but just lacks a lot of things that would really make it killer. Just my :2cents

Sausage 08-20-2009 05:36 PM

Yeah definitely sticking to 3 ... don't wan't 4 yet especially with all the terrible feedback we have had about it. Using 3 on 2 programs.

robwod 08-20-2009 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM_John (Post 16215090)
How would you design the FHG listing if you could design it any way you wished?

John, v3 was superior in speed alone compared to 4. But for a quick dump capability, I defy anyone to come up with a better solution than the one Medium Pimpin implemented on v4 for FHG's. Fast, efficient, and vastly superior. It is certainly the exception on v4 rather than the rule.

NScash's own FHG system, while not on NATS4, is comparable if you're looking for examples of an efficient FHG system.

Quote:

(also, you shouldn't see any performance issues on v4, if you are, please let me know where you are seeing them)
I'd rather not throw any one company under the bus in public... but suffice it to say that I have yet to see a single v4 FHG system not make me sit and wait with each "display" versus how fast the results are returned on v3 versions -- regardless of the hardware it is installed on. One large company who recently reverted back to 3 has incredibly powerful servers and v4 still performed slower than any v3 install I have used. I was both relieved, and happy, they went back to 3.

cLin 08-20-2009 05:49 PM

for those on v3, is there anyway to get the pricing options to be buttons instead of a dropdown like it currently is? That's probably my only gripe. =\

TMM_John 08-20-2009 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod (Post 16215182)
John, v3 was superior in speed alone compared to 4. But for a quick dump capability, I defy anyone to come up with a better solution than the one Medium Pimpin implemented on v4 for FHG's. Fast, efficient, and vastly superior. It is certainly the exception on v4 rather than the rule.

NScash's own FHG system, while not on NATS4, is comparable if you're looking for examples of an efficient FHG system.


I'd rather not throw any one company under the bus in public... but suffice it to say that I have yet to see a single v4 FHG system not make me sit and wait with each "display" versus how fast the results are returned on v3 versions.

So you'd like a dump by default, a textarea?


Regarding the speed issues, you're certainly not throwing anyone under the bus, if they have an issue we'd like to address it. You're helping them. If you'd like you can contact me privately of course also.

BestXXXPorn 08-20-2009 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod (Post 16215064)
:thumbsup +1

The default FHG system is just disgraceful in how many clicks it takes just to get a set of links, as compared to v3.

When it comes down to it as an affiliate, I only use v4 sponsors as an absolute last resort when I can't find a sponsor who offers more easily accessible FHG's with comparable content.

The exception to this (in my experience) is Medium Pimpin, who have a superior custom FHG system to circumvent the inferior default FHG system inherent in v4.

Incidentally, while the stats are a nice touch, most all nats4 sponsors I have tried are dreadfully slow compared to their v3 counterparts.

I'm not understanding where all these clicks come in... If you're at tools, you click the Hosted Tab and then select what type of galleries you would like (Pic, Vid, Mix, etc...). Maybe the v4 implementations you've seen are just poorly done? Checkout TeenModelCash, I love their setup. That's only two clicks to get where you're going (not including arriving at the section). So I'm not quite sure what you're referring to...

IMO v4 is vastly superior to v3 in terms of functionality, reporting, and ease of use. I have noticed a few minor bugs relating to selecting large time frames and displaying the charts but that's nothing too major...

Brad Mitchell 08-20-2009 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpahlca (Post 16215106)
I still think Nats really hasnt done enough its better than all the alternatives but just lacks a lot of things that would really make it killer. Just my :2cents

Tough crowd! It's the best but needs more stuff... send John a list! I'm sure he'd love the feedback :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdld (Post 16214968)
v4 is more time consuming for an affiliate to use. the only thing i like is the stats info.

The best affiliates spend the most time sending hits not checking stats :1orglaugh lol j/k

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact (Post 16214327)
If you've gone to NATS4 and regretted it, or you've already gone back to 3 please let me know. We're just about to make the jump to NATS and I'm requesting to start in 3 but they don't seem to want me to? I don't want to have to downgrade and change links... again...

I'm offended you haven't called me yet to discuss this! :Oh crap



Brad

jact 08-20-2009 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 16215213)


I'm offended you haven't called me yet to discuss this! :Oh crap



Brad

You're my host, what do you know about anything?! LOL, joking. I was actually going to call you first thing tomorrow to discuss this and another matter.

BestXXXPorn 08-20-2009 06:05 PM

Yeah I'm not seeing a major speed decrease on any sites which implement v4... more than likely there could be more complex calculations and queries in the new system as compared to v3, but that's a necessity when offering more functionality. If a site is running slow, it's not the software, it's the hardware. Most likely (since there isn't too much to change in PHP unless they need to add more webheads) it lies within the DB. I would recommend people get some beefier boxes for their DBs and certainly be running a Master / Slave / Slave if they're a large sponsor. There are so many settings in let's say MySQL that you should have a real DBA take a look at your system if it's running slow...

Are people that are experiencing this checking for slow queries and running explain to see where the bottleneck is? What does your HD I/O peak at on your DB boxes and how often? How much memory are you allocating to MySQL? Have you taken a look at the amount allotted to your thread cache, bdb cache, table cache? What about your key and join buffer sizes? Many people don't even know these exist. Additionally, what engine are you running on what tables? There's so much performance you can squeeze out of MySQL if you really know what you're doing...

jact 08-20-2009 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 16215230)
Yeah I'm not seeing a major speed decrease on any sites which implement v4... more than likely there could be more complex calculations and queries in the new system as compared to v3, but that's a necessity when offering more functionality. If a site is running slow, it's not the software, it's the hardware. Most likely (since there isn't too much to change in PHP unless they need to add more webheads) it lies within the DB. I would recommend people get some beefier boxes for their DBs and certainly be running a Master / Slave / Slave if they're a large sponsor. There are so many settings in let's say MySQL that you should have a real DBA take a look at your system if it's running slow...

Are people that are experiencing this checking for slow queries and running explain to see where the bottleneck is? What does your HD I/O peak at on your DB boxes and how often? How much memory are you allocating to MySQL? Have you taken a look at the amount allotted to your thread cache, bdb cache, table cache? What about your key and join buffer sizes? Many people don't even know these exist. Additionally, what engine are you running on what tables? There's so much performance you can squeeze out of MySQL if you really know what you're doing...

I don't know how NATS is written, but if it's anything like Carma, there are some extremely bloated and poorly (read: NOT AT ALL) optimized queries contained in TMM code. We have extremely well optimized servers thanks to Mojohost and Carma runs like a dog even on that. Hundreds of hours of investigation later, it's the queries compiled into the code....

Soooooo I dunno about that one. I'm hoping NATS doesn't suffer the same inefficiencies.

robwod 08-20-2009 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 16215207)
I'm not understanding where all these clicks come in... If you're at tools, you click the Hosted Tab and then select what type of galleries you would like (Pic, Vid, Mix, etc...)

OK, let me explain the v4 process I find *I* have to use with most v4 sponsors:
  1. Click Hosted Tab
  2. Select Gallery Type
  3. On the right column, under limitations, select Dump, and then any other parameters (a default sort of most recent to oldest would be nice).
  4. Click Submit to again show the gallery list but with the newly selected parameters to dump
  5. When the dump form finally appears, you can choose your dump fields and records type
  6. Click Create Dump to finally get the dump you want.

And each and every time you select a new limitation to display, you have to sit and wait for the galleries to show, which on some implementations, is just ridiculously slow compared to any v3 I have used.

Alternatively, a dump on v3 is no less than half those steps for v4, and without the slow responding gallery display queries:
  1. Select Program to use
  2. Select Ad type to use (pics, videos, banners, etc. easily accessible all on one form)
  3. Choose your desired Dump Fields and Click Show. You are finished

Nurgle 08-20-2009 06:44 PM

NATS4 is just a pain in the ass for doing the most simple tasks, as Rob has put it. I seriously suggest you guys hire a human interface expert first before doing anything with it. The number of clicks etc needed to get links, hosted gals etc is just a major pain in the ass.

Even something as simple as getting the refer stats of my sales on a single page appears impossible and i need to check each individual sale (unless im mistaken)

n

BestXXXPorn 08-20-2009 06:45 PM

Ah then judging from everyone's replies it does seem to be a matter of speed.

@jact Sounds like it is on the DB side then. I would love for someone that's having speed issues to contact me and let me take a look. I would, of course, sign an NDA and I can supply a whole list of references if you'd like as I know the data is sensitive.

I also invite TMM to contact me if they have a system already setup with a large amount of data and can simulate high usage. I'd love to help out. Are you guys looking to hire a CTO or Senior PHP developer? :)


@robwod It sounds like v4 could use a bit of display:none/block action to hide/unhide content areas rather than refreshing the entire page. Perhaps some repopulating of select boxes and things based on other selections to avoid page refreshes as well. I'm sure some AJAX would also go a long way to minimizing requests rather than running a whole page worth of queries over again... and like you said. Remembering previous preferences would also be nice for that area.

RyuLion 08-20-2009 06:52 PM

I'm sure the guys at TMM are waiting for affiliate feedback to improve their script. Its always a good habit to have a good friendly communication system with the software that's displaying how many $/RIO you could be making.

Not only you will be more happy but your wallet will be too..:2 cents:

SomeCreep 08-20-2009 06:54 PM

As an affiliate, I like NATS version 3 way more than version 4.

The interface with NATS version 3 is simple to use and straight to the point.

The interface with NATS version 4 is cluttered and non-intuitive.

Major (Tom) 08-20-2009 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact (Post 16214996)
BTW this thread absolutely is not bashing TMM in any way. I'm just looking for people with experience with 4 to sound off so I know what I'm talking about tomorrow in my meeting with John.

V4 is so much more web 2.0 i guess you could say.
Duke

GrouchyAdmin 08-20-2009 08:05 PM

Whenever possible, I choose V3 over V4. Not only due to the fact that I have several things tied to V3 that just work, I don't need to move to incompatible backwards link codes - and I absolutely detest the goddamn skins.

I haven't seen forech pairs nested 50 deep before.

Major (Tom) 08-20-2009 08:10 PM

Another thing to point out.
TMM has always listened to affiliates and adapted, changed, improved every time they were ever faced with an obstacle. Trust me, the first version of nats wasnt easy either and they fixed that. The same will happen with v4.
If there was a way to import all your v3 settings into v4, kinda like disk imaging on a mac, we all would be on v4. I wish it were that simple :)
Duke

xxxjay 08-20-2009 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker (Post 16214987)
We had nats v4 installed. We never flipped the switch because we needed Doc to get more familiar with it. That's the only reason. I would love to be on v4.

:)
Duke

Nats 4 is horrible. We asked to be switched back to 3 and they told us it couldn't be done.

xxxjay 08-20-2009 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact (Post 16214327)
I don't want to have to downgrade and change links... again...

I would think there would be serious compatibility isssues for anyone who put links up using the NATS 4 codes. They would be forward compatible but not backwards.

georgeyw 08-20-2009 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod (Post 16215064)
:thumbsup +1

The default FHG system is just disgraceful in how many clicks it takes just to get a set of links, as compared to v3.

I was attempting to get gallerys from a sponsor yesterday and I couldn't for the life of me get a single friggin link. Ended up closing the window and not using that sponsor.

greater than less than - for fucks sake the affiliate area is written in mumbo jumbo 'limitations' etc... Why everything was screwed up like that I have no idea, stats look great but I defy anyone to get a gallery dump. :mad:

Why break what wasn't broken?

Also what is the point of completely changing they way an affiliate interacts with the interface? I don't want to have to relearn how to use an admin panel every time it (up)grades :mad:

xxxjay 08-20-2009 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgeyw (Post 16215882)
I was attempting to get gallerys from a sponsor yesterday and I couldn't for the life of me get a single friggin link. Ended up closing the window and not using that sponsor.

greater than less than - for fucks sake the affiliate area is written in mumbo jumbo 'limitations' etc... Why everything was screwed up like that I have no idea, stats look great but I defy anyone to get a gallery dump. :mad:

Why break what wasn't broken?

Also what is the point of completely changing they way an affiliate interacts with the interface? I don't want to have to relearn how to use an admin panel every time it (up)grades :mad:

Yes, the limitations are a limitation. On the bright side, the TMM guys are reading this thread and actually do care what everyone thinks and are working to resolve it, so I won't turn this thread into a TMM hate thread.

jact 08-21-2009 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay (Post 16215941)
Yes, the limitations are a limitation. On the bright side, the TMM guys are reading this thread and actually do care what everyone thinks and are working to resolve it, so I won't turn this thread into a TMM hate thread.

Exactly. Tmm have made countless changes to carma for us over the years.

boneless 08-21-2009 01:26 AM

for me runnnig a big mgp network, nats4 is a pain in the ass.

Its allready been pointed out but in v3 i can make gallery dumps at the speed of light whilst in v4 it takes just so much effort to output listings for the sites i want to have, in v3 it was easy working.

i really loved the stats v3 was putting out. easy to read.

v4 to me seems to be a bit too much loaded with stuff the average affiliate really doesnt wanna see. The design is slick, but i guess we got all got used to v3 and loved it the way it was.

georgeyw 08-21-2009 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay (Post 16215941)
Yes, the limitations are a limitation. On the bright side, the TMM guys are reading this thread and actually do care what everyone thinks and are working to resolve it, so I won't turn this thread into a TMM hate thread.

I'm not trying to hate on TMM, just venting my frustrations. I really don't understand the thought process behind the changes to be perfectly honest.

Any webmaster that was used as a beta tester and thought that was great needs their balls removed with a spoon :2 cents:

Hopefully they get it sorted out ASAP.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123