My Fast Adult Traffic experience
 

Well a little while ago I wrote some php to test if I was getting img src hits. It logs the accept: headers into a text file for one. The other part is it increments 2 values in a mysql table. One is called through a php include(so it'll load even if it's img srced) and the other is called through an img tag so it will only load on a real hit.

So far it's about 40% img src traffic. It's only been a few hundred hits, let's see how well the rest of the 10k goes.

This is supposed to be all north american traffic btw. Haven't checked to see if that's true yet.

I wonder if I should get some and install multiple invisible counters in addition to my server stats and see what it tells me between the 3 or 4 of them.

what is img src traffic?

40% img src????:helpme Let's say your method is not up to par... even 30% is insane!

Yeah so far the hits from the FAT stats page match the hits in my SQL table. The image/jpeg type headers also match the amount of hits that didn't load the counter image.

Never can be too careful these days.

If you buy traffic to a page and the counter doesn't get loaded at least 85% of the time then fuck that is what I would say. I know counters aren't perfect so I can expect it to be off by 10%.

whats your sites url and ill show you what it is exactly :Graucho

OK it's 38.5%. The only reason I tested this is I saw the other threads, looked at my server stats and saw I was getting lots of hits from pages that were galleries with broken images. All those broken images were making the status bar go crazy with names of other sites and whatnot.

Wow it's crazy all the bad things I heard about them today.

Thats not good... post the server logs?

The server logs on my webair account don't update real time. But here's the output of the script I've made to show the accept: headers

http://www.picshow.net/choose/fatlog.txt

Watching that and my SQL table real time it seems every time a line like:


image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*

is added to the file, the image counter doesn't load but the php one does.

I say everyone does some chargebacks. See how long they're in business.

It's a way to create a unique visit in your logs without the "visitor" ever seeing your page.

:( :( :(

In this case the img src traffic is because they're sending you ANYTHING that 404s, including images. If an image on a domain they buy traffic from or control 404s then it shows to the surfer as a broken pic; it's really trying to load a buyer's (HTML) site though.

It could be ignorance on their part - not knowing how to apply a simple filter to get rid of 99% of 404 img srcs - or it could be quite deliberate to increase the volume of traffic. Who knows.

this can get interesting....

this makes a lot of sense now

i ordered 10K hits once to a page that promotes a toolbar(a pay per activeX impression toolbar, not gamma's pay per download) and from those "10K clicked TGP traffic hits" the activex console was only triggered 384 times

Can you say how to do it? I wonder if it's something that can just be written to an .htaccess file.

I'd like to have it.

I don't know much about htaccess, but since you're just checking against a standard HTTP header it should be doable. You could probably set it up to divert any traffic that doesn't have the string "text/html" in the "Accept" field. I'm sure a htaccess guru can help. :)

Hmm this needs watching we bought 10k the other day too.

ozzy, 4 hours and no replys anywhere?

LOL, I'm lost. :)

IF you didn't use .htaccess to do it, then how would you? I can kick out robots with .hta, but I never really even thought of the broken image thing.

Let's see how they try to defend this...it'll be interesting

Ozzy and john can just do the right things

1. Return the money they took from dissatisifed customers such as me. I dont want excuses, stories, or "lets make a deal" raps..just the money is fine.

2. see above.

With PHP you would do something like this:

Thank you.

I'll see if there's some way I can get it into my script somehow. Maybe include?

You should've gone with Traffic Shop .

As of now only 63% seem to be real users :(

I tried them once and only once. the traffic didnt even move my trades at all.

if youre buying traffic you really should check out

http://www.adult-traffic-review.com

see what your getting

thanks for the site. I am spending more money tonight and will hit up a few people on your list.

Hit Bottinz...

:glugglug

Hi.

We haven't had a problem with our traffic having high img-src hits in it.

We've been in business for a while and this hasn't been an issue.


The only way I can think of that you'd be getting img src hits is if

A/ we are artificially inserting img-src hits to hit bot to you - which we are NOT doing

B/ one of the sites sending us traffic had someone HOTLINK to them and those hotlinked images are getting 404-ed. Otherwise, the HTML page to which they are going would generate a true and proper 404.

However, having addressed the issue publically, our tech support staff doesn't watch GFY to determine customer issues.

As far as I know, you never emailed [email protected].

Please send us this issue to [email protected] so we can review your information, your logs, etc. and look at it.

It may well be a problem on our side somehow, I am just not familiar with the issue nor have we seen this problem before.

Thanks.

Whomever you are contact me on ICQ at 160541645. We need to talk now about refunds and errors.

I reread this original post.

The HTTP protocol calls for a header variable named "HTTP_ACCEPT". This variable defines which MIME-TYPES are accepted by the client's browser.

This variable should be constant for each client browser, that is to say, it doesn't change what it will accept based on the type of query it is doing.

So in general, if a client says it accepts text/html and */* it will accept everything, as demonstrated by the */*.

When a client browser says */* and other stuff, it's just additive. It already said that it supports */*.

The base point here is that you can't base the type of download being made based on the http-accept, http-accept purely announces to the server which MIME-TYPES the client browser can accept.

We have reviewed the logs from a transaction web site, which does pure HTTP POSTINGs. We have grepped out the client browser type and the http-accept variables and show some output below:

[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; iOpus-I-M)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => text/html, image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, */*;q=0.1
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.11 [en]
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Alexa Toolbar)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/msword, application/x-gsarcade-launch, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
[HTTP_ACCEPT] => image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
[HTTP_USER_AGENT] => Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)

So the point is, HTTP_ACCEPT says what the browser WILL accept, not what this particular request IS getting. Here's an example page supporting this:

http://www.billwood.com/ssivar.htm

If the test script considered all "*/*" versus all those that (lack */* and HAVE IMAGES) then it would show which client browsers were not accepting anything but images, and were not accepting HTML.

Simple fact is, we're not hit-botting anyone. It's awful hard to prove a negative.

But I have shown above that simply looking at whether or not HTTP_ACCEPT has an IMAGE in it is not a good test.

Maybe you should start a new thread?

Fast Adult Traffic answers => ?

Maybe you should start a new thread?

Fast Adult Traffic answers => ?:thumbsup

FastAdultTraffic how many names do you have here?


When are you going to give back the money you got from ripping people off?


I hope if you have used the money you took to buy food and you get food poisoning.

go look here to do your own individual tests:

http://www.fastadulttraffic.com/demo.php

I'm not sure I understand your question about names. My name is John, I don't care to give you my last name so that the crazies can harass my family, and I have 3 names, first, middle, and last. I use the Nick "FastAdultTraffic" on this board.

Ozzy is another person who works with the company.

There are other people who work with the company. I don't care to tell you who they are.

Is your food poisoning comment a death threat?

It's been a while since I've had one of those.

When did you stop beating your wife? Is the closet a good place to masturbate?

We don't rip people off. We do enforce contracts.

If people think they can come by cheap traffic and then get upset when it doesn't perform like cross-sells, then that's a problem I don't know how to fix.

We've shown above that the simple test of "does an accept header hav an image in it" is not a valid test, and we're not hitbotting people.

It's obvious some people have bought traffic from us and been unhappy. We've never ripped anyone off. Sometimes customers have unreasonable expectations and get mad when the 10000 hits they buy for $20 don't turn into sales.

If folks buy high value traffic they can expect higher value sales, if they buy lower cost and value traffic they should have lower expectations.

We've also had many customers that buy and buy again and are happy.

However the people that are pissed off at us right now and trying to smear us are not orchestrating a campaign to make us look good, as Jim told me, they're calling all their friends and getting them to post all these bad made up stories.

So in answer to your question - if there's a problem with our service or performance, we'll work with customers to find a compromise or an issue and potentially issue a refund. We much prefer to do make-good store credit like solutions.

We've had situations where customers buy from us and mis-enter the URL, and we burn traffic 5-10,20k hits to them. When they tell us they made a mistake, we reset the counters and send them the traffic for free.

We don't 'scam' or 'rip off' people. We do have many good smart customers, and some customers that are unreasonable, unethical, and themselves, of shady moral direction.