GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Fuckin Bill · 12-10-2004, 08:20 AM

This isn't meant to bash anyone or anything like that. Just some honest thoughts that came to mind after I looked into the Clicktruth program the other night. I'm wondering if it's just me or if anyone else sees holes in how it works.

First thing is that I don't see how any 3rd party piece of software can reliably track or audit anything. It seems that having their software on a sponsor's server is no different than using a third party biller like CCBill...If the sponsor really wants to shave signups, they can bypass the software just like they can drop the referral code before they pass a transaction on to a billing processor. The only way to prevent something like that is to have the auditing stuff embedded into the affiliate software in compiled code that can't be worked around...Or at least not worked around easily without some good assembler knowledge.

The second thing I thought of seems pretty obvious. They get paid by the sponsors they want to audit. Failing a sponsor is like returning a paycheck. In any industry, loyalties usually lie with the money. I'd actually have more faith in a program like this if I were paying them, not the sponsor. How can a company be called an independent auditor when they derive their income from the very companies they are supposed to be auditing?

Then it also says on their site that they will not publish a list of companies that have failed their audits. If this information is not made public, how is it useful to anyone? Suppose "SuperXPornDollars" fails an audit and is removed from their program, but you were not using this sponsor at the time. Later on, you run across this sponsor and decide their sites look good and you want to use them... You have no way of knowing that they were once in this program and failed, and should be avoided. They look just like any other sponsor who has never used the program before and can continue to go on ripping off the unsuspecting. The only way to know if a sponsor is bad is if you happen to be using them, and continuously check the list of approved sponsors (which they do not publish yet) and notice that their name suddenly vanishes from the list.

In theory it sounds like a good idea...But in reality it seems pretty useless to the webmasters in the end. It doesn't seem like it makes anything any more reliable than 3rd party billing does. There was a time when everyone thought 3rd party billing was the answer and would eliminate any possibility of shaving and then people started to realize there are workarounds for it that still make shaving possible. I don't see how clicktruth is really any different. To me it looks like their income is coming from the wrong end of the industry, and in the end, they can be bypassed by a good programmer.

Am I wrong? Is there something I didn't see?

12-10-2004, 08:20 AM
Fuckin Bill Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,020	Some thoughts on clicktruth This isn't meant to bash anyone or anything like that. Just some honest thoughts that came to mind after I looked into the Clicktruth program the other night. I'm wondering if it's just me or if anyone else sees holes in how it works. First thing is that I don't see how any 3rd party piece of software can reliably track or audit anything. It seems that having their software on a sponsor's server is no different than using a third party biller like CCBill...If the sponsor really wants to shave signups, they can bypass the software just like they can drop the referral code before they pass a transaction on to a billing processor. The only way to prevent something like that is to have the auditing stuff embedded into the affiliate software in compiled code that can't be worked around...Or at least not worked around easily without some good assembler knowledge. The second thing I thought of seems pretty obvious. They get paid by the sponsors they want to audit. Failing a sponsor is like returning a paycheck. In any industry, loyalties usually lie with the money. I'd actually have more faith in a program like this if I were paying them, not the sponsor. How can a company be called an independent auditor when they derive their income from the very companies they are supposed to be auditing? Then it also says on their site that they will not publish a list of companies that have failed their audits. If this information is not made public, how is it useful to anyone? Suppose "SuperXPornDollars" fails an audit and is removed from their program, but you were not using this sponsor at the time. Later on, you run across this sponsor and decide their sites look good and you want to use them... You have no way of knowing that they were once in this program and failed, and should be avoided. They look just like any other sponsor who has never used the program before and can continue to go on ripping off the unsuspecting. The only way to know if a sponsor is bad is if you happen to be using them, and continuously check the list of approved sponsors (which they do not publish yet) and notice that their name suddenly vanishes from the list. In theory it sounds like a good idea...But in reality it seems pretty useless to the webmasters in the end. It doesn't seem like it makes anything any more reliable than 3rd party billing does. There was a time when everyone thought 3rd party billing was the answer and would eliminate any possibility of shaving and then people started to realize there are workarounds for it that still make shaving possible. I don't see how clicktruth is really any different. To me it looks like their income is coming from the wrong end of the industry, and in the end, they can be bypassed by a good programmer. Am I wrong? Is there something I didn't see?