Too Much Media (NATS) announcement regarding verified joins and instant payouts - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 07:45 PM

150 KNATS on your balls again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum-x

You sure get your accounts disabled a lot don't you.

Good thing I don't need 'em huh.

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

12clicks actually made some very good points in his post. While your reply is, well, stewpid.

Repeat please...I couldn't understand you with his dick in your mouth.

miss_twisted · 12-04-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

this is what happens to an industry that continues to cater to the lowest common denominator. More free porn, higher payouts, higher payouts, weekly payouts, daily payouts, INSTANT payouts!

when I started out as a free site webmaster I conducted myself as a businessman, I only dealt with other businessmen. I was paid monthly. I wasn't in business to score beer money by the end of the day.
Instant payouts?
Here's an idea, program owners, conduct your business the way that would make your grandparents proud of your ethics. Affiliates, stop acting like you're in this business until next week.

No offense to FC, they are providing a service someone thinks is necissary.
Its a sad commentary on the state of the industry that we're foolish enough to think its necissary, and even sadder that we accomodate it.

I can see where instant payouts could be a good boost for a program just getting off the ground or to eliminate any trust issues and what better way for a webmaster to feel secure. Give them there money instantly. When you and I started in this biz there were not nearly as many companies out there to work with and even less you could trust, now there are too many however the trust still isn't there. If this module was done properly it would be a great way to eliminate the trust issue, however as it stands right now it seems to be having the opposite effect. Figure it out and I would be on board in a heartbeat.

How many times have we all heard the story about a company going out of biz and never paying their affiliates what is rightly theirs, too many, this would eliminate any chance of that with the exception of a few dollars. I agree though company's should conduct themselves in a manner their grandparents would be proud of but in this world do you really think that is ever going to happen 100%, sadly, probably not.

and dont princess me! lol ;)

quantum-x · 12-04-2006, 08:08 PM

I guess the other option is as follows:
Program owners running NATS sans verification-

JD · 12-04-2006, 08:08 PM

the only thing about this that really bothers me is the what happens to the unverified joins? DO they get refunded/voided or do they NOT.

If NOT that's fucking shaving.

rowan · 12-04-2006, 08:12 PM

Yeah, as others have asked... if a transaction is paid by the biller 2-3 weeks later then does it change to verified?

12clicks · 12-04-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

Repeat please...I couldn't understand you with his dick in your mouth.

let me try to explain.

I'll bet your landlord needs spell checker too.

12clicks · 12-04-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_twisted

I can see where instant payouts could be a good boost for a program just getting off the ground or to eliminate any trust issues and what better way for a webmaster to feel secure. Give them there money instantly. When you and I started in this biz there were not nearly as many companies out there to work with and even less you could trust, now there are too many however the trust still isn't there. If this module was done properly it would be a great way to eliminate the trust issue, however as it stands right now it seems to be having the opposite effect. Figure it out and I would be on board in a heartbeat.

How many times have we all heard the story about a company going out of biz and never paying their affiliates what is rightly theirs, too many, this would eliminate any chance of that with the exception of a few dollars. I agree though company's should conduct themselves in a manner their grandparents would be proud of but in this world do you really think that is ever going to happen 100%, sadly, probably not.

and dont princess me! lol ;)

FC isn't new. princess.
its just another example of good intentions lowering the industry bar.

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

let me try to explain.

I'll bet your landlord needs spell checker too.

Why all the hate brother man?

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

Why all the hate brother man?

OH SHIT! Just read 12clicks info. Sorry "brother woman".

12clicks · 12-04-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

Why all the hate brother man?

hate? you're new around here, aren't you?

miss_twisted · 12-04-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

FC isn't new. princess.
its just another example of good intentions lowering the industry bar.

No I know FC isn't new...in fact I wasn't even thinking about them, just instant payments...

Hey and thought I told you not to princess me! That's it, no spanking for you!

miss_twisted · 12-04-2006, 08:35 PM

Think about it a little, does it really lower the bar? I think it may in fact raise the bar, how many companies do you know that can afford to do instant payments, suck up all the risk in the process, and sustain that for an extended period of time, it's like PPS they would have to have quite a bit of up front capital, in this day and age I would say only a handful could do it. That handful could monopolize the affiliate market and finally leave webmasters with a good taste in their mouth(no pun intended), there would be no more worry about sending to many joins to one company and having them go belly up before the check arrived.

aico · 12-04-2006, 08:47 PM

When BoyAlley turns off the yellow, it's serious business... good points though.

BoyAlley · 12-04-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

When BoyAlley turns off the yellow, it's serious business... good points though.

GURL you know I'm fureal when I turn off teh yellows!

aico · 12-04-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

GURL you know I'm fureal when I turn off teh yellows!

It would have been nice to have some of your comments responded to.

Nicky · 12-04-2006, 09:08 PM

Pay me once a week and that is almost too often

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_twisted

how many companies do you know that can afford to do instant payments, suck up all the risk in the process, and sustain that for an extended period of time

Probably all of them that keep the money from all the "un-verified" sign ups.

miss_twisted · 12-04-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

Probably all of them that keep the money from all the "un-verified" sign ups.

you may have me there, but I doubt they could sustain it, it is like borrowing from peter to pay paul, eventually that comes back to bite you in the ass.

auscguy · 12-04-2006, 09:57 PM

This is a very interesting thread, I got out of the industry 4 years ago and am just starting to get back into it, boy how things have changed!
After just going through the last 4 pages of this thread there are alot of very interesting comment and points.
One that Im not sure if I missed or not is....with NATS, is FlashCash the only or one of the only businesses using it for the purpose of instant payouts as well as fraud control? Or are other sponsors using it for instant payouts too? Seems most at present are using it mainly for fraud control, am I wrong? If so, Im sure you'll all let me know

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

This is a very interesting thread, I got out of the industry 4 years ago and am just starting to get back into it, boy how things have changed!
After just going through the last 4 pages of this thread there are alot of very interesting comment and points.
One that Im not sure if I missed or not is....with NATS, is FlashCash the only or one of the only businesses using it for the purpose of instant payouts as well as fraud control? Or are other sponsors using it for instant payouts too? Seems most at present are using it mainly for fraud control, am I wrong? If so, Im sure you'll all let me know

Flashcash is the only one currently using this module. We have made it abundantly easy to know if someone is using the module.

If you disagree with FC's business model then you are free not to use them. 1000s of affiliates use them happily and are happy to know exactly what is going on and see the #s both verified and unverified. A few on GFY live for GFY drama.

Tempest · 12-04-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

1000s of affiliates use them happily and are happy to know exactly what is going on and see the #s both verified and unverified. A few on GFY live for GFY drama.

Would you please not make blanket statements like this that are clearly not true just because you can't stand the heat on GFY from the drama whores.

WMs have been raising these issues with flashcash on the FC board since day one of the NATs change and NOT bringing it to GFY. So it's NOT just the GFY drama whores that are complaining.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Would you please not make blanket statements like this that are clearly not true just because you can't stand the heat on GFY from the drama whores.

WMs have been raising these issues with flashcash on the FC board since day one of the NATs change and NOT bringing it to GFY. So it's NOT just the GFY drama whores that are complaining.

I know the numbers. You don't. So I think YOU would be the one who is making statements which you don't know to be true. And again, FlashCash has ALWAYS paid out like this. Everyone keeps saying "since the NATS change" as if we did it. We required them to show both verified and un-verified counts. I would think affiliates would be thankful for this. But, as always, some people manage to amaze me.

SlamDesigns · 12-04-2006, 10:42 PM

Ok...am I the only one that is totally fucking lost in this thread? Granted I started on page 1 and then jumped right to page 3, but yeah...totally lost here.

Tempest · 12-04-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

I know the numbers. You don't. So I think YOU would be the one who is making statements which you don't know to be true.

What the fuck are you talking about.. Jeez you're starting to come across as a major arrogent asswipe who thinks not only that his shit doesn't stink, but it could NEVER stink..

The ONLY thing I've said is that I have 25% of my PAID TRIAL signups NOT getting verified since the switch to NATs.

At first I didn't care about this thing. I even told FC they shouldn't show the two since I knew this is exactly what would happen. But now that I see how many aren't getting verified, I want some answers. 25% on a PAID TRIAL... Is that typical? Sounds damn high to me for a paid trial that's already been scrubbed by the processor. And if you read their board I'm not the only one. And I don't get instant payments either.

So why don't you get your head out of your ass and address the real questions that are being asked. And if you're not able to handle it in a professional manner, then hire a PR person who won't do further damage to your companies rep.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

What the fuck are you talking about.. Jeez you're starting to come across as a major arrogent asswipe who thinks not only that his shit doesn't stink, but it could NEVER stink..

The ONLY thing I've said is that I have 25% of my PAID TRIAL signups NOT getting verified since the switch to NATs.

At first I didn't care about this thing. I even told FC they shouldn't show the two since I knew this is exactly what would happen. But now that I see how many aren't getting verified, I want some answers. 25% on a PAID TRIAL... Is that typical? Sounds damn high to me for a paid trial that's already been scrubbed by the processor. And if you read their board I'm not the only one. And I don't get instant payments either.

So why don't you get your head out of your ass and address the real questions that are being asked. And if you're not able to handle it in a professional manner, then hire a PR person who won't do further damage to your companies rep.

Those are issues that need to be taken up with FlashCash. If you have NATS questions I am more than happy to help you.

evulvmedia · 12-04-2006, 10:54 PM

PBucksJohn: Some things that need to be clarified...

1. Is the vertified/unverified set-up only for PPS programs? Can it be installed on a revshare program?

2. Can the verified/unverified set-up be applied to non-instant payouts?

3. Does an unverified PAID trial eventually convert to a verified trial over time... Yes, no, or you won't tell- very simple question, and BoyAlley asked it much earlier in this thread.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evulvmedia

PBucksJohn: Some things that need to be clarified...

1. Is the vertified/unverified set-up only for PPS programs? Can it be installed on a revshare program?

2. Does an unverified PAID trial eventually convert to a verified trial over time... Yes, no, or you won't tell- very simple question, and BoyAlley asked it much earlier in this thread.

1. It could be used on any program. I myself would never dream of using a program which used it for revshare as I see no reason at all to ever do so. If someone did, it would be disclosed as we have said and you would have the option to do as I would do and never dream of promoting it.

3. I don't pay attention to BoyAlley. Unverified signups turn into verified signups if they are verified. The verification has nothing to do with rebills and they don't magically turn to verified joins after time if they don't pass the verification criteria which I have said will not be posted in detail as it entirely defeats the purpose. If you'd like more details about what makes them verified I would hit up FlashCash as they are the only company using this, and it was developed for them using their input and past experience.

Thank you also for asking direct questions.

Edit: Your questions changed

2. Yes, that could be done using 2 separate programs in NATS as far as I am aware. I would need to verify with one of our programmers tomorrow at the office to be 100% sure tho.

Tempest · 12-04-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

Those are issues that need to be taken up with FlashCash. If you have NATS questions I am more than happy to help you.

Well maybe the issue is that we don't understand where the line is between the two.. Is it the NATs module that's doing the additional scrubbing/fraud control and thus not verifying all the sales? Or is that it's just a tool and FlashCash sets all the parameters how they want.

Perhaps the reason NATs is at the forefront of this issue right now is because from the affiliate standpoint it appears it's the NATs module that's doing this. Maybe you could give us some broad strokes about how it works and how much control the program has over it.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:03 PM

Edit again: I misunderstood your question. Yes, the unverified/verified can be used for any program, but as stated, would be disclosed and you would know the full numbers and have your choice whether to promote it or not.

We can not dictate someone's business model. If they are being upfront and honest about something it is up to you whether or not to use them. We're not going to go down the path of you can and can't do this. We are a software provider, as long as the program is honest and upfront we don't have a problem with how they run their business.

If we say no to something we're the big bad rule industry setter abusing our power and everyone complains. If we don't say no to it we get strung up for allowing it (even tho we require full disclosure). Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Well maybe the issue is that we don't understand where the line is between the two.. Is it the NATs module that's doing the additional scrubbing/fraud control and thus not verifying all the sales? Or is that it's just a tool and FlashCash sets all the parameters how they want.

Perhaps the reason NATs is at the forefront of this issue right now is because from the affiliate standpoint it appears it's the NATs module that's doing this. Maybe you could give us some broad strokes about how it works and how much control the program has over it.

The program has very little control over it. But it was built to FlashCash's specifications as they were the ones who needed it. We avoid writing one off software and our policy has always been from day one that anything put into NATS is put into NATS for everyone. Flashcash doesn't have control over how much is fraud and how much is not. There is a set of rules which is applied the same for every affiliate every day of the week. These rules were in place well before NATS and now that affiliates see the numbers they are complaining.

You said above you suggested to them they don't show the full signup #s, IMO thats absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Affiliates deserve to know the full story, which is what we required of them in order to agree to the feature. I can't believe anyone, especially someone like you who seems concerned about the numbers, would rather NOT see the full numbers and know exactly what is going on.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

If we say no to something we're the big bad rule industry setter abusing our power and everyone complains. If we don't say no to it we get strung up for allowing it (even tho we require full disclosure). Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The second part should be say yes to it, not no. Its getting late here.

auscguy · 12-04-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

Flashcash is the only one currently using this module. We have made it abundantly easy to know if someone is using the module.

If you disagree with FC's business model then you are free not to use them. 1000s of affiliates use them happily and are happy to know exactly what is going on and see the #s both verified and unverified. A few on GFY live for GFY drama.

I see, so was the program designed for both fraud prevention/detection as well as offering instant payouts and if the program is as good as you say, why is only one sponsor who uses it offering instant payouts?

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

I see, so was the program designed for both fraud prevention/detection as well as offering instant payouts and if the program is as good as you say, why is only one sponsor who uses it offering instant payouts?

Usually I just don't answer loaded questions.

There is only one program using it period. There aren't sponsors using it who are not offering instant payouts as your question implied because the only one using it is FlashCash who offers the instant payouts.

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

Those are issues that need to be taken up with FlashCash. If you have NATS questions I am more than happy to help you.

You have not really answered anyone's questions that I have seen.
You just kind of jump around the issue in a defensive position.

That's my view from the outside because I am not using FC or NATS.
I'm just here because I see some interesting questions.

FOR EXAMPLE:

People seem to want to know why 25% of their sign ups are unverified.
This is very high. Your answer is "Take it up with Flash Cash or don't use them".

That doesn't shed any light on how this 25% unverified makes any sense.

You don't have to reveal the workings of the system but some reasonable explanation of the high percentage would make sense.

Say for instance "a particular credit card company is being watched closely because of reported theft and those transactions are not being verified right now". Something like that is an answer.

But since you haven't said anything even remotely like that; it would be fair for webmasters to believe you are just stringing them along with a line of BS.

I couldn't care less about NATS or Flash Cash, but reading your replies in this thread kind of make me want to call BULLSHIT.

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

You have not really answered anyone's questions that I have seen.
You just kind of jump around the issue in a defensive position.

That's my view from the outside because I am not using FC or NATS.
I'm just here because I see some interesting questions.

FOR EXAMPLE:

People seem to want to know why 25% of their sign ups are unverified.
This is very high. Your answer is "Take it up with Flash Cash or don't use them".

That doesn't shed any light on how this 25% unverified makes any sense.

You don't have to reveal the workings of the system but some reasonable explanation of the high percentage would make sense.

Say for instance "a particular credit card company is being watched closely because of reported theft and those transactions are not being verified right now". Something like that is an answer.

But since you haven't said anything even remotely like that; it would be fair for webmasters to believe you are just stringing them along with a line of BS.

I couldn't care less about NATS or Flash Cash, but reading your replies in this thread kind of make me want to call BULLSHIT.

25% is way off from the norm. The norm is far far far lower. Again, if someone has a question that is answerable, I have no problem doing so. "Why is it 25% for me?" I can't, they would have to speak with FlashCash about that.

RawAlex · 12-04-2006, 11:24 PM

John, my questions would be this:

If you install this module, what exactly are the signs? Are those signs completely and totally visible to the end affiliate at all times?

Example: Could this be activated on a PPS program, and they just happen to NOT include the "unverified" column in the stats page that affiliates get?

Also, is there a failsafe way for the software to do a "recheck" of things to assure that the member didn't happen to verify and that the sale was credited elsewhere (or made to disappear)?

What would stop a program from setting up a deal where sometimes the software isn't informed when a new member actually enters the site?

I see the potential here for abuses, are you confident to 100% that this module couldn't be the start of a very nice shaving system?

Same question apply to conversions as well... is NATS 100% on triggering a conversion payout? Is there are way for a member to recur without the webmaster affiliate getting credited?

RawAlex · 12-04-2006, 11:26 PM

Example: Could a program go into the database, and modify the afffiliate code on all "unverified" members so that the actual webmaster who sent the traffic would never see the payout?

TMM_John · 12-04-2006, 11:32 PM

RawAlex; thank you for being direct

It is 1:30am here and as I'm sure you know it has been a LONG day for me. I will be answering your questions in detail tomorrow from the office. Thank you again for asking direct, answerable questions

interracialtoons · 12-04-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

25% is way off from the norm. The norm is far far far lower. Again, if someone has a question that is answerable, I have no problem doing so. "Why is it 25% for me?" I can't, they would have to speak with FlashCash about that.

Well, here's my conclusion:

** There is no such fucking thing as a verified sign up.

- there are only "sign ups", "refunds" or "charge backs".
- There is no fucking way in hell that NATS can predetermine a "chargeback".
- There is no fucking way in hell that NATS can predict a "refund".

If a drunk dope-head signs up and forgets his password before he gets into the site and he types in the wrong email address then he still paid.

Verifying that a customer is not an idiot berfore paying the webmaster explains why a high percentage of joins will not be verified; because fucking idiots sign up all the time and don't even remember the name of the website they joined or how to bookmark the page.

It's just bullshit.

"Instant Pay" is bullshit.
"Verified" sign ups is bullshit.
"Writing code to stop payment of a sign up to a webmaster" is bullshit.

I don't participate in "bullshit".

auscguy · 12-04-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

Usually I just don't answer loaded questions.

There is only one program using it period. There aren't sponsors using it who are not offering instant payouts as your question implied because the only one using it is FlashCash who offers the instant payouts.

Loaded questions??

As my earlier post said, Im recently new back into the industry and had no idea what NATS was, I read the last 4 pages of posts to get osme kind of an idea and was just curious as to what it was mainly designed for that was all.

DarkJedi · 12-05-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

There is an unlimited timespan for logging in to verify the join. It can be 1 day, 10 days, 100 days. Once its verified its verified.

So the transaction is good enough for you to process and rebill, you are just not comfortable paying out on it?

DarkJedi · 12-05-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

If it's INSTANT payouts on FREE signups, then I can understand the policy...I don't know if DJ gets paid instantly or not but if he isn't, he should have the right to not have his account scrubbed as hard as a free instant payout affiliate.

I don't care about instant payouts.

I'd rather wait, without all this bullshit.

DarkJedi · 12-05-2006, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I see that Dark Jedi is still an ass munch, always out to stir up shit and try to make programs look bad.

Buddy offered several times to speak with you privately and answer all of your questions about the program and you refused to contact him, instead choosing to try and make him look bad in public.

You're a pathetic attention whore.

Fuck you, you fat fuck.

I have talked "privately" to program owners MANY times.
They were not able to help me.

I'm losing money here and I should give a fuck whether someone looks bad or
not? Perhaps if they weren't involved in this bullshit they wouldn't look so bad, eh?

It's hilarious how all the program owners jump in and defend NATS while affiliates try to get any questions answered.

Tempest · 12-05-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

You said above you suggested to them they don't show the full signup #s, IMO thats absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Affiliates deserve to know the full story, which is what we required of them in order to agree to the feature. I can't believe anyone, especially someone like you who seems concerned about the numbers, would rather NOT see the full numbers and know exactly what is going on.

I understand what you're saying. But I didn't see those numbers before and now that I do, I'm concerned and have questions. When it comes to a "normal" program, they don't show me how many signups occur and then how many actually make it thru the scrubbing etc. So why should this be different? That was basically why I suggested flashcash not show it. And look what's happened. WMs are fixated and frustrated that they see all these signups occuring that they don't get paid for.

Also, the question has to be asked, why does this case require different reporting unless there's something about it that could be abused. On the one hand I'd like full disclosure from the programs. But on the other hand, my time is better spent building traffic, tweaking advertising and focusing on making more sales. At some point one has to "trust" the programs. What's that phrase? Ignorance is bliss?

Anyway, whether or not the numbers are displayed is a different discussion. You said elsewhere that my 25% is a hell of a lot worse then it should be. So now that I know it's out of whack I have a reason to talk to FC about why that might be the case and maybe what could be done about it.

DarkJedi · 12-05-2006, 01:12 AM

John's been saying non stop here that this feature has been there (on FlashCash) since day one, just invisible to webmasters.

So fucking what? It's out now and people want answers.
If there had been a shave feature from day one, should webmasters now say, "oh well, what you gonna do, it's been there forever" ?

Brujah · 12-05-2006, 01:22 AM

What happens to all the unverified signups? Do you credit the member who didn't login after a certain period? If not, when does the affiliate get paid for it?

BoyAlley · 12-05-2006, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

What happens to all the unverified signups? Do you credit the member who didn't login after a certain period? If not, when does the affiliate get paid for it?

If I'm not mistaken, John just clearly stated the answer to that question is "never".

I believe what he just said pretty plainly is: Even if an "unverified" member never charges back or gets refunded, rebills (even more than once), unless that member does whatever secret magic voodo is necessary to become "verified", the affiliate never gets paid, and the program keeps that cash.

BoyAlley · 12-05-2006, 02:05 AM

Oh, as for this (sorry, I couldn't let it go without responding):

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBucksJohn

3. I don't pay attention to BoyAlley.

Apparently the legitimate questions and concerns that I've raised in this thread (written in an intellectual manner) about a controversial feature that's part of his product offering isn't the type of thing that someone of John's stature responds to.

He'd rather respond to the short mumblings that he can easily dismiss.

At any rate, I've written his name down in my little black book of breeders that act like a bigger faggot than even I am, for future reference.........

Time for bed.

Konda · 12-05-2006, 03:00 AM

Why do people blame NATS for a 'shave function' that FlashCash always had?

FC wanted to use NATS, and NATS told them 'if you want to use our software, you need to show all numbers, including the ones that you don't payout your affilites for'.

If you don't like this you need to complain to FC, not to NATS...

12-04-2006, 08:08 PM	#154
quantum-x Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ICQ: 251425 Fr/Au/Ca Posts: 6,863	I guess the other option is as follows: Program owners running NATS sans verification- __________________ PrettyInCash.com - BoozedGFs.com - TeenGFs.com - JizzGFs.com- MilfUploads.com -

12-04-2006, 08:35 PM	#163
miss_twisted Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 425	Think about it a little, does it really lower the bar? I think it may in fact raise the bar, how many companies do you know that can afford to do instant payments, suck up all the risk in the process, and sustain that for an extended period of time, it's like PPS they would have to have quite a bit of up front capital, in this day and age I would say only a handful could do it. That handful could monopolize the affiliate market and finally leave webmasters with a good taste in their mouth(no pun intended), there would be no more worry about sending to many joins to one company and having them go belly up before the check arrived. __________________ I have no siggy and I want no siggy.. damn no I have one again!

12-04-2006, 09:08 PM	#167
Nicky Judge Jury and Executioner Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 30,069	Pay me once a week and that is almost too often __________________ gfynicky @ gmail.com

12-04-2006, 10:54 PM	#177
evulvmedia Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 441	PBucksJohn: Some things that need to be clarified... 1. Is the vertified/unverified set-up only for PPS programs? Can it be installed on a revshare program? 2. Can the verified/unverified set-up be applied to non-instant payouts? 3. Does an unverified PAID trial eventually convert to a verified trial over time... Yes, no, or you won't tell- very simple question, and BoyAlley asked it much earlier in this thread. Last edited by evulvmedia; 12-04-2006 at 10:56 PM..

12-04-2006, 11:03 PM	#180
TMM_John Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 6,659	Edit again: I misunderstood your question. Yes, the unverified/verified can be used for any program, but as stated, would be disclosed and you would know the full numbers and have your choice whether to promote it or not. We can not dictate someone's business model. If they are being upfront and honest about something it is up to you whether or not to use them. We're not going to go down the path of you can and can't do this. We are a software provider, as long as the program is honest and upfront we don't have a problem with how they run their business. If we say no to something we're the big bad rule industry setter abusing our power and everyone complains. If we don't say no to it we get strung up for allowing it (even tho we require full disclosure). Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. __________________ Skype: JohnA1078 Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

12-04-2006, 08:08 PM	#155
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	the only thing about this that really bothers me is the what happens to the unverified joins? DO they get refunded/voided or do they NOT. If NOT that's fucking shaving.

12-04-2006, 08:12 PM	#156
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	Yeah, as others have asked... if a transaction is paid by the biller 2-3 weeks later then does it change to verified?

12-04-2006, 08:47 PM	#164
aico Moo Moo Cow Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Washington State Posts: 14,748	When BoyAlley turns off the yellow, it's serious business... good points though.

12-04-2006, 09:57 PM	#170
auscguy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: downunder Posts: 111	This is a very interesting thread, I got out of the industry 4 years ago and am just starting to get back into it, boy how things have changed! After just going through the last 4 pages of this thread there are alot of very interesting comment and points. One that Im not sure if I missed or not is....with NATS, is FlashCash the only or one of the only businesses using it for the purpose of instant payouts as well as fraud control? Or are other sponsors using it for instant payouts too? Seems most at present are using it mainly for fraud control, am I wrong? If so, Im sure you'll all let me know

12-04-2006, 10:42 PM	#174
SlamDesigns Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,339	Ok...am I the only one that is totally fucking lost in this thread? Granted I started on page 1 and then jumped right to page 3, but yeah...totally lost here.

12-04-2006, 11:24 PM	#187
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	John, my questions would be this: If you install this module, what exactly are the signs? Are those signs completely and totally visible to the end affiliate at all times? Example: Could this be activated on a PPS program, and they just happen to NOT include the "unverified" column in the stats page that affiliates get? Also, is there a failsafe way for the software to do a "recheck" of things to assure that the member didn't happen to verify and that the sale was credited elsewhere (or made to disappear)? What would stop a program from setting up a deal where sometimes the software isn't informed when a new member actually enters the site? I see the potential here for abuses, are you confident to 100% that this module couldn't be the start of a very nice shaving system? Same question apply to conversions as well... is NATS 100% on triggering a conversion payout? Is there are way for a member to recur without the webmaster affiliate getting credited?

12-04-2006, 11:26 PM	#188
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Example: Could a program go into the database, and modify the afffiliate code on all "unverified" members so that the actual webmaster who sent the traffic would never see the payout?

12-04-2006, 11:32 PM	#189
TMM_John Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 6,659	RawAlex; thank you for being direct It is 1:30am here and as I'm sure you know it has been a LONG day for me. I will be answering your questions in detail tomorrow from the office. Thank you again for asking direct, answerable questions __________________ Skype: JohnA1078 Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

12-05-2006, 01:12 AM	#196
DarkJedi No Refunds Issued. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: GFY Posts: 28,300	John's been saying non stop here that this feature has been there (on FlashCash) since day one, just invisible to webmasters. So fucking what? It's out now and people want answers. If there had been a shave feature from day one, should webmasters now say, "oh well, what you gonna do, it's been there forever" ?

12-05-2006, 01:22 AM	#197
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	What happens to all the unverified signups? Do you credit the member who didn't login after a certain period? If not, when does the affiliate get paid for it? __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

12-05-2006, 03:00 AM	#200
Konda ... Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,280	Why do people blame NATS for a 'shave function' that FlashCash always had? FC wanted to use NATS, and NATS told them 'if you want to use our software, you need to show all numbers, including the ones that you don't payout your affilites for'. If you don't like this you need to complain to FC, not to NATS...