dynastoned

I couldn't have said it better myself..

Snake Doctor

Boy Alley for president!!!

__________________
sig too big

RawAlex

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?

TheDoc

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.

__________________

DarkJedi

No it was not.


Link?

TheDoc

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.

__________________

TheDoc

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.

__________________

TMM_John

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.

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

DarkJedi

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.

SCORE Ralph

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.)

__________________

TheDoc

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.

__________________

TheDoc

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.

__________________

jact

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.

__________________
Free agent

BoyAlley

TMM_John

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

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

TheDoc

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.

__________________

jact

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?

__________________
Free agent

BoyAlley

TMM_John

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.

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

squishypimp

sig spot on this one.

__________________

DarkJedi

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?

DarkJedi

I have no idea man.

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

TheDoc

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.

__________________

Buddy

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.

__________________
-165486536
Disce quotidie * Ride quotidie * Ama quotidie * Cresce quotidie

FlashCa$h
Who the hell am I?

TDF

wow......

__________________
Sig heil

TheDoc

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.

__________________

jact

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.

__________________
Free agent

RawAlex

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?

RawAlex

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.

TMM_John

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.

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

TheDoc

If the processor scrubs then we don't make the sale either. FC stated they have "free" signups with "instant" payments.. They get charged for free signups, you don't make money on them. Now that I know they have free signups this makes even more since. And, only one NATS program is doing this.. And they are honest and clear about it.

__________________

Nicky

Remind me to never use a sponsor with this implemented, id rather be paid out weekly or b-weekly.....

__________________

jact

Please note, my above posts are not accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply trying to point out the rather large holes where people could slip the titanic through to get away with skimming some off the top. Is NATS responsible? No, but I'd like to know their stance on it as they've gone out of their way to ensure people didn't steal in other situations. Hell, I even considered a license to NATS, and I wouldn't if I didn't feel it was a good product.

__________________
Free agent

jact

One of the people complaining on their forum was using paid signups and was claiming a 30% non-verified ratio, so it's a little bit of both. Part of that could however be their traffic source and method of promotion.

__________________
Free agent

jact

Thank you for your direct and honest answer, as I stated above, I'm not attacking you nor NATS, I just want to understand as much of the situation as I can from all points of view. It'd be like buying a car without knowing if it had an engine, and if that engine was able to run. Bad analogy I know, but I'm tired.

__________________
Free agent

RawAlex

TheDoc, without being able to see what is going on it the background, there is no way for an affiliate to really know. While we all have to have trust in a program, I would prefer to know exactly under what circumstances I get paid and what circumstances I don't get paid on.

It also opens a can of worms, because other programs could easily adopt the use of this module and suddenly a new level of fraud detection comes into the game, which some could very easily use as the "acceptable" way to skim from a NATS system. Just like programs pushing chargebacks onto affiliates, one program does it, and then everyone else slowly comes in and does the same, pushing the monetary risks of fulfilling a customer after the sale back onto the affiliates.

I think NATS has just created a "full disclosure" skim module of sorts. I can smell the potential abuses from a mile away.

TMM_John

Jact, I have no problem with people raising concerns. There's no reason people should ever be silent if they think there may be an issue. The problem is that GFY has too many people who sit on the other extreme which is just as bad. They just love to come up with conspiracy theories and think the world is out to get them. There is no good at either extreme. An informed discussion somewhere in the middle is what helps things improve and progress.

In short, there are way too many people here who think that we never landed on the moon.

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

DarkJedi

This is a standard, vanilla reply from a program owner. Do you know how many times I went over this with David? Yes, I already know that "everything is fine on your end"



I don't see how it's any different with paid trial.
A fraud is a fraud. If some is going to card a program, he might as well do it to $35-$40 PPS programs, not you.




You should go check your own forum and read what people have to say.

TheDoc

Yes, I could add it in. But I have paid trials and stuff, nobody would use me if I had this. Maybe if I had a big pps program, but not as a revshare. I don't see any revshare company using this for payment. And don't forget, you have to disclose that you have it in your terms.

CB's / Refunds, ect.. It's really mixed up between the revshare companies. Some do, some don't, some split. Like, I split the epassporte fee, all of $1. But that's me, others do it differently.

__________________

DarkJedi

Yeah sure, I have nothing better to do than photoshop these up

http://www.darksidedata.com/gfy/flashcash.gif
http://www.darksidedata.com/gfy/flashcash2.gif
http://www.darksidedata.com/gfy/flashcash3.gif

TheDoc

Aren't the signups "free" signups mostly?

__________________

RawAlex

TheDoc, if 5 or 10 of the bigger nats programs put it in place, you could add it without issue, and suddenly have a nice way to filter off... what, 10%? 10% probably wouldn't piss off the affiliates much (it's security people!), and you could boost your bottom line.

It isn't about any individual program doing it, as much as it catching on as a defacto standard in the industry. Too many things have happened in the last few years that suck the money out of the affiliates pockets, all the while larger program owners run around in fur hats and driving Ferraris screaming "best month ever!". Considering the number of "close to the line" and "way fucking over the line" methods that have been used, I can see this fraud module getting turned into a shave module very easily.

Just one of those things.

BoyAlley

What I'd say is that this module is poorly conceived, and even more poorly implemented.

I think that what happened is 1 client of theirs said hey we'll move to your software if you can make it do X, and Nats made it do X and released it to everyone else as well, perhaps without putting enough thought into it.

Look at it this way:

What percentage of "unverified" signups become real-world refunds or chargebacks? That's the REAL number everyone should be asking about.

If 99% of "unverified" signups turn into real-world chargebacks or refunds, then 1% of "unverified" signups are legitimate, and affiliates are losing 1% of that income.

While I have no data, coming from an information security and user profiling background, I can tell you I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt that this system would be ANYWHERE NEAR that number.

So if the system is 99% effective on "unverifieds", affiliates lose 1% of sales of those. What happens if it's 90% effective? Affiliates lose 10% of "unverified" sales that are actually legitimate.

That starts to add up to a LOT of money, and if there's no way for an affiliate to know they'll eventually get credit for those sales or not, they have every right to be bitchy.

What this module NEEDS to do, is take those "unverified sales", and automatically make them "verified" so that affiliates get paid out on them, after X period of time has elapsed without refund or chargeback.

THAT's what needs to happen.

This way you're saying to the affiliate: Hey we'll give you instant payout on these sales that we're comfortable with. There are a few sales that are a little questionable to us, so we're going to hold those until the regular payout date, when you would have gotten payment for them anyway.

I don't think anyone would bitch about that.

It sounds like flashcash was mostly using this system to protect themselves with their free signups program (from what I understand), but now that it can also be used by programs for paid signups as well, the ill conceived notion of this entire system becomes amplified.

TMM_John

Your stats are 22% not 30%.

And yes. I'm not saying no one has higher %s. Or that your #s aren't higher than the average. You keep saying EVERYONE (or MOST) has a 30% rate. That is completely and absolutely false. The problem is you are impossible to argue with. You did it last night and you did it today. You can't just make things up and use words like "all" based on a few exmaples. Of course the people with bad #s are going to complain. Those with 2% rates you won't hear from.

I am not arguing with you anymore. There is no point when you make up whatever you want and say whatever you want with no regard for the truth.

__________________

Skype: JohnA1078
Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

Buddy

I have no interest in arguing on the internet. As I said I have a vested interest in solving this problem for you as I want you to be happy with our program. If you want that help please contact me. I hope you do.

We have tens of thousands of webmasters around the world, there are always going to be a handful of them that are upset about something. But the truth is that nearly all of them are doing fine and are happy with the system. You clearly aren't, let's solve the problem.

__________________
-165486536
Disce quotidie * Ride quotidie * Ama quotidie * Cresce quotidie

FlashCa$h
Who the hell am I?

TheDoc

Yeah, I don't think any big programs will add this to the current system. You might get it added for a new program, maybe with higher payouts or free signups, but not just added in.

Trial Member Areas have been around for 5-6 years, and still 75% of the programs don't have them in, and they make earn the program instant growth.

__________________

DarkJedi

Whats your point?

DarkJedi

Why not? I have nothing to hide, do you?

Why don't yuo address the questions publicly?

BoyAlley

DarkJedi

22% looks kinda near 30% to me


So answer me, 20% of my sales are Credit Card fraud?