nothing on topic, but stay tuned and ask again in few days :winkwink:

Teencat makes a massive 10 sales a day, RUC has gone private and Magnetron is really bad at maths and business and doesn't understand the word irony. I think that's about it.

How does that matter when making test join?

thank you i am also really happy with my results :) but still, nothing new on topic to see here :)

He did not know the age. And probably just glanced at the video for a few seconds (as he claimed). And age of consent in Europe currently is between 13 to 18 years. You sound as if he saw babies and said they were sexy. Some females may be sexy at the age of 14, 15 and so on. Anybody who tries to neglect that is fooling himself and others.

Bottom line: you try to make it sound as badly/horrifying as possible.

So he *claimed*. But with his history of restraining orders, fraud, stealing content and scamming people, and licking skulls in a wedding dress I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he thought 14 year olds are sexy.

I wouldn't be defending someone like that if I were you.

Then quit pissing.

I got an idea.

Run some quality traffic from multiple sources through a well designed low volume site for a month.

Then, throttle that traffic down to 10% for the following month.

Logic dictates that it will make only 10% of the sales it was accustomed to in the first month.

Right?

This is what I originally said, just restated from another angle.

Right?

Now, you can throw in your 'variables' as to why it will earn less or more than 10% in the second month.

As long as the traffic from EACH individual source was throttled down to 10%, there shouldn't be any variables.

Right?

Of course not ..... because you want to pigeonhole a simple logical equation.

One of the best posts in this thread :thumbsup

Isn't that the point of a "test join"? To see if your account is credited when a sale is made?
Unless they changed the definition of a "test join" over the last 18 years I've been doing this...

Logic may dictate... however the math does not. 95% of webmasters here do not have enough statistically significant data to draw mathematically reliable conclusions about anything at 100%, much less 10%.

The vast majority of "i'm being shaved" in this industry has always been in the end, the admission that "i don't understand statistics, standard deviation and statistical norms"... and never take into account any other multitude of factors which impact sales negatively. Anyone here would have a hell of a time finding someone doing volume that claimed they were being screwed. Of course its happened... but not very often.

"shaving" began as payouts began to rise from 29.00 to 39.00 to 45.00 to 60.00 per sale etc. Ron Levi was the first to announce he was bowing out of that race to the bottom and that was quite a few years ago - Close to 10. MP3 Was built with a shave feature in it which that fucking idiot was spamming on this board and touting as a great feature. However, in todays age of cross sells, better content/unique content, interconnected networks (access to all sites), upsells etc, there is zero need to shave anyone. It's just a word people love to use to externalize failure and a habit which teaches them absolutely nothing about how to move forward and grow.

He says after shaving my entire post into a snippet.

Thanks.

Next time your sites need text, be sure to contact www.EngineFood.com :winkwink:

All this thread is missing is Paul Markham.

Now, quoting your entire post, because you added to it .......

You do realize that nowhere in this topic have I advocated that TeenCat was intentionally shaved?

I'm sure he is reading for a choice snippet to repost out of context at the NOThole.

http://cillik.com/gfy/dancing%20reindeer.gif http://cillik.com/gfy/dancing%20reindeer.gif http://cillik.com/gfy/dancing%20reindeer.gif

I am not defending anyone, merely saying that you deliberately tried to sound as bad as possible towards him. I remember this story and at the beginning many people assumed that he straight up said "I find 14 year old girls sexy". That was the way you implied, at least people reading your posts understood it in a similar way. While the situation was not exactly that.
Just :2 cents:

Indeed, fine sire :2 cents:

At first some people tried to destroy teencat's work by saying that shaving does not matter, only earning per clicks. Now there is additional layer of trying to destroy teencat's work and reputation by saying that test joins = fraud joins.

And the most interesting thing is that not sponsors, but fellow affiliates (?) are back stabbing teencat... Sad.

Great read about statistics and ratios: http://buildinganempire.com/poisson2.html

I did some test joins a few years back and CCBill dropped the ball in tracking a sale that Met-Art acknowledged was made from my site with the subscription ID I received.

CCBill is not infallible.

Especially on days it has database malfunctions that allow affiliates to access the accounts of sponsors.

:thumbsup

It's only a fraudulent join if it's something like buying a bunch of PPS trials with prepaid or stolen CCs to bank off of the 35+pps then charge back/deny it later..

Backstabbing implies doing something deceitful. Nobody in this thread backstabbed Teencat. I made a very sound logical argument as to why what he is doing is nonsense and why I do not agree with his flawed analysis. Others have said that small affiliates are no longer viable (something I don't agree with) but clearly something they truly and publicly believe.

In every case, people have been very honest about how they each feel. You clearly do not understand what Backstabbing is, which is not surprising based on the fact that you also clearly don't know what Shaving is either. This thread has nothing to do with deceit and everything to do with cost / benefit analysis - on both the program owner and affiliate level.

I know!

If we suck so much why do they bother replying to us? If we are insignificant compared to them then it doesn't make sense that they are here at all. Especially going at it as hard as they are ....

I smell fear.

..

I agree with you and with JT in terms of not wanting to deal with small-time affiliates causing trouble (in their eyes). My problem is with HOW this is being handled. I mean, who's the bigger man here and why would a Program Owner of JT's size even bother with such nonsense if he feels it is so? Either way you certainly do not come on GFY and go apeshit.

For however many of you (myself included) who hated the lame responses from CCBill anytime they were questioned (about anything), the company's "All is fine, there is nothing wrong" response was, in the end, the correct one.


Again i am agreeing with you Jel. LOL I agree - blow off some steam, go fuck a Czech chick or three, eat a donut. Relax. FREAKING OUT and threatening to ban affiliates, taking your program private, lashing out at posts....chill the fuck out.

This thread has obviously gotten a fuckload of views so, in this heated environment, time to take a chill pill and realize you are actually posting for others to see, not the person you're mad at.

(I think JT has wisely done this and kept quiet for awhile. Hopefully he's balls deep in Svetlana Fuckmyasska by now.)

If it is revshare as signupdammit suggested then that wouldn't be fraud.

The program owner would get 70% and the affiliate 30%

EDIT: Sorry ... I see signupdammit already answered the question.

Well said ... I've been saying this too but it seems the 'bros' in this thread don't have the ability to think properly once they have gone rabid.

Damian you have officially gone off the deep end. Magnetron is being civil ... you are all over the place.

I was commenting on your "10%" remark. Most people here have no clue what they are looking at with 100% of their meager data. 10% skews things further for someone who doesn't understand the math to begin with

You've only said that 50 times ... maybe another 50 and they 'may' understand.

The Porn Nerd openly calls his own members losers and degenerates and is clear and unambiguous on his disdain for them ... and is suddenly on a high horse, preaching about professional conduct for some reason. Good stuff!

Yes indeed, I am a complex person. I am also the one who openly FREAKED OUT here on GFY about 3rd party billers when I was a noob and didn't understand certain things. I no longer do that, having learned and grown.

But I most certainly do NOT have 'disdain' for my Members. LOL Some of my best friends are degenerate masturbaters. :)

Fact Check:

11 pages deep

$ / click

.... Still always 100% unavoidably true.

Fact Check:

11 pages deep

We heard that already and agree. This thread is not about that for many of us.

.... Still always 100% unavoidably true.

That fact obviates the rest of this thread entirely.

You are "Relentless".

Rob a bank then? Since it's only money that matters why not take up spamming or be a hitman?

Also $ per click only would matter for the present time and cash in hand. I base the majority of my work on future earnings. What I am working on now won't make money until the future, nothing is instant. So if I blindly based my business decision on $ per click of present day earnings with no other factors considered there is a decent chance I am not going to make the best choice.

I could buy a site that has good present earnings related it's sale price, but it could be all search engine traffic and also has declining traffic. So in the present it looks great, but six months from now it could be zero. A sponsor's sites may sell well and had some good ratios, but if you build out a network spending time and money designed at promoting them and it turns out they go out of business, stop paying, whatever, then your blind $ per click assessment that works right now is going to cost you in the future

Life is bigger then $ per click. Also it should be cpm anyway. Fat ugly chicks may make a great $ per click but their cpm is going to be iffy cause no one clicks

Anyway carry on, I was sad to see there wasn't another 10 pages added on here hopefully this helps

You are a looky Lou ;)

WOW, this is wrong on so many levels

please explain oh wise one

As I see $ / click wrong on so many levels too

Scroll up. I only advocate for legal sites that treat consumers in an ethical manner.

Did you also base your savings on the future of epassporte? Did you invest based on the future of sub-prime mortgages? You don't know the future. You do know the present and the immediate past. That is all you know. As an affiliate your best choice comes down to determining what is performing well and being able to make changes quickly when necessary, not to predict what may happen in six months. If you are willing to take the risk of predicting the future you'd be a fool to do that on the affiliate level instead of developing your own full business model.

None of that has anything to do with where to push affiliate traffic. You are now asking about becoming a competitor which is a very different equation. You could also buy a fancy eyepatch, cut off your leg and replace it with a wooden peg. That would be equally irrelevant to the question of where to send affiliate traffic.

We aren't talking about life. We are talking about where to send affiliate traffic.
Your inability to detect relevance must make it hard for you to promote products and service that can convert your traffic.


$ / click is all that matters on the affiliate level
That includes knowing how much each click cost you
Whether or not the site reats your traffic ethically
Whether the product sold is legal

The rest is nonsense on the affiliate level

It seems the current lesson will take just as long to sink in.:1orglaugh

Isn't it obvious? You are an affiliate. You are trying to make money on your traffic. The only metric that matters in measuring the money you make is EPCs. How one could see that as being "wrong" and then waste time arguing about it, is astounding.

Very dangerous to work on something where ROI is so far out in the future in a business as volatile, you support this yourself in the next paragraph. There is a reason traffic whales send to PPS (except for some very special cases)


Still works exactly as described, dollars made per clicks generated, you should NEVER depend on a sponsor to be around in six months, those that are around will certainly make you good money, but how many times have so called "sponsors" running "programs" bitched and moaned about paying a Visa registration fee ?

If you are buying a site you should be taking into account declining traffic, and if you do not think you can INCREASE the earnings, you shouldn't be buying. Anyone that buys a site that hit's zero earnings in six months, should get a job somewhere because running their own business is not for them



Fat Ugly chicks have been a massive draw for both clicks and sales since 1996, and there are 2 reasons

1. So called "chubby chasers" LOVE their big women, and they are also rarer since it is harder to find BBWs with the self confidence to get naked in front of a camera.

2. (And I do not mean to offend) Train wreck factor, the non BBW fans JUST HAVE TO SEE, same reason that People fucking watermelons was an all time classic top list link that drew MASSIVE traffic everywhere it was listed

First off, that's fine you only advocate for legal sites that treat consumers in an ethical manner. I missed this in the 11 page mess because I've just seen $ / click written over and over and over.

Anyway...
The past would state there has been a ton of shady programs in adult, so I would expect the same in the future...

Getting paid by programs is a real concern for affiliates and any indicator of something amiss means something else could be up. Whats the phrase, "where there is smoke there is fire"? If you are learning from the past, then seeing if various sponsors are functioning properly (whether intentional or accidental, shit does happen) sounds like it would be important. You send to the highest $ / click program, they pay net 30, they make an excuse about checks or billing errors or something. They close shop. You are out 2 months of earnings... I'd gladly diversify my traffic between sponsors and make less $ per click overall to have a greater chance of being paid out the most.

As an affiliate, what do you base these clicks on? Sponsors stats? Sure you can compare NATS programs side by side usually, but something like nasty dollars stats you sure can't compare directly to NATS stats. This will further distort your simplistic $ / click model

As for buying sites, I have bought a ton of affiliate sites over the years and sent the affiliate traffic to sponsors so I really don't understand your response. I'm basically buying affiliate traffic in the form of a website to send to sponsors. If I bought a site based all on media revenue sites or some other defunct affiliate program I would pretty much have no site. Or if I bought a "sex tape" site which had a great earnings per click but was only a brief bit of news and after the news died down the site died with it.

So it sounds like you are building out your $ / click model now. But again, CPM is better then $ / click.

Getting paid in the future is always a concern. There are more honest businesses that go bankrupt and fail to pay than there are dishonest businesses that fail to pay. Think about that.

You have zero ability to predict who will pay. Whether someone shaves or doesn't shave adds zero to your predictive ability.

$ / click is the only barometer you have. When that number changes, so should your traffic patterns.
Why it changes is nearly 100% irrelevant at the affiliate level

He is talking about EPC's on the sponsor side obviously. Unique visitors you send to an offer and what you earn from those unique visitors which also means that any sensible webmaster should be tracking his clicks and all the accompanying visitor metrics, filtering them by countries, mobile/pc, sending them to the appropriate offers etc etc etc etc etc. CPM is something that happens on your side. This is an equally bizarre statement. A banner can have a 1% CTR or a .001% CTR on your page. That has little to do with what you earn per unique visitor from a particular offer and the only thing CPM measures is ones ability to design banners that get clicks. EPCs measure whether or not those clicks turn into revenue.

My best $ / click = $0.50
My worst $ / click = $0.07

I'd hardly say it is very dangerous to work on a site concept for half a year before launching. I imagine it is done all the time, sure more risky now, but churning out some piece of shit in 2 weeks isn't the best idea either. Instant money is great, but I find instant money can be instantly taken away just as easy. Instant money = instantly be able to be copied by someone else.

I agree, but at the same time programs with good $ / click that have been in this thread only offer revshare ;)
I really believe there is a disconnect in this thread between media buyers making affiliate sales and actual website owners sending affiliate traffic.

Obviously, but the simplistic $ / click model doesn't take this into account. The $ / click could actually rise as traffic declines, as your typeins and SE maintain but your shitty traded traffic drops off. So while the $ / click sent to sponsors gets better as your traffic quality increases, your overall gross earnings decline.





I wasn't saying fatties don't convert well, I was just tossing out a comment real quick simply saying that you can have great $ / click and terrible CPM. You could put gay porn on a straight site, make 1 click from some obviously lost confused surfer, make 1 sale, have a great $ / click and terrible CPM.

Now let's show the next step....

Are those two numbers from similar offers in similar niches with similar traffic? My strong suspicion is no, they are not. If they were, you would shift the .07 traffic to the .50 sponsor in almost every case. The much more likely scenario is that the .50 is the highest $/click of one "type" and the .07 is the highest $/click of another "type." I'd also guess you are currently working on getting more of the "type" of traffic that works on the .50 sponsor's offer and are doing very little to push the .07 sponsor currently.

Can you confirm or deny my hypothesis? :helpme

My bad, ecpm, earnings per thousand views