|
John, it is good to see you addressing some concerns about NATS on a board that is all about business. The bottom line is there are no haters here just people that don't want to get screwed and most members here do not mind speaking frankly in public. One would expect you to point back to your users and that is who our beef is with, not the script developers.
Your problem starts with the announcement "XXXXX Sponsor switches To NATS, you need to sign up again..."
Then there is the inability to easily get linking codes for hfs' from sponsors. As an example, a board member recently released 18 hfs'. Site A and site B had five new ones each. C, D, E, and F had two each. A fellow has to repeat the same process 6 times to get 18 links. Seems to me if a not so bright guy could come up with something like HFSLinks then a man that knows the ends and outs of the business since 1996 could make that interface user friendly. (Yep, I know about the add-on that most don't offer or they hide it)
And then, I still don't understand the purpose of encoded/unencoded affiliate codes. Really it is not important for me to understand but there has to be a reason for a sponsor not to offer your option or to hide it so when confronted they can point you to it.
IMO, it is not Danger Dave's, Greenguy's, Linkster's or any other affiliate's responsibility to directly communicate their concerns with NATS to you. I doubt that Danger Dave was being hostile but I am sure he meant every word he wrote and folks around here tend to value his opinion. If the three link list owners I mentioned decided not to promote NATS sponsors, a few hundred others would follow their lead.
This reply is meant to be contructive but I had much rather curse, scream, complain, and insult especially when sponsors get a powerful tool and then treat affiliates like bastard stepchildren. But I don't fault you for selling them the tool.
__________________
|