A Brutal Stats Page

[xxxjay]

Onprobation.com just started posting their stats. I can say that this guy is not out to make any friends. There some good stuff about shavers and straight up scammers. I thought the folks at GG&J might find this as interesting as I did:

Info:
http://board.getpaidbaby.com/viewtopic.php?p=3177#3177

Stats:
http://blog.onprobation.com/sponsors...september.html

[Mr. Blue]

Nice post A good read

[Cash]

Funny how he says about possible scams and puts a referral link to a sponsor in that list

[mOrrI]

ouch...
that get me thinking.... :S

[alvarez]

nice refferal page

[Halfdeck]

Interesting stuff. Reading that made me want to start up my own program.

[MrYum]

Very interesting read Jay...thanks for the link

[PR_Tom]

How does a sponsor prove they dont shave?

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

How does a sponsor prove they dont shave?

How does an affiliate prove that they do?

It's really a catch 22 type situation...the only time you would feel 100% confident with a paysite is if you owned it

[PR_Tom]

Yeah thats the thing. It's so much energy on something you may never believe even if you were told the gods honest truth at every turn.. Bottom line is more important to me personally. Plus just changing links when I think I'm not converting obviously

Hell, theres been times where I've flat out told affiliates of ours that "hey, you've sent xxxx number of hits and not a sale in so long, you should pull that link because your traffic isn't liking it at all.. try this other tour instead."
It's a money thing after all.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

How does an affiliate prove that they do?

It's really a catch 22 type situation...the only time you would feel 100% confident with a paysite is if you owned it

Even when you own a paysite how can you be sure that the processor isn't shaving? You have to trust someone at some point.

[Linkster]

Actually I do know of a few that do check sponsors from time to time - with test signups - of course it has to be blind and not set up ahead of time so its up to the affiliate to be honest about it afterwards so that they arent thought to be cheating
The other problem is that most that do shave do it on a rotating schedule so that you have to know your outgoing clicks extremely well - and know which days the sponsor has set up to not show sales - if you study it you can find the right rotation and then pick them off pretty easily. Of course of the ones Ive found I will never state it publicly as they probably do it to some and not to others - which would definitely drop my credibility somewhat

[nekrom]

One thing I have been doing since the start of this year is counting every single hit I spend to each sponsor, tracked by IP and unqies and that way I can tell what my on target, niche specific and pre cc approved traffic should be converting at.

-N

[RawAlex]

One well known and very very old program (still active today) has an amazing pattern. For the first few days of the month, sales are really good. Then from about the 5th to the 24th or 25th, sales are light as all get out - light enough to make you want to take down their banners. But just at the point where most people review their results near month end, suddenly sales start up again - often better than any other time of the month.

It got to a point where I would pull all their stuff for two weeks and not lose hardly any month each month. I gave up sending them any traffic.

Watching programs turn on and turn off like traffic lights is really depressing to watch.

Alex

[koolkat]

While it may be pretty brutal, it's ashame that it even has to be said. I praise him for having the balls to stand up and say it. I really wonder how many sponsors will drop him for making the claims?

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Even when you own a paysite how can you be sure that the processor isn't shaving?

Well, it's easy enough to check your signups against your site's username/password file.

[Joneze]

Great information. Well worth the read.
It would be great to have a way to keep tabs on a sponsor.
We are at their mercy.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by koolkat

While it may be pretty brutal, it's ashame that it even has to be said. I praise him for having the balls to stand up and say it. I really wonder how many sponsors will drop him for making the claims?

I just hope he isn't pushing any of them on the shave list...if they read it...he's really gonna get shaved.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I just hope he isn't pushing any of them on the shave list...if they read it...he's really gonna get shaved.

holy oh fuck...i cant believe this guy

we should have rule..that says..slander and libel means we keep your money.

[Phoenix]

this guys stats to one of the programs he claims shaved him

since 2003 two sales
1:122
and the other one
1:8

this guy failed his math classes...bring on the next troll

[Platinum Dave]

I noticed Platinum Bucks name posted under the shave category

So I investigate his stats.

I went back to the last 3 months of Qon stats with Platinum Bucks

1582 first page hits since August 1st
306 went to second page (tgp traffic)
he got 1 sale
so 1:306 ratio in 3 months

what does this guy expect?

1500 hits 1st page and getting 1 sale gives him the right to call someone a shaver.

WTF! is this world coming to?

When will the laws of the real world apply to the internet about slandering a company without any proof purposely trying to damage a reputation.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Platinum Dave

...1582 first page hits since August 1st 306 went to second page (tgp traffic) he got 1 sale so 1:306 ratio in 3 months.

I'm not going to get into the shaving debate, but I do want to point out that the vast majority of program stats track first page hits, and therefore the corresponding conversion ratios use that figure. 1:1582 is significantly below my aggregate average*, but that's not a large enough sample to draw conclusions from.

* 1:576 on 606,600 first page unique hits, from mostly TGP traffic

[Platinum Dave]

Originally Posted by Toby

I'm not going to get into the shaving debate, but I do want to point out that the vast majority of program stats track first page hits, and therefore the corresponding conversion ratios use that figure. 1:1582 is significantly below my aggregate average*, but that's not a large enough sample to draw conclusions from.

* 1:576 on 606,600 first page unique hits, from mostly TGP traffic

We display 1st page hits and 2nd page hits plus JOIN page hits inside Platinum Bucks stats we do not hide anything.

1:1582 is not a good ratio, but you perhaps the sites he was sending to were not our top 10.

Basically way, way to small a sample of traffic to make a statement of a company shaving as he has made.

I spoke to a few other companies in the list which tell me he sent like 3000 hits without a signup to them, but they also got accused.

So basically anyone that didn't convert at a certain expectation shaves now and you have the right to make a statement saying so.

I've sent traffic to sites that do 1:25,000 which for some reason did HORRIBLE, but this same company is in Qon list in the top 10. So do I accuse that program of shaving? No because just because a site doesn't convert well for you, doesn't mean they are shaving.

The adult industry is so damm compeitive that shaving is NOT an option. Ratios would be terrible and traffic would leave.

[tickler]

As Tom said you eventually have to go by the bottom line.

I have noticed one major sponsor that has a little quirk in their stats display though. Just from a programming point of view, a line with zeros shouldn't be showing unless there is some data triggering it.

[LB]

Just because you send a few thousand hits doesn't mean you can expect a certian ratio. Even on ppc reliable and stable traffic that i can expect to stay within certian ratio boundaries, occasionally the ratios jump around even with a solid 10k uniques a day ... and thats to my own paysites.

While he has several on his list that I know are scammy or shaving proggy's, I don't agree with his criteria entirely.