the whole industry collapse also they dont worry but saves advertisers
just watch for some more time you may seeing daily how mnay complaints about SEs example Xray search engine

watch for some more time and see in 2006

BTW i am too going to a partner to a international Search Engine. and terms is PTR traffic is banned

Regards
suresh

There are have been search ads going out as long as I've been in ptr.
Every once in a while there are dire predictions that ptrs will be banned from running search ads but its doubtful it wll happen. Too much money involved.

As for banning sites I think that's another fine line. I don't particularly like it myself but supposed it's the perogative of the program owner.

I do think the search engines themselves will just stop paying for traffic from the ptr sites they consider violating the rules and solve the problem themselves eventually.

It does seem pretty obvious though idf you check on search as interest it indicates you will have something to search for sometimes and make the valid search. Simply clicking the link seems to be deliberating robbing the advertiser.

I've been a member of Classic Mail a long time and consider it to be one of the most trustworthy programs I've ever joined. I have never felt forced to search nor ever read an email with even a hint of
search or out. I'm quite shocked at the nasty manner aples was treated
here.

zelda no one was treating alpes badly, but I do think some have missed the whole point here or didnt read. The OP posted an email that was sent out by Classical. Later she was deleted for posting that email for breaking the sites terms of service. She was asking if it was not incentizing searches.

So for me it perplexes me how some can think it is fine for him to send out incenticize searches and delete members for posting his emails in a public forum and asking a question. He admits he deleted her and states if she removed the email he will pay her and let her decide what to do.

Ok he may be honest he may be a great program owner but it does not change the fact the original post was in regards to him breaking search engine terms of service an he himself stated in the thread if a member did not do a valid search that they would be removed from searches.

At this point and time I don't care what sites want to do or members. But the point here is no one attacked him or said he didnt pay.

Classical Mails does not send out incenticized searches nor do they break search engine terms. I wish you would quit posting what you think Alpes said in his post as it's your interpretation of his post and not what he actually said. Plus you can't keep ignoring that those that are members of his program have been posting that we aren't forced to make searches.

MenaC it is just that my interpetation of his email. I also ask if he would clarify. I for one am open to hear something from anyone with what something meant. I am not attacking him I am stating his email comes across as incenticizing. If it was not that I would love to hear from him what he was saying. I by all means do not want to hurt someone if it was not the intent of his email or his posts. But to me what his email and his comments said were he was offering higher paid links to those who would search and his comment was a member would be removed from searches if they didnt do at least 1 valid search. If this was me misuderstanding I am the first to apologize. I just want to understand what he did mean then.

Umm...I used to be a member back when I first found PTR and didn't know about valid searches, so I selected search as an option and once in a while I would search for something, but if I clicked a lot of search links and didn't search my email would quickly dry up and I'd go to the site and find that the search option had been unchecked for me. It did happen more than once. And, while I was never deleted for going in and re-checking search and still not doing them - or if I did, very rarely - I quit because I got sick of my email drying up every time I stopped searching.

Cindi2
crframe

There's a difference in sending out incentivized search links and keeping your program free of people deliberately cheating the program and advertisers.

If I click on a search link I do a real search for something I'm interested in not to visit a search portal.

And as a search advertiser when I lose money because 1 out of 100 people search I am not a happy advertiser.

So if you join that group and don't do any valid searches you wont get removed from the group or the site?

Is this an example of incentivisation of searches? That is against SE TOS isn't it?

According to this are you forced to search if you click the searches? No, but you could well be deleted from the group with higher link values for it?

What is the difference between this and those other sites that say search or be deleted? Or are they not forcing either?

Edited to fix wrong quote - my apologies for the mistake.

I have also had to do this and its sad because my members know they are not allowed to send threats to other members if they dont search all my sites have searches on them but members know they can click without searching I have only valid countrys set to searches.

I had one member so mad at me for changing his ad the next one he sent in not only did he type in a if you dont search youll be deleted he put it in there over 20 times so I deleted the second one and told him the third one it was him that would be gone not just his ad.

He stopped and is so far following the rules but I had to threaten to remove him first I just dont understand why people feel the need to push others around. PO and Clickers alike. I agree I think a list is a good idea as long as its not used to hurt good programs just because someone is mad.

Georgina

Zelda all advertisers would love results. There is no argument here from me on that. The problem is the search engines specifically state one cannot incenticize or force searches. Now like I stated earlier I am not stating the site is dishonest for all I know i could be wrong and will be the first to apolgize. All Advertisers want results but we dont tell members if you don't join programs well we wont send you more ads. If you don't buy the product sorry no more ads. If you dont support them we will not send you more emails.

The problem is not results the problem is breaking search engine terms. We all want results as advertisers. When we don't get good results we move onto another place or rewrite our ads or reconsider the product we are promoting, but we don't break rules to get results.

I think we know what a fine line it is with incentivizing search ads. So do the feeds. I can't imagine searching on google and getting a click limit message or
word choice validation page.

I don't approve of or advertise at those sites that blatantly incentivize searching. But as seen in this thread you can have situations where there is disagreement
over how pos "force"searches

I do have difficulty grouping classicalmail in with those other programs however.

Well just adding 2 cents in here

I understand why these sites are being looked at ( well cept classical cuz i just cant agree there at all with the ones who said Alpes is in the wrong)

But Why do members also put themselves in that postion to stop receiving the mails in the first place..???

Why have search Checked if your never ever going to do the search.. TO me thats plan wrong in itself. The only reason a person would do that is out of greed. to get more mails... expecially if they know that they will Only need to search once in a very great while for something and still check it in Most of the programs they are in.

whats so hard bout not clicking the link if you dont need to search???.. Just delete and move to the next.. Or dont join the sites that send 99% search mails..

Everyone can debate till they turn blue but the end remains the same...

the sites that target if you search are still around and members still support them
the ppl that never search will still complain their mails dry up
Ppl will still check search just to earn more

** these statments dont apply to everyone who has search marked just those that knowingly check the box and dont search**

JMO

Actually I am not trying to group anyone in a specific group without proof hence me asking for alpes to clarify his statements. I know sometimes I say something and it was not meant at all like it was stated. Just from my reading and interpetation he was stating if members couldn't bother to search they would not receive as many emails. If this statement is not what he meant I would really love to hear from him. Not his members. I really am not trying to put anyone out on to fry. Only trying to clarify and put a stop to programs who are breaking tos. Whether sending searches is right or wrong was not the topic here. The topic was about programs breaking tos with search engines and trying to do something about it. Not to spit bbq a site.

It is like I said I will be the first to apolgize if what was stated was not meant. I see alpes has edited his posts and the only comments were the ones quoted. I just would like clarification. I do not want to add honest sites to any list. I do want to put a stop to the problems with ptr period and make it something everyone can enjoy as many as would like done.

Edited for bunching words together .. ie typing to fast

It's up to a po to ban any site they want as I understand it.

On the flip side of this I don't see any of these sites stopping. And I think its frustration of the ptr searcher -the people who are honestly making a search are treated the same as the person clicking away as fast as they can thru search portals.

Honestly making a search means different things to different people. I think that is part of the problem here.

What about if you tick the ptr interest box and haven't joined one after 6 months of being a member but clicked all the links. Is that cheating? Why the special treatment of search links?

Why are some sites allowed to incentivise search links even though it is against the TOS of search engines?

Where is the line? Is it between saying here's 1c to visit a portal and if there is something you need to search for, try it out and saying here's 1c and you better search if you visit the portal or is it somewhere else?

At the moment as far as I can see the search engines have put it at incentivisation of a search, not at being a horrible non-paying po with incentivisation.

You can be a really nice po and still cross that line but you've still crossed it?

I wont make any friends with my opinion but :..

IMO..The search engines solving the problem and the loss of ads and money which will result is what everyone is worried about.

Take THAT out of the equation and I wonder how many would give a rats pattotie if a po incentivized or not.

IMO..It would then be sluffed off as the search engines problem.

Have a good one

Belle

Is it possible that all this "clean up" is simply an effort to hold the se's off for as long as possible??

Not quite everyone

Notice how everyone wants to do something about it until you try and list the sites that are loved and pay...like classical and the gaingang...I guess you can get away with anything if you are well known and pay. As long as these double standards remain then all the lists in the world don't mean squat. Just my 1/10th cent.

Tonya

agreed ( Not EVERYONE)

Vast Majority maybe??

Have a good one

Belle

well i see why nobody Does anything about it.
i just sent two emails to two different addys on the site, and both bounced.
of course i'm not allowed to Ask how to get hold of the se owner, as i'd be trashed for Naming them, without first Warning them their engine is running on honestmials, good setup.

and a Daunting Task as well. i'm not even in the elete group, and allready recieving multiple 5 searches per mail, mails in one day.

I did not edit any of my previous posts to remove the comment, all of the edits are necessary to correct the spelling error.

I don't have anything to hide.

If you use that logic then Donkeymails needs to be added to the list because their emails say "Please make a valid Search and i will come back!!!"

Just because a programs asks you to do a vaild search if you search doesnt mean they are forcing you to do a search sheesh

then don't do them and see how many more offers YOU get...it's just like the Gain programs.....they silently cut you off at the knees!

This is a topic that always causes nightmares. The thing I can never understand is that if people do not want to search then why do they join PTR'S that are 99% searches. There are programs out there that are non-search ?

it's NOT about not wanting to do them, it's about being PUNISHED if you don't! face it, you get the 1/10 of a cent ads, as opposed to those that get the 1cent and 2 cent to do it's. i searh like crazy, but when i get a note saying you MUST click this or that, that's a different story.

I don't like sites that are extremely rude with the "You must search" blurbs..........but on the other hand............the bottom line remains the same.

The feeds have said it's ok to send a portal page to a PTR so long as it doesn't say search blah blah blah......................

However, we all know that the advertiser of the portal as well as the search engine themselves would like to see valid searches...........

It's a big catch 22 here as far as what is the morally/ethically correct thing to do......

Either way it is handled someone may lose out..............be it the bidder for the se spot or the advertiser of the portal.

It's been said before.........if one has nothing to search for search for medications on those less than possibly legal online pharmacies that proclaim such cheap prices but in reality are charging much more than a walmart pharmacy.

As well............most people don't particularly like unscrupulous attorneys..........do a search for them...............

I'm not saying it's correct ethically to search for some of those things but those types of searchs cause less loss than say someone with an affiliate link who bidded on a spot............

I am really having a difficult time saying sites who are basically open about the search links and how they should be handled opposed to sites who just send them....should be placed on a ban list.......the bottom line is they are "ALL" incensitized..............call it what you will..............but if we feel we must be so morally/ethically correct here............then if banning certain sites that blatently require or request searches is going to take place..................then the sites banning............should NOT be selling search advertisements nor should they send their own out with any type of value..........be it points or cash.

I'm sorry to disagree...........but the banning of one site opposed to another due to wording is not equitable in my opinion.

It boils down to a search portal is sent out with the intent to receive valid searches...........period......we can play word semantics until we are blue in the face but it does not change the fact that any search sent out "REGARDLESS" to how it is worded is "INCENSITIZED" .......

The only way to truly combat this will be for those who bid on spots of a PPC to quit doing so period.

The thing is as well...........those bidders on PPC spots need to also realize times change...........and they should not be putting all their eggs in one basket. PPC engine listings should be only one avenue of advertising.............

Like I said..........start advertising at PTRs for a fraction of the cost..........hopefully in time as people start being paid expeditiously............they will also realize that they can shop online with earnings just as easily as they can run to the store..........and still have earnings to use for other things...............

It can happen, but it is going to take time and it is going to take all involved to slowly change their attitudes about PTR be it as a member or an advertiser.

Again........each webmaster has to do what they feel best for their programs and if they wish to ban certain programs..........that is their perogative...........

My only question is what is next to come as to banning sites..........I still think when it comes to operating an advertising business yes there are ethics and then there are shooting oneself in the foot to uphold them so to speak.............as well as, we as webmasters who start refusing advertising for six of one thing half a dozen of another.................really are assuming that our members are less than intelligent when it comes to joining certain things................

Businesses need to have morals/ethics but on the same hand........a bit of reality needs to take place as well.

I'm not saying go promote child pornography..........that is not only morally/ethically wrong it is illegal.............however on the same hand............promoting legal pornography ie: playhouse type things...........there are those who would chose to visit it...........

It comes down to as a business owner which is more important moral/ethical viewpoints that may not be the same as many of our potential costumers vs having a viable profitable business.

You can have both with a little give and take on both ends.

You are funny. I think you missunderstood what I meant. Oh well

Well, I can't let priestes take all the heat on this one.

Let me start with some background. During the dot bomb era I was a CMO at a large internet company. As the CMO, it was part of my staffs job to determine the best way to aquire new customers at the lowest cost. Since we could not be everywhere on the internet at the same time, we determined a strategy to divide and conquer (yes, we were conquered alright ) A group of marketeers were responsible for working with feeds and another group was responsible for working with advertising programs, that worked with affiliates. Now, I am a marketing consultant, just not with dot bombs.

My on-line company owns, 3 search engines, so when I say I have banned engines, I have a proof. Mostly, it comes from my questioning the webmaster of the site and their reply pretty much proves their intent or reviewing their TOS. Technically, when I ban a site, an affilate of my search engine is not paid for any search generated from that domain. Unfortunately, if the search affiliate is not paying attention to the banned list and the site that is banned is not honest about the banning, then the advertiser of the portal at that site is being ripped-off by the site owner. This is a sad reality as someone stated in this thread that they have seen an engine run on a banned site.

My on-line company owns, 8 incentivized marketing sites. I run search ads on them. I run ads, not links. I have aquired over 400 affiliates through my search ads. It is not all about searching when you click a link. It is about the ad. You are being paid to read and if you like what you read then you click the link to be paid. If you search on a portal, click a banner link or text ad or sign up as an affiliate yourself then you have responded to the ad.

Now, having said that, if you go back to my CMO days, I as the advertiser in the feed want to acquire customers, so if 1 out of 1000 clicks gets me a new customer, then I could be very happy if the cost for those 1000 clicks did not exceed my budget. I start looking at the feed, where my results are coming from and even at my ad copy on the feed, heck, I may even have the wrong keywords. Usually, I can solve my cost issue with some minor changes in my ad copy or keywords. Trust me, we know you are out there clicking links and not buying, signing up or even really interested. We allow for some percentage of that, because you help us to hone our ads and keywords, you also tell us what part of the country/world our website/offer does not work well, etc.

So, now back to my current on line company. I recently did a bit of testing, lets look at the results so far.

1. New search engine on existing incentivized marketing site. 50 people mailed (targeted search interest in search friendly countries).

42 people clicked the paid link.
4 people became affiliates of the new search engine
7 people searched
9 people clicked a text link on the portal

2. Ran an ad for a freebie (was paid if zip code was entered). 486 people mailed (targeted US)

So far, 292 people have clicked the paid link, one person entered a valid zip code.

3. Ran a text ad for a free sign up on a feed, 1.6 million impressions, for 71 people to click the ad link and 18 people signed up.

4. Ran a text ad for an item that costs money on a feed, 2.8 million impressions, for 52 clicks and no one to-date has purchased the offer.

5. Ran a search link on a site that I do not own. Cost was 75 cents to for 1/4 search link. Targeted to searchers. I received 6 clicks for a total of 19 cents.

6. Ran an ad that did not have a paid link (incentivizing was not allowed) 79 people clicked the link, 5 people participated.

I am looking at 2 for what was wrong, the people that the ad was mailed to or the ad? Maybe, it was a bad offer or the market is saturated with that particular offer.

I am looking at 3 to see if those 18 people will make me enough money over the next 6 months to cover the cost to aquire them.

I am looking at 4 very carefully, as there is something really wrong with this ad, feed, keywords, etc.

I am looking at 5 to determine if it is the site that has a weak database, was it the ad? was it the time of day the ad ran, was it the lack of targeting to search friendly only countries?

I am looking at 6, shaking my head. I thought is was all about the paid link. I guess it must be about the ad.

Overall, it doesn't matter if you are paid to click a link or not, you will respond if you want to. What the feeds are trying to do is help the advertiser get the most from their dollar. Attempting to eliminate searches that will knowingly not result in sale and removes a large element of the unknown factor for ad reponse. Since I as a SE owner get paid per click, I would love to have every searcher click and search on every link, wanting and getting are 2 different things. Clicking to click or searching to search when their is no real interest hurts in more ways than one.

As an SE owner, I am not willing to risk my feeds for risky PTR sites. They are a risk to my SE and they are a risk to my incentive sites. Ever wonder why so many programs have banned incentive sites or incentive clicks? Unfortunately, the 80/20 rule applies here. 20% of the sites are causing 80% of the problem.

I have contacted every site on the list and even offered to remove them from the banned list if they were to make a few changes. So lets not say they didn't know what they were doing because their emails tell me they know exactly what they are doing and none of them have changed their ways.

priestes, sit back and relax for a bit.

"I have contacted every site on the list and even offered to remove them from the banned list if they were to make a few changes. So lets not say they didn't know what they were doing because their emails tell me they know exactly what they are doing and none of them have changed their ways"

BINGO......and they will KEEP doing it!

Thank you for saying it much better than I.
This has been what I have been trying to get across but it seems that if anyone disagrees on this subject it is taken as an attack against someone.

It is NOT an attack.

It is MY OPINION...No more...no less.

A few months ago there was a thread started where someone did not like the tos of some sites..It then became a thread to set out what WE/THEY felt was a proper tos.

I am not saying that "everyone" wanted to ban sites who did not set up their tos according to the one set out in the thread..but it was a very small step to banning sites who did not.

IMO..The forums have turned into a "see me..I'm better..I dont do a or b and I may do c but thats not as bad"

Its like I am morally against illegal fishing but I will gladly eat the fish they catch because it would hurt me financially to buy the legal ones....

IMO that is a case of "convenient ethics"

If anyone is really against incentivized searches why do they run ads that pay people to search ..??

Everyone knows that if we dont do VALID searches..then there is no money..no ads.

IMO..its using a play on words to float to the top.

Have a good one

Belle

Belle you all can say as you like but it is not against terms of service of a search engine to send out searches. It is against the terms of service to force searches or state you are paying them to visit the site or that you willl punish them for not searching. So although you can compare it to eatting the illegal fish it is not the same thing as there is no place that states that it is against the rules to send searches.

And I am not trying to prove I am better then anyone, but I do follow rules. There are rules in every business out there that was running a business off line would not bend the rules without consequences. Whether some of you like it or not sending out ads is not illegal nor is it an offense.

Yes advertisers want results but we are back to why should a search ad be treated any different then any other ad? And I do not begrudge someone for wanting to earn money from sending them. That is not my place to judge since they are following rules.

We don't have to agree on this one but as it was stated yes it is twisting words around, but the sites who are sending searches and not forcing are not breaking any rules.

The sites who are creating groups for special searchers, forcing searches, deleting members for not searching are breaking rules.

This is not who is better then who. This is about following rules and those that blantantly thumb their nose at those rules.

Stone me all you like I am not going to get into whether my sites sending searches is the same thing cause it is not the same thing. Rules are rules and when someone is breaking it is not ok.

Sure seemed ok for some to get in a stink about paypal rules being broke but yes there are those who say well I can use my personal account and yes I can put gambling and porn on my website as long as I am not caught. It was not ok with folks there as it affected everyone. It is the same thing here. Sites breaking rules it affects everyone. Right wrong indifferent about sending searches was not the issue here.

I think I am carrying a problem about one site onto others and for that I apologize.

Priestes..this is NOT about you other than you happened to have been the one who spoke up here on an issue where many people have varied opinions.

I do not understand why the search engines continue to have this rule when they know that it is almost meaningless IMO.

I agree that if they arent making money from the searches they would not keep allowing it to go on.

Maybe the answer is to let them take care of their own rules although I agree with your effort to abide by all rules..whether you may agree with them or not.

My opinion is not based on what you choose to do but what appears to be IMO..an ongoing action by many against what seems to be a pretty ridiculous rule. ( as well as an almost unenforceable one)

I am not saying this very well but if its something we disagree on..thats fine.It certainly isnt the first time someone has disagreed with me lol..but it is not an attack against you or anyone else.

It seems if there is a thread about the right or wrongness of incentivizing searches...the problem of doing searches at all inevitably rears its head.

Have a good one

Belle

Belle something that got missed earlier in this thread and I can't remember who said it but the point was we would all love to change everything at one time, but it doesn't always work that way. "Baby steps" was the word used. One step at a time. Sometimes we cannot change all the things that are wrong with something like we would like all at once. ie. search engines rules. This perhaps is another step after cleaning up some other stuff, but until some people finally sound off and say NO MORE... on whatever it may be things are going to stay the same.

Wouldn't it be easier for all of us (even when we disagree about one thing) to look at the whole picture and see what we can change today? We can't change the search engines today, we can't change the feeds today, but we do all have the power to say we will not tolerate any more abuse from programs.

Whether it be forced searches, non payment, silencing us cause we spoke out of turn. Whatever we feel is not fair. Only we can change things. We can all sit and argue while those doing all those things sit and laugh about we will never all come together so they can continue to get away with it.

Wouldn't it be better even if we don't agree to stop protecting programs that abuse their members, break rules, steal, lie, silence?

Baby Steps....... One thing at a time no matter how small it may seem it is a move forward to change.

Of course it is going to take time to institute changes because in this case it involves changing peoples outlook on what PTR is really about.

However, while I agree we should not tolerate abuse from programs, late payments and the like...................in this specific case.................

The stink is going to backfire in the end when it does happen and it is going to close the door to even honest paying polite webmaster sites that do NOT rant and rave about valid searches.

It's one thing to take a stand............in this case it would be to me up to the members of sites forcing searches to NOT join those sites or quit them.

I believe when the proverbial doodoo hits the fan here, if the search engines step in and listen and do something about the insidious wording of allowing the sending of a search portal for so called viewing..........................that....................all the other sites who do NOT rant and rave will be left sitting in the cold without that extra ability to pull in any revenue from searches be it sold advertising or their own portals.

We can agree to disagree on the bottom line here...............as far as rules and word play but......................stop and think about the possible impact of such a stance further down the road.

If the goal here is to get the search engines to pull the plug on all PTR Programs......then sure go for it..............it would certainly close down doors to a multitude of sites out there that are sending primarily search portals for viewing.

As well, it would close doors to some sites who are known to be paying sites who do not demand or threaten its members.

Is this what is wanted?

If the bottom line is to get a reaction from the search engines to pull the plug on even portal views then it would seem to me that the true cause for those who wish this..............is not exactly altruistic based on moral and ethical fiber but more on a business need of competition...........................

I have no problem with competition, thats what businesses do every day their doors are open..................but what I have a problem with..................are businesses that try to throw road blocks into other business successes by proclaiming they are doing so because it is the moral/ethically correct thing to do.

But then again...............this is the real world of dog eat dog and most businesses online or offline...............tend to play semantics and do things for the betterment of the people patronizing them..............................which somehow I never have believed..................it goes to each businesses bottom line.................or boils down to dirty politics.

Just my take on some of these witch hunts that take place online and offline.

Again.............we can all agree to disagree................but I would implore those who are so adament about doing something for the betterment of PTR members........stop and think this through and how it COULD impact all sites not just those who blatently demand/force searches.

I understand what you are saying but then what do you suggest? Do we just sit back and keep their dirty little secret of "Honester" members and super search clubs? Would our silence be condoning their actions? Or do we post a warning when we find we are a member of such a site? Perhaps warn others, then let them decide if they are willing to tolerate a PO's abuse or a drop in earning opportunities if they don't do the required amount of valid searches.

I don't know, it just seems we've come full circle here. When I first got into PTR it was the norm to be told we had to do a valid search or don't click the link at all. Rants at members was not unusual. Then gradually, a few brave members started speaking up. A few more joined them and started reporting those PO's who forced searches. Things changed rapidly and it simply wasn't accepted for a PO to even hint that you should do a valid search if you clicked a link.

But now, some ingenious PO found a way to get around this stumbling block and here we are, back to the same old same old.

Guess I'd better go check the interest I have ticked in all my programs because surely this trend won't stop with searches.
Let's see,

I don't like to search unless I need something so I can't tick that
I don't intend to buy a computer anytime soon so I can't tick that
I have enough books right now so I can't tick that
I'm not planning to attend a ballgame or a camping trip anytime soon so I can't tick Outdoors
I don't need anything for my car so Automotives is out
I'm not planning a trip so Travel shouldn't be ticked
I guess I can leave Technology - that looks harmless enough and I'm always interested in Games so it can stay
Art is out though cause I can't afford to buy any artwork and I don't have any wallspace anyway
Not sure what Social is so I'll leave it till I find out and I've never been crazy about Science so I'll leave that unticked.

Okeedokee! Now, all I have to do is remember not to click on any links to programs I am already a member of or have no intention of joining. Looks like I'm gonna have a lot of spare time on my hands and a lot less emails to worry about.

We all as members have to do what is in our own best interest. And while we may not all agree............I think there is room for all of us to join what we would like and participate on a level we feel comfortable with.

What I don't think we need are people rationalizing to justify actions that could invariably hurt a lot of sites and members by taking such a hardened approach to what they perceive as such a flagrant disregard for rules.

As I said before, I think this issue goes a bit deeper than the altruistic movtivation of breaking some insidious rule. And in the end if people jump on this band wagon and they are successful............many people will be hurt by this action..........and I'm talking members...........

Anyhow Cajun, I do understand this issue from all sides..............my concern is more of where is the line going to be drawn. Are members of programs that mentally deficient that webmasters must protect them or is it that webmasters of programs are trying to find ways to protect their own self interests in order to survive this floundering PTR world?

Actually your logic really does not make sense ptrhost. If searches dried up tomorrow and program owners couldnt pay them because they no longer had search ads why would it be they couldnt pay them? They should have enough money to begin with to pay members out not depend on what is coming in and they shouldn't be sending ads out that are not covered?

So even though you feel it might hurt honest sites I feel if searches dried up tomorrow the only ones that would hurt are those who depend on them and those who do not have money to pay members other then sending search ads.

If the search engines decide tomorrow that ptr sites shouldn't send out search ads then a lot of us will just have to get creative and go back to sending regular ads. PTR did fine before searches and it will survive after searches. If a site has to depend on them totally then this industry is a lot sadder off then I had thought.

I missed this in my last post. Is not protecting ones own self interest protecting their members and their programs?

I mean if I don't look after my site then I really am not looking out after my members am I?

Priestes, forgive me for cutting part of your quote out. I did it for emphasis.

THIS is what many of us have been talking about forever. This goes back to the original idea, that IF ptr IS considered as true business, then the people opening up their new businesses best be working out business PLANS, including funding. Start up costs, etc.

This one thing alone is why we're all at a standstill. So few people honestly know anything about how to start a business, and fumble through running one. And many po's have done so much wrong, we're being conditioned to accept this as "normal". It isn't. And should NEVER be accepted. But we do. Look where it's gotten us.

Sorry priestes..I wasnt ignoring you but am working and couldnt sneak out before now.lol.

I agree 100% with the "baby steps concept" and trying to work together to change things.

Whether we agree on everthing or not should not matter...and especially when we agree on the greater amount.

There are so many things in gptr which need changing and there is a shortage of good po's willing to work to that end ...and no shortage of scammy po's willing to find new abuses.

I am all for "outing" the baddies and agree that there is no use on hammering on non agreed things when there are so many we agree on.( In fact I dont think I have ever disagreed with your stand on anything before so...we arent that far apart lol.

I do apologize but I was getting the feeling that if I did not agree then..stay out of it.
I think its a case of too many late nights.

People used to say I was bad tempered and my mother always defended me by saying I was "even tempered"..but then she always added that "even tempered" means "Mad all the time" ( I HOPE she was joking.lol)

I will be in and out but if i can help..let me know.

Belle

Yes, the "good sites" will have repercussions...they are called RECOGNITION for being honest and may actually be rewarded for their honestly by more members joining and/or more advertisers buying from them.



This is what this thread is all about. In an "honest site", the bolded statement above will be met with no consequence. However, in the sites that have been listed so far, that is not the case. Members get deleted for not searching, get less emails sent to them and various other reasons.

THAT is what this argument is all about.

Lets take this to another level. If we allow these business practices, why not also enforce THESE rules:

You cannot get paid UNLESS you purchase xx% in advertising.
You cannot get paid UNLESS you purchase an upgrade.
You cannot earn from downline UNLESS your downline upgrades.
You are deducted xx credits each day we find you do NOT click on site support links.

This list can be as long as your imagination can make it but as you can see, these demands are unrealistic by todays standards BUT may be common place a year from now.

So the question remains: Do we want to make this industry for the better for ALL parties involved or do we want lawlessness and unrealistic demands rule the day?


Rod

That's what I was trying to point out with my tongue in cheek post but I guess I didn't make myself clear. Boy, I'm glad you're back!

I don't think the repercurssions are going to help the honest sites be rccognized.

Many many sites use search advertising as a way to raise revenue to pay members. I could envision programs banning the forced search sites and telling members why. Most if not all members would be just as ppy to visit the portal and move on. After all they are paid simply forthe 15 seconds or so they spend on the portal. The search rate is already so low at most sites the advertisers barely break even or lose money. To reinforce this would I suspect drop the rate even lower.

So most programs will lose some revenue that could be used to pay members.

The Program that Will Not Be Named - long gone - tried the tactic already of forcing people to sign up for offers before getting paid.That didn't work well at all.

I think most pos realize most members simply do not have the cash to
buy or upgrade or pay their members to upgrade. If some tried I think
the results would be disastrous.

Unfortunately once again it does go to the bottom line. Members want to
get paid - get paid fast - and for the most part this is what they get from
these search or else sites. Advertisers get the results they want and are
willing to spend their money there. And thats why these type of sites
are flourishing despite their tactics.





ed:spelling

So a "click ring...aka search ring" is status quo these days?

No WONDER we are considered the black sheep of the internet advertising industry.

If this is the case, we SHOULD be banned everywhere.



Rod

PS...So did the program owners entice the members into cheating/clicking/searching or does these type of members seek out those types of webmasters?

Hmmm...the chicken and the egg theory (which came first?)

I am not opposed to the banning all sites who SAY to search because of the repercusions ( Lucky me..I dont own a site) but I honestly do not understand what the major diffeence is.

Yes..of course.. I know the difference between saying..Here is a search for you..and " You MUST make a valid search.

What I do not understand...and feel is the borderline dishonesty of this..is the fact that if people think INCENTIVIZED searches are a bad thing..Then lets stop INCENTIVIZED searches.

Why is it OK to send search ads that we all know we NEED to click if we want to keep getting paid or get ads.BUT its not ok to say..please click this to help the advertisers.

Oh and by the way..Here is 1/10 cent or?? ( I KNOW you get paid either way but for how long??)

btw..I do about 3 or 4 searches a week so think my bank account would survive the removal of all searches.

I am NOT talking of the ranters or the demanders.

So where is the line.

You are familiar with the report everyone for everything policy of many and the reporting of sites to their paypal acounts.

Often times NOT because they have broken any paypal rule but simply on the "Thats where it will hurt" basis.

In some cases I think this is happening with searches ( Not necessarily in this thread) but each move has its following.

I know you can jump all over the "morales" of anyone who does not agree with banning sites who may or may not even be completely aware that saying " Please do a valid search" is wrong.

Its easy to say that they should know.( and I agree on some level) but there are a whole lot of po's who have learned as they went along.

I saw a post earlier mentioning that someone had agreed to take a site off the list if they agreed to pull up ( Not sure of wording and hope I ahve it right)
What list?
Who has the authority to remove or add anyone.

Banning a sit ein a public forum is a very big step and IMO..should be treated with the utmost caution.

( I know you are not the one who made the remove post and may not know the answer but the question was to make a point...I will ask..if I remember)

This is NOT a "stir it up" post but is a genuine effort to understand.I know oyu can pick little parts of the post and shoot them down but on the whole..why?

Have a good one

Belle

No, they're not. I am being honest with myself as a member, and as an advertiser. A lot of people want them to be treated differently because they want to keep riding the gravy train, but they're not different.

Personally, I think it would be great if changes were made so that there were no more search ads in PTR. Wouldn't worry me a bit. I think both the PTR and the PPC industries would be better off for it.


I totally agree with Rod. This is precisely the difference between PTRs that are running search ads just like any other ads, and the ones who are treating search ads as special so they can all ride the search engine gravy train.

Searches are NOT special. ALL advertisers hope members will at least read, click, and move on. A lot of times, I think the 'read' part gets left out. And the 'at least glance at the website' part, too.


We've already seen some Program Owners try to go with these kinds of rules, and if we don't do anything to discourage it, I'm sure we'll see a lot more of it in the future.

At the end of the day, no 'solution' is going to be perfect. None will please 'everybody' and some may not even fully please anybody. In my book, that doesn't mean they're not at least worth trying.

Cheers,

Wil

Belle, yes, its all about semantics right now.

What if the search engines imposed some sort of "banned keywords TOS" as to how to word your advertising?

Google already does it. I had Google on a website and above their banners I simply had it say "Sponsor Ads". That was unacceptable according to Google because it implied they were MY sponsors, not Googles.

They also say you can not put this anywhere near their banner "Please support the sponsor below" (and variations of it).

Maybe the search engines need to work on their wording like this as well?

Of course, enforcing this rule would be very difficult (how can they see what someone writes in an email?)

Now, this "official wording" is one step in the right direction but in our little industry, we still have another issue: POs making subtle threats in non related emails or forums to make valid searches.

I personally don't see the harm in the wording "Please support our sponsor" but others may have a different view.

This is the toughest part of this whole argument. Getting us to agree what sounds FAIR and what doesn't.

That is why I think if the search engines made the ruling, we having the option of following their rules...or not.

Rod

Well not the black sheep exactly but

There's I think a certain mindset about searches. You search at a honest site make 1/4 cent per search -that's all the advertiser will pay
because his search rate is usually between 5-10%. You figure why not
search at 1 -2- 3 cent a search and get paid in a week or two.

Are you cheating performing a search at a honest site or only cheating at a search only site?

And just to add into the mix you have many member who have lost money at what they considered honest ethical sites who are not that
interested in the ethics of a program - only that they once again don't
lose money

Was that tongue in cheek..And here I thought you were serious.lol

Take care

Belle