BrowseHosts
New Member
hi there,
would our site be accepted?
would our site be accepted?
Originally posted by BrowseHosts
hi there,
would our site be accepted?
Originally posted by BrowseHosts
hey,
i dont really want to fill out the whole long form if i wont get accepted. can you just take a look at our site http://www.browsehosts.com and tell us?
ROTFLMAO correction!!Originally posted by yaoming
the SI program also count traffic from Western Europe and other English countries
Originally posted by Damoose
thanx for changing the members area, i can log in now, thanx so much.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
Now I don't really know, and don't really care if the statements he posted are right or not, but as a professional with some kind of respect and business ethics I ...
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
The reason I didn't post any answer to this comment was because we are not going to disclose our partner contracts. We have very specific NDA agreements, and are committed to keeping them private.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
The terms are provided all the time by all ppc search engine partners and are not in any way unique. Also they are not in any way copyright protected and are used by virtually all ppc networks to direct visitors to high paying search results.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
I will respond to all the issues one by one, but first I just wanted to say that I am really amazed which measures some people will take, just to bash their competitors.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
2) Our "Search Directories" are unique and we have all the rights in the world to design our own search directories, just like any webmaster has the right to design his own banner. I really don't think you own the patent for the "Search Directories" concept like the Unicast owns the patent for the ad delivery methods. So if we design our own "Search Directories" does that mean that we got "heavy *inspiration*" from targetwords? Does it mean that while designing MSN instant messenger Microsoft got heavy inspiration from AOL "Instant Messenger"? I don't think so, I think you just don't like the whole concept of market economy and competition!
This is shown in the supporting HTML document (http://oversee.net/misc/lawrenceng/revenuepilot/search-panels.html ), in which your creatives are shown to have the EXACT same text-links on the EXACT same banners. Which I might add, are in your administration areas in the EXACT same order.Originally posted by Lawrence
Although not 100% identical, I submit that heavy *inspiration* was drawn from our TargetWords.com search directories/panel
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
3) Your "Faq Section" is again not in any ways unique, and most importantly not the same as ours. Questions like: "Do you allow incentivized traffic?, etc." are the basic questions in the industry due to ppc partners contracts and are being asked by virtually all ppc affiliate programs.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
Also I would like to point out that RevenuePilot has more linking options and completely different user interface and admin . While you may find some similarities it is only natural for it to occur due to the industry nature and similar requirements by all ppc partners.
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
Again I am really shocked by this unethical public attack and would like to challenge Lawrence to show anything illegal in our practices, while we had some webmasters switching to our program from TargetWords due to our higher commissions I never expected it would lead to the above.
unethical
adj 1: not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices" [ant: ethical] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles;
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
At this point I don't think we have to provide any explanation to anybody, we decided simply not to react to this provocation.
I'm not sure which definition you're referencing to as I was merely trying to establish whether you were wishing to back up or support your earlier unsubstantiated claims. Obviously you don't consider your affiliates to be worthy enough of this information. Once again your business ethics are the ones to be scrutinised.provocation
\Prov`o*ca"tion\, n. [F. provocation, L. provocatio. See Provoke.] 1. The act of provoking, or causing vexation or, anger. --Fabyan.
2. That which provokes, or excites anger; the cause of resentment; as, to give provocation. --Paley.
3. Incitement; stimulus; as, provocation to mirth.
4. (Law) Such prior insult or injury as may be supposed, under the circumstances, to create hot blood, and to excuse an assault made in retort or redress.
5. An appeal to a court.
Hi Jason, does it actually say that in the reporting section? If so could you please provide a screenshot for us?Originally posted by gas0
In the Reporting Section of the RevenuePilot,
Once a user from IP: 100 100 100 00
If they EVER CLick Again... It wont be counted!
Originally posted by }:8) Supermoo
Anatoliy,
You're missing the issue, the issue is your company, RevenuePilot stealing intellectual property from its competitor, TargetWords. Your company is being accused of theft. Surely you should be treating this with a little bit more respect, if nothing else, as to highlight your alleged professionalism and respect for business ethics. If you were serious about your affiliate program and your affiliates certainly you would have answered these claims instead of making many unsubstantiated, emotive claims and attacks.
You should care whither his statements are correct, I'm sure you're aware of the cost, time and effort gone into developing an affiliate program. This is also true for the creatives a program uses, as such, you should care if you've been found to be stealing from your competitors.
As for the professionalism, you have shown none of those business ethics.
I'm not sure about your specific contract, although I would be greatly worried if your company was unable to post creatives you have received from a partner of your company. Surely this would mean that you are unable to reproduce them in you affiliate program, and if this was the case, you'd be in breach of your partnership agreement already. You've even stated yourself that:
So these search terms for text-links, and in particular the text-link directories, that are provided "all the time" and are "in no way unique", are according to you confidential and cannot be disclosed by you? But you go on to say that they are "not in any way copy protected and are used by virtually all ppc networks to direct visitors". If they are in no way copy protected why can you not post them? If they are so readily available then why has no other search-engine affiliate program come close to this format, with the EXACT same links, in the EXACT same order, with arguably EXACT HTML coding. It's a disgrace to think that you can get away with this theft, and it's insulting to think that you could try to cover this up from affiliates.
Please try to adhere to my simple request, or it can be assumed that with reasonable doubt you have stolen Oversee's Intellectual Property of "text-link directories" creatives, as demonstrated in the posts above.
Now to analyse your business ethics in this thread;
I think you'll find that these claims are related to Intellectual Property infringement, which you have breached. Is it wrong for Warner Brothers to shutdown VCD copying houses pirating their material? According to the reasoning illustrated in the quote above one might think you'd argue that Warner Brothers are simply trying to 'bash' their competitors.
The Oversee representative on this board, Lawrence, only brought up "blatant intellectual property violation". He did in no shape or form, try to 'bash' you, as such your statement could be considered very harsh and defamatory.
Once again you seem to have neglected the issue at hand and traveled on a tangent of your own. You are not being told that you cannot use the Search Directory idea, which has been used by various other affiliate programs including, but not limited to; SearchBucks (now Search123) and SearchTraffic.
What you have been accused of, if you read Lawrence's original post, is:
This is shown in the supporting HTML document (http://oversee.net/misc/lawrenceng/revenuepilot/search-panels.html ), in which your creatives are shown to have the EXACT same text-links on the EXACT same banners. Which I might add, are in your administration areas in the EXACT same order.
You're failing to see that these were copied word for word, only replacing one word in the given example. This goes beyond reasonable doubt, the English language can be used in many different ways to achieve the same outcome. When several of these different FAQ items are phrased and worded EXACTLY the same, suspicion should be aroused.
I'm afraid this seems to have gone well beyond 'similarities'.
I question your usage of the term 'unethical' in the extract above; unethical according Princeton University's WordNet is:
How is it unethical to defend one's own Intellectual Property rights? How is it unethical to defend ones rights in a public space? How did you turn Oversee's claim into an attack? I think you'll find that Oversee are trying to defend their rights.
I further wish to question your intended usage of the English language in this last, damaging paragraph. You claim "...we decided simply not to react to this provocation." According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary that is to;
I'm not sure which definition you're referencing to as I was merely trying to establish whether you were wishing to back up or support your earlier unsubstantiated claims. Obviously you don't consider your affiliates to be worthy enough of this information. Once again your business ethics are the ones to be scrutinised.
Although you might not think it's important, I believe the webmasters on this forum deserve a 'fair go'. You were given a chance to try and explain that you didn't blatantly steal from Oversee, I’ve contacted your briefly regarding the matter privately, and you’ve ruined that opportunity. Although I would happily relax and/or retract the following warning if you will show me verified evidence to support your earlier claims, I don't think you will be. As such, I would strongly recommend that affiliates exercise extreme caution in joining and participating in the RevenuePilot affiliate program.
Edit: Grammar
Originally posted by gas0
In the Reporting Section of the RevenuePilot,
Once a user from IP: 100 100 100 00
If they EVER CLick Again... It wont be counted!
This sucks for me and my site... because most of my users are return users....
1 click per User... EVER! OUCH!
Please change this or reply er somthin!
THanks!
Jason
Originally posted by RevenuePilot
It is clear that it’s not a coincidence that you are one of the only two webmasters to have personal quote on http://targetwords.com/about.phtml#quotes Like I said before I will not respond to any provocation’s. We don’t really care that you have to say, since you have a personal agenda in providing negative feedback about our company. The only thing that matters to us is the fact that we have thousands of happy affiliates, who are always getting paid on time and enjoying our high bid prices.
I also have nice words for Standard Internet who also issue payments nearly on-time every month (there was a bit of a gap after September 11th 2001, although I'm sure most people would accept that), they have high-paying programs and their customer service has improved a great deal recently.TargetWords has some of the best customer service I've ever seen in any affiliate program, their payments are consistent and always on- time, occasionaly they even send cheques early. A great program which I strongly reccomend.
Anatoliy,
You're missing the issue, the issue is your company, RevenuePilot stealing intellectual property from its competitor, TargetWords. Your company is being accused of theft. Surely you should be treating this with a little bit more respect, if nothing else, as to highlight your alleged professionalism and respect for business ethics. If you were serious about your affiliate program and your affiliates certainly you would have answered these claims instead of making many unsubstantiated, emotive claims and attacks.
It is not a matter of hustling or bias and a lot of posts in this thread could have been avoided if Anatoliy had just addressed the main issue here instead of skirting around it.Originally posted by spec
The way you are hustling him makes me wonder if you have bias.
Originally posted by }:8) Supermoo
Anatoliy,
How can you attempt to reduce an argument about the integrity of your affiliate program, and its alleged theft? Then try and cover the issue of your company RevenuePilot, stealing from Oversee? You cannot try to talk about another topic with me unless you show proof to support your earlier claims, admit guilt, or stop trying to attack people who actually have evidence against you. My personal agenda is to get to the truth.
Although I'm not one sided, and I will answer all of your questions. I would expect that this courtesy would at least get you to respond to my central question asking you for proof to support your earlier claims.
Yes, I am quoted on the Targetwords.com forum saying what I say in here and at other affiliate and webmaster communities when asked about affiliate programs. Although Oversee are not the only company that I have kind words for like;
I also have nice words for Standard Internet who also issue payments nearly on-time every month (there was a bit of a gap after September 11th 2001, although I'm sure most people would accept that), they have high-paying programs and their customer service has improved a great deal recently.
Both of those companies have paid me my affiliate cheques, consistantly and on-time.
It is for that same reason that I've posted support for affiliate companies such as DataCom, FocusIN (breifly, no longer recommended) and I’m beginning to post regarding DirectLeads.
They also contact me regarding my questions with full and in-depth answers in reasonably small amounts of time.
It is for that reason in which I've posted support for affiliate companies such as FindIt-Quick and SearchFeed.
In fact I still strongly recommend most of these companies, and would recommend them all over RevenuePilot.
Now I would like to restate my opening to my previous post as I don't think you've fully understood it. I suggest you re-read it to fully gather what this issue is about;
Webmasters,
Affiliate Programs I recommend you investigate and join before joining RevenuePilot include;
- Targetwords - where some of RevenuePilots creatives originated from
- SearchTraffic
- TextLinks
- Searchfeed - Offer a percentage for webmasters
- 7Search
- IgniteSearch
- FindIt-Quick
- ClickThruTraffic
- GoClick (Be warned pay-out rates may change without notice)
Also, try to follow recommendations from this forum and places like this SearchPrograms.
I would strongly recommend that affiliates exercise extreme caution in joining and participating in the RevenuePilot affiliate program.