Stay away from SI!!!

[firstmark]

I think its $600 as that is the law I think.

 

[grand]

hmm i thought it was $599 per month....

 

[Archbob]

I think they changed it last year to $400/year.

 

[Todd]

Originally posted by firstmark
I think its $600 as that is the law I think.

Correct. They will send one of these to you:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099m02.pdf

 

[zqpm]

Hmmm i dont see this question by lfc7607 answered

4) Do you charge the advertisers for the ads that has been runing in the period, on such a deactivated account ??? Well if you do, are you not then cheating the advertisers ????

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by zqpm
Hmmm i dont see this question by lfc7607 answered

4) Do you charge the advertisers for the ads that has been runing in the period, on such a deactivated account ??? Well if you do, are you not then cheating the advertisers ????

That has been answered on several occasions previously, but just to recap, SI is SI's biggest buyer. That is, with a few exceptions, they're generally not brokering direct clicks or pops on behalf of other advertisers, but promoting their own CellularPhones.com, TurboFind and ClickHereToFind properties.

With the exception of PopupTraffic, every one of SI's programs is performance-based, and those that do involve action on third-party advertising links as part of the program (ClickThruTraffic, SearchTraffic, TextLinks), not only pass through SI's own filters and fraud systems, but those as adopted by their search-based link partners. That is, FindWhat and the others with whom SI are allied also block traffic from certain countries and discount multiple clicks or other suspicious activity originating from a single IP or from junk proxies.

So no, SI's not profiting from the exploitation of its advertisers. They may, however, be gaining free promotion for their own sites after terminating a member for cheating, but who could possibly blame them for that? Several other companies not only shut fraudsters down, but send them invoices and/or legal correspondence seeking retribution for said abuse.

I'd say this is a pretty good deal, comparitively speaking.

HTH.

 

[lfc7607]

The problem was Popuptraffic

So no, SI's not profiting from the exploitation of its advertisers. They may, however, be gaining free promotion for their own sites after terminating a member for cheating

The problem, as I read ebirds post, was amoung other things thatSI did not tell him that they THOUGHT that he was in violation with their terms, but IN BAD FAITH kept sending their pop-up pages.

When they termiate an acount for, what they think is, cheating, at least they could stop sending their ads, and/or send a mail describing WHY your acount has been terminated, and how to contact them (and then respond). Not doing so, I think is much worse than a publisher violating the terms, as they are often vere strict, and can be subjekt for interpretaion. i.e what's erotic material to some, is not to others etc.


And as I stated someone has either goten free ads OR SI has been earning money on ads that according to SI was in violation with their terms, and the adverteiser has therefore not goten what he was paing for.

With regards to blocking for traffic in certain countries, it does not appear to have been happening in this case.

I did not get proof that ebird had been in violation with their terms, and as wrote, it is SI alone that is prosecuter, judge and jury, in cases where they THINK that there has been a violation of their terms.So if they do not want to pay, they can say that you have been in violation with their term, close your account, but of cource keep making money on you until you remove their ads.

As publisher you have no other way to go than these board warning others.

 

[kid kool]

The problem, as I read ebirds post, was amoung other things thatSI did not tell him that they THOUGHT that he was in violation with their terms, but IN BAD FAITH kept sending their pop-up pages

It says right in the terms that they do not contact affiliates when they are terminated. If a webmaster finds that to be unacceptable, then they can go and join another program. You don't just agree to the terms and then later expect to be bewildered when they enforce them. I agree the terms may be subjective with regard to certain things. In that case it is your job to request clarification prior to sending them any traffic which could conceivably be non-compliant.

 

[Jan]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread again (I had hoped it would be locked a long time ago), but since a banned member (of this board) brought it to the surface again I would like to reply to kidcool's mention of the terms of service.

The problem lies therein! The ones that make the mistakes are the ones that hit 'Join' without even bothering to read the terms. I personally read all of it so I don't make the slightest mistake, and if there is something that is unclear in them I will email the Ad company for clarification.

 

[roly]

HiForums dot com looks like a palce where sum1 has got copyrighted images and lciamed ownershit. Oh an dhow is a foum with 13Posts gonna get haps of pop-unders?

 

[Jan]

Roly, what on earth are you talking about

 

[ProgGuru]

I believe he was trying to say:

"The site in question looks like it has copyrighted images from other sites and is trying to claim ownership, and how is a site with 13 posts on the message board supposed to get heaps of popups?"

 

[Jeff Booth]

*Removing post here and moving it to correct thread*

 

[}:8) Supermoo]

Jeff,

Please post your complaint in a new 'official complaint' thread.

Using the guidelines set out here:

http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9856

Thankyou,

 

[Jeff Booth]

Sorry, didn't see that, will move post.

 

[Peo]

We're closing this old thread now.

As Supermoo already said, please post any future complaints in a new thread. And please follow the guidelines on how to post a complaint (see first sticky post in this forum)