This right here. We made our submission, disliked how he ran it, pulled out. It's as simple as that. Nobody is going around murdering everyone who doesn't take part, so there's no real place for going on and on about how bad it is. Either you do it or you don't; it's as simple as that. In my case, I thought we'd be a good fit because he wanted something *custom*. I didn't realize he was simply asking for someone to type "Flibbr" into a word processor and flip through fonts to look for a nice one, XD.

We've decided not to waste any more time on this. Good luck to anyone who enters the contest though, .

Up! Just to show an example of some work, here's something she drew up for Flibbr (a logo). It's a rough sketch to see what he thinks, but it should give an idea of concept art:

I agree with this. I was going to pitch the idea to someone I know that's great at art and logo design but I decided I don't want to drag them into something that may or may not even pay off. It sucks to spend hours working on something to perfect it, just to find that you get absolutely nothing to show for it.

The sad part is that looking up the address, from the time the scam started to now:

Total Received   2.4495 BTC   
Final Balance   0 BTC

It's possible that what happened caused confusion. IE. the system started out as per-hour for some advertisers, so when it jumped up to per-day they may have not noticed that difference and thought "whoa, the prices just jumped up by over 20x what they were. I'm out!" I have the feeling this is what happened.

The highest allowed interest as per government regulation (without being registered as a bank) in most of the US is as low as 4% APY depending on the state. Anything above that classifies as being usurious (aka "loan sharking") and is a federal offense. Do you seriously want to go down this path?

I'd much rather get fee rebates and actually earn something than get "interest" and it be worth almost nothing.

How can there be a FEE REBATE if there's no fee? A rebate is a partial or full return of what was paid. Therefore a fee rebate means it's a partial or full return of your fees. If you had no fees, how can you possibly have a partial or full return of the fees you paid?

(Note: full returns can also go over the original amount. For example, there are plenty of mail-in-rebates I've gotten with things that paid more than I spent for the original items)

Cheaper in no way means better. There's a reason SEO specialists get paid so much, for example. In a highly competitive market, knowledge is everything. For those who wake, live and breathe things like SEO, there's really no comparison. I'd personally pay $100 to someone who can pretty much guarantee long-term results than $5 to someone who may or may not even know what they are doing, and who could completely screw up my site in the process.

The same goes for advertising management. Someone who knows what they are doing can literally save companies millions of dollars over someone who doesn't, plus get much better results. So spending a little extra on that person ends up saving money in the long run.

I'm in no way against your offer or anything, I just think it's worth being realistic. Selling yourself as a cheaper alternative in a couple of these fields is a recipe for disaster and you are likely to take down others with you. A lot of website owners don't fully comprehend how much damage can be done if someone is optimizing their site and does it improperly. Or spending $15 per user acquisition when you could easily bring that down to $0.50.

I'd like to hear more about it, including the costs for both development/bankrolling.

It's not really "stupid," it's how we infer things. 0.1 BTC an hour sounds a lot better than 2.4 BTC a day, for example. Smaller numbers are always "better."

It's really along the same lines as the marketing gimmick for discounts. If you have an item for $5.00 and then offer two coupons: one for 50% off and one for $2.50 off, and ask which is the better deal, people will almost always choose one over the other, even though they are exactly the same. It's how our brains play tricks on us, :p.

Perfect, thank you!

I have no issues with the ones that have funds. 3 so far have zeroed me out and left me with nothing though and that is bad on my reputation as well because by adding sites to my rotator I'm essentially vouching for them being legitimate.

While there can still definitely be some scam sites out there, the damage is a lot lower when there's not a bug (or... missing feature) that zeroe's you out. The issue was this:

1) I earn 100,000 Satoshi
2) I try to cash out. Uh oh, the site only had 99,999 left.
3) Site sets me back to zero
4) (Others can continuing to cash out, so long as their total amount is under 100k)
5) Faucet owner adds in another BTC
6) I'm still at zero so those who haven't tried to cash out can, those who have are screwed and have to start over

My personal issues are 3 -> 5 -> 6. I was thinking a public showing of how much Bitcoin is available on the account would be good as well, though I don't know how the faucet owners would take it. It'd just be nice to be able to say "ah, they're at 0.0001 BTC and haven't added more in 7 days, maybe I should wait it out and drop it from the rotation for now."

His issue isn't with them taking fees out, it's with transparency. "If you are taking 0.0004 BTC out that's fine, just let us know ahead of time so we know what's happening."

Thank you, sir. Now time to get all the faucet owners to implement the update, :p.

No problem, :p.

Essentially it works like this:

You can speak to up to 5 people at once before your brain explodes from overload. Someone wants to "attack" you so they send out 10,000 people. Now you can't talk to even the first five because of the overload, so you freeze up and become non-responsive.

In the analogy, the server is the person speaking to people and the people are packets (being sent by visitors).

It has nothing to do with "what fits." You can't have third party ads. Period. It doesn't matter if it all fits on one line or takes up 500 lines. The rule is still no third party ads.

Bug report: when you have the sites grouped by domain, it doesn't sort them properly. For example, if you choose to sort by views, you will notice that some of the higher-viewed sites won't be on page one. If you skip to page two or further you may see them. It's actually a little odd how that works. Essentially each page has its own tier going from highest -> lowest, rather than the entire listing being from highest (#1 on page 1) to lowest (#x on page x -- last).

When sorting without the domain grouping on it works fine.

You must SERIOUSLY suck at math. Let me break it down for you:

First post: July 23
July 23 + 30 days = August 22 (because July had 31 days).

August 22 != August 21. L2math.