Announcing BitcoinAdvertisers.com THE MONEY MAKING MONSTER!

[Daily Anarchist]

That's one of the bad things about Google Adsense, is the publishers are always left wondering how many genuine clicks are being rejected by Google because Google thinks it looks fraudulent, all the while the advertiser is paying for the clicks as if they were real, so Google rakes it in and publishers get screwed.

That's not true. Google refunds advertisers for the value paid for clicks that are found to be fraudulent.

An open-source script or something would be nice. Either way, ferreting out fraudulent clicks is WAY MORE resource intense than simply making things CPM. More efficiency means more savings for advertisers and more income for publishers.

[1714963357]

1714963357

[1714963357]

1714963357

[1714963357]

1714963357

[1714963357]

1714963357

[1714963357]

1714963357

[Daily Anarchist]

Honestly, the best way to do it (in my opinion) is by a combination of total impressions and unique impressions.  Something like X(Unique) + Y(Total) = Payout, where X might be 0.01 BTC and Y might be 0.0001 BTC.  And of course, check for what browser is being used, etc, so bots aren't counted.

Going by CPC is pretty sketchy on both the publisher and management side.  The publisher might be tempted to click on his own links, or otherwise incentivise the clicks for other people, and the management side might be tempted to ban sites that appear to have a high CTR, when it very well could be legitimate traffic.

I agree with this. I think CPM is more honest in general and better for everybody. Consider the fact that some advertisers might get more impressions because they bid higher but aren't getting very many clicks because their ads aren't enticing. The publisher loses out because the ads aren't getting clicked. Plus, sometimes publishers like to click their own ads because they are genuinely interested, but they don't click because they don't want to look fraudulent.

That's one of the bad things about Google Adsense, is the publishers are always left wondering how many genuine clicks are being rejected by Google because Google thinks it looks fraudulent, all the while the advertiser is paying for the clicks as if they were real, so Google rakes it in and publishers get screwed.

Well, no advertising is a guarantee of new business but online advertising has inherently measurable metrics which advertisers can use to judge what is best for them.  I setup this system because I believe it is the best middle ground for all our partners to get the most value for using the service.  

Any chance of giving publishers and advertisers the option of CPM or CPC? It would be nice as a publisher to specify that I only accept CPM ads.

[Daily Anarchist]

Honestly, the best way to do it (in my opinion) is by a combination of total impressions and unique impressions.  Something like X(Unique) + Y(Total) = Payout, where X might be 0.01 BTC and Y might be 0.0001 BTC.  And of course, check for what browser is being used, etc, so bots aren't counted.

Going by CPC is pretty sketchy on both the publisher and management side.  The publisher might be tempted to click on his own links, or otherwise incentivise the clicks for other people, and the management side might be tempted to ban sites that appear to have a high CTR, when it very well could be legitimate traffic.

I agree with this. I think CPM is more honest in general and better for everybody. Consider the fact that some advertisers might get more impressions because they bid higher but aren't getting very many clicks because their ads aren't enticing. The publisher loses out because the ads aren't getting clicked. Plus, sometimes publishers like to click their own ads because they are genuinely interested, but they don't click because they don't want to look fraudulent.

That's one of the bad things about Google Adsense, is the publishers are always left wondering how many genuine clicks are being rejected by Google because Google thinks it looks fraudulent, all the while the advertiser is paying for the clicks as if they were real, so Google rakes it in and publishers get screwed.

Well, no advertising is a guarantee of new business but online advertising has inherently measurable metrics which advertisers can use to judge what is best for them.  I setup this system because I believe it is the best middle ground for all our partners to get the most value for using the service.  

Any chance of giving publishers and advertisers the option of CPM or CPC? It would be nice as a publisher to specify that I only accept CPM ads.

Sure perhaps in a future version we can do that.  The more people that ask for it the faster we can get to it.  Based on user demand the next release will have graphic banners for publishers who chose to allow those on their site.

Rome wasn't built in a day, so I don't expect bitcoinadvertisers to have all the bells and whistles day one. Keep up the good work!

[SgtSpike]

That's one of the bad things about Google Adsense, is the publishers are always left wondering how many genuine clicks are being rejected by Google because Google thinks it looks fraudulent, all the while the advertiser is paying for the clicks as if they were real, so Google rakes it in and publishers get screwed.

Well, no, that's not true.  Google either pays you everything, or waits for a month, then informs you that the $100 you earned last month was due to fraudulent clicking activity, and you won't be paid.  They don't reject a certain number of clicks.  If they see fradulent clicking, then they reject ALL of the clicks, and all of your payments.

I've had it happen to three websites of mine, and have since forever sworn off of Google's Adsense.  They let you appeal the ban, but then decline your appeal 99% of the time.

[giantdragon]

Sadly I am am having to post this quote from our TOS to head off a likely dispute with a disgruntled partner (e.g., web publisher) who is making inaccurate claims about the service and is likely to make those grievances public.

The materials on BitcoinAdvertisers.com's web site are provided "as is". BitcoinAdvertisers.com makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, BitcoinAdvertisers.com does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.

In no event shall BitcoinAdvertisers.com or its suppliers be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of data or profit, or due to business interruption,) arising out of the use or inability to use the materials on BitcoinAdvertisers.com's Internet site, even if BitcoinAdvertisers.com or a BitcoinAdvertisers.com authorized representative has been notified orally or in writing of the possibility of such damage. Because some jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranties, or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, these limitations may not apply to you.

http://bitcoinadvertisers.com/tos.php

State it clearly on the visible place (e.g. footer) that users could know that they are not guaranteed with payout!

For example: "Website operator reserves the right to reject payments on its sole discretion!".

[SgtSpike]

Sadly I am am having to post this quote from our TOS to head off a likely dispute with a disgruntled partner (e.g., web publisher) who is making inaccurate claims about the service and is likely to make those grievances public.

The materials on BitcoinAdvertisers.com's web site are provided "as is". BitcoinAdvertisers.com makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, BitcoinAdvertisers.com does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.

In no event shall BitcoinAdvertisers.com or its suppliers be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of data or profit, or due to business interruption,) arising out of the use or inability to use the materials on BitcoinAdvertisers.com's Internet site, even if BitcoinAdvertisers.com or a BitcoinAdvertisers.com authorized representative has been notified orally or in writing of the possibility of such damage. Because some jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranties, or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, these limitations may not apply to you.

http://bitcoinadvertisers.com/tos.php

State it clearly on the visible place (e.g. footer) that users could know that they are not guaranteed with payout!

For example: "Website operator reserves the right to reject payments on its sole discretion!".

I disagree that this is necessary.  Every CPC-based advertiser will reject a site that is receiving fraudulent clicks.

[giantdragon]

Every CPC-based advertiser will reject a site that is receiving fraudulent clicks.

I absolutely agree with you, but in this case BitcoinAdvertisers.com admin rejects legitimate clicks only at reason that the publisher has high CTR.

P.S. I suppose the owner just don't have enough skills to implement normal fraud detecting script and therefore rely on the CTR.

[SgtSpike]

Every CPC-based advertiser will reject a site that is receiving fraudulent clicks.

I absolutely agree with you, but in this case BitcoinAdvertisers.com admin rejects legitimate clicks only at reason that the publisher has high CTR.

P.S. I suppose the owner just don't have enough skills to implement normal fraud detecting script and therefore rely on the CTR.

Pretty sure that's how most other sites do it too, but maybe you know more about it than I do?  I know Google has some fairly complex (obviously not working well) methods of detecting click fraud, but most small-time advertising sites just use CTR and statistics to figure out who is cheating and who is not.

[giantdragon]

Every CPC-based advertiser will reject a site that is receiving fraudulent clicks.

I absolutely agree with you, but in this case BitcoinAdvertisers.com admin rejects legitimate clicks only at reason that the publisher has high CTR.

P.S. I suppose the owner just don't have enough skills to implement normal fraud detecting script and therefore rely on the CTR.

Pretty sure that's how most other sites do it too, but maybe you know more about it than I do?  I know Google has some fairly complex (obviously not working well) methods of detecting click fraud, but most small-time advertising sites just use CTR and statistics to figure out who is cheating and who is not.

I have implemented complex fraud detection algorithm on the CoinURL and it seems to work fine (I manually analyzed the logs and don't found any significant number of suspicious clicks). Of course it was not easy to implement and I need to periodically update filters, but it eliminates any disputes with publishers which emerged with the BitcoinAdvertisers.com. Relying solely on the CTR looks very primitive and if the admin wants to attract much more users, he must seriously work on the software.

[terrytibbs]

I have implemented complex fraud detection algorithm on the CoinURL and it seems to work fine (I manually analyzed the logs and don't found any significant number of suspicious clicks). Of course it was not easy to implement and I need to periodically update filters, but it eliminates any disputes with publishers which emerged with the BitcoinAdvertisers.com. Relying solely on the CTR looks very primitive and if the admin wants to attract much more users, he must seriously work on the software.

+1

[giantdragon]

I have decided to suspend your banners on the Daily Bitcoins. I hope other users would also evaluate features and conditions that BitcoinAdvertisers.com operator offers and make a correct choice!

P.S. I have requested a refund of remaining funds, but you have declined.

[ingrownpocket]

http://www.bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=1EZAgDQZcYBoTsYrSEm17r9cHgcA26mH7H

http://www.bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=13jtB3VsnH8gM1ujiTw5LPvJEhKoFHiuYn

http://www.bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=1JLYihaNhtTZ78sJgBscbWq27j126mcWKU

I think it's time to correct that 'Impressions' bug...

[Matoking]

I have a problem with delayed payouts like giantdragon had. The payment address is 1LagcvMP2hZpvHbuadfQEVkPGGUKZxrrXa :
http://bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=1LagcvMP2hZpvHbuadfQEVkPGGUKZxrrXa

[Dr. Bitcoin]

I have a problem

Fixed!

[giantdragon]

Warning message disappeared, but now I see balance 0 BTC and payment still not received!

[rjk]

Warning message disappeared, but now I see balance 0 BTC and payment still not received!

You got banned. True adsense style, but without the automated warning email lol

So can I ban all customers by clicking the fuck out of all the bitcoinadvertisers links with a few proxies?

[giantdragon]

At least you can leave them without a payout if you click enough. Given that even the traffic stats for partners are public, the system can be easily exploited.

Totally agree.
I see no future for this service if the admin will not invest his time/money in the development, IMHO.

[Dr. Bitcoin]

I see no future for this service if the admin will not invest his time/money in the development, IMHO.

Most of development time is used for the new version, only necessary updates are done for the current site. 

[ingrownpocket]

I have decided to suspend your banners on the Daily Bitcoins. I hope other users would also evaluate features and conditions that BitcoinAdvertisers.com operator offers and make a correct choice!

P.S. I have requested a refund of remaining funds, but you have declined.

Same here.

[terrytibbs]

Suffice to say that Andrew does not posess the technical know-how to run and support a site and service like this.