SI Referals Stopped Paying Me........

[loko-moko]

Anyone else have this problem?!?!?

I am using the Allclicks exit program with and used to get the 5 % referral off the people I referred, but then it all stopped one day...

SI says the referral stopped using the code, but if you go to their web site they clearly use it and they get paid everyday for it.

This referral makes A LOT a day... and I heard rumors here before SI cancels people who make a lot...

So Im not sure whats going on =(

Please help!!!

[}:8) Supermoo]

Hmmm... this other site wouldn't happen to be a warez or adult site would it? ;)

[loko-moko]

Of course not =)

Its a normal site and they continue to get paid everyday... SI just stopped paying me the 5%.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
Of course not =)

Can I see it? :)

[loko-moko]

No...

That will just raise hell with spamming and stuff =)

Something that is easily avoided and not important.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
No...

That will just raise hell with spamming and stuff =)


It's not spamming because it's not your website...


Originally posted by loko-moko
Something that is easily avoided and not important.

I cannot help you, unless you let me help you.

Take it or leave it,

[loko-moko]

He doesnt want it posted...

I know for a fact its running the code and SI has seen it also...

I am just not being paid from SI on it..

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
He doesnt want it posted...

I know for a fact its running the code and SI has seen it also...

I am just not being paid from SI on it..

So let's just assume he's cheating Standard Internet... okay?

[loko-moko]

He isnt...

SI pays him every month...

They pay me every month...

The only thing they stopped doing was paying me the 5 % referral, and he still gets his money.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
He isnt...

SI pays him every month...

They pay me every month...

The only thing they stopped doing was paying me the 5 % referral, and he still gets his money.

Standard Internet will pay for genuine traffic.

Standard Internet will not pay for unwanted traffic obtained through cheating.

Standard Internet will not pay for referrals of unwanted traffic obtained through cheating.

Warez the problem? ;)

[loko-moko]

No its not warez...

Its his company's web site...

He runs free Internet services..

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
No its not warez...

Its his company's web site...

He runs free Internet services..

Prove it. Show me the website.


Originally posted by }:8)
I cannot help you, unless you let me help you.

[loko-moko]

If he wants to prove it to you, he will post his web site...

Plus it really isnt your concern, since its not your business to know how and how much $$$ he is generating.

Plus you have no ties with SI.. so how do you plan on helping anyways.

I was mainly writing this to get a response from Robert.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
If he wants to prove it to you, he will post his web site...

Plus it really isnt your concern, since its not your business to know how and how much $$$ he is generating.


I'm not interested in seeing how much 'he' makes, all I'm interested in is proving that he did something wrong. I'm trying to let 'him' get out of it.


Originally posted by loko-moko
Plus you have no ties with SI.. so how do you plan on helping anyways.

I do have ties with Standard Internet Corporation.


Originally posted by loko-moko
I was mainly writing this to get a response from Robert.

I think I may be more help than Robert, his company has already replied.

[Cheap Bastard]

There's only one thing Supermoo doesn't seem to understand here...
Ever hear of privacy?

You know, there ARE people that simply don't want their website plugged into webposts... Especially if the post has a rather negative approach.

Plus, you may have ties with SI, but i doubt they're anything near administrative powers...

Perhaps you (moo) could mail loko-moko and kindly ask for the URL if you're so interested, rather than waste both of your time...

loko-moko: just try mailing them a couple of times, and try and get it worked out. Most of all: don't flame them AT all... Nobody likes flaming, plus it gives them a legitimate reason to completely throw you out of the program, which results in more trouble than you started with AND in the market of today affiliates are next to worthless (plenty of em waiting in line...)

[loko-moko]

Yea I have no intent to flame them, I am just curious on why this is happening and the person at SI who replied to me wasn't sure.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
There's only one thing Supermoo doesn't seem to understand here...
Ever hear of privacy?

You know, there ARE people that simply don't want their website plugged into webposts... Especially if the post has a rather negative approach.

Plus, you may have ties with SI, but i doubt they're anything near administrative powers...

Perhaps you (moo) could mail loko-moko and kindly ask for the URL if you're so interested, rather than waste both of your time...

loko-moko: just try mailing them a couple of times, and try and get it worked out. Most of all: don't flame them AT all... Nobody likes flaming, plus it gives them a legitimate reason to completely throw you out of the program, which results in more trouble than you started with AND in the market of today affiliates are next to worthless (plenty of em waiting in line...)

Webmasters not wanting traffic, can't say I've ever heard of that... I do not currently have e-mail access although I would have taken you up on that option (maybe post it here for a few minutes and then delete it).

Cheap Bastard, I can inform you that much of your doubt is mis-placed.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
Yea I have no intent to flame them, I am just curious on why this is happening and the person at SI who replied to me wasn't sure.

Probaly because you didn't give them the account name, too private? ;)

No, sorry... had to lighten things up a bit.

I'm sure that Standard Internet would not with-hold payment without a valid reason.

[loko-moko]

Running free services you already get enough traffic - million hits a day or more...

And he is in the listings on this site already =)

If I dont hear back from SI I will possibly tell you.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Thankyou, and I doubt Robert of SI will publicly talk about account issues on these forums.

[Cheap Bastard]

supermoo: click his profile to mail him...

also, i was just trying to say 'ease up'... You're coming down way to hard on this guy... Perhaps the Aussie's haven't yet gotten to this, but in America it's usually ''innocent until proven otherwise''.

And yes, i've had various instances where webmasters did NOT want to post their URL (with good cause) even if they have a legitimate site...
Also, it's not his site, so it's not his decision... This is a perfectly good reason not to post the URL in question.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
supermoo: click his profile to mail him...

And how am I meant to get the reply? Think ahead please! :)


Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
also, i was just trying to say 'ease up'... You're coming down way to hard on this guy... Perhaps the Aussie's haven't yet gotten to this, but in America it's usually ''innocent until proven otherwise''.

The same applies to de-facing companies without reason, except they are more likley to sue you. I have large amounts of trust in this company.


Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
And yes, i've had various instances where webmasters did NOT want to post their URL (with good cause) even if they have a legitimate site...

I hope you've learnt from this. I learnt from Ron. ;)


Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
Also, it's not his site, so it's not his decision... This is a perfectly good reason not to post the URL in question.

That also applies if it contains illegal or inaproppriate material, a reason SI would not pay this affiliate. To be believed it's always nice to back up your spoken word.

[loko-moko]

SI is paying the affliate...

Why would SI pay him, but not me the referral % if his site was illegal? They wouldnt pay either if it was - but he gets paid, so it obvisous is just fine.

[Robert from SI]

LocoMoco,

SI pays all referrals 5%. Always has, always will.

Your posting anonymously, refusing to give your account or website and refusing to give your friends account or website.

We have many instances on the SI board of regular posters coming on saying "my buddy makes $20/day with SearchTraffic and I only get $0.10 in referrals!!!!!"

and then I look up the account and his buddy is actually only making $2.00/day.

I'll be happy to give you a full and public accounting and you can email me in private if you have a great phobia about posting your website.

[loko-moko]

Thanks!

Email sent.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Ron, you're posting awfully late at night, it's dark there now, isn't it? :confused:

[loko-moko]

What?

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
What?

Now this is just getting confusing.... :confused:

[Robert from SI]

I checked your account, and your friends account and you are getting exactly what you deserve.

:)

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Robert from SI
I checked your account, and your friends account and you are getting exactly what you deserve.

:)

lol :D

[ccreighton]

I hate reading to this point and not knowing the final outcome. Well I mean Robert did say they are receiving their due but still there's alot I missed. Kind of like watching a two part movie and missing the second half.

Oh well, press on.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Deposit $10 into my account and I'll tell you the ending! ;)

lol, no I think it's more like watching the first show and then watching the last 2 minutes of the second, not understanding why or how it happened. ;)

Don't worry, be happy! :)

[loko-moko]

"I am getting what I deserve"

Does that mean his account was terminated?

[Cheap Bastard]

about the mail link: it'll put the e-mail addy you signed up with as 'reply-to' address...

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
about the mail link: it'll put the e-mail addy you signed up with as 'reply-to' address...

Can you explain this a little? :consfused:

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
"I am getting what I deserve"

Does that mean his account was terminated?


It means you are getting what you deserve. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Robert from SI]

There are no problems with loko-moko's account or his referred account. Both are in good standing.

The admin saw warez sites and such and properly flagged the account. Upon investigation we learned that these are free hosts and we allow free hosts more lattitude if they cooperate and remove suspect accounts.

[loko-moko]

Thanks Robert!

One last question -

Will I get referral credit for when he was flagged?

March 28 - April 4 I believe, right now it shows $0, but I see it started again on April 5.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
One last question -

Will I get referral credit for when he was flagged?

March 28 - April 4 I believe, right now it shows $0, but I see it started again on April 5.

...



Standard Internet will pay for genuine traffic.

Standard Internet will not pay for unwanted traffic obtained through cheating.

Standard Internet will not pay for referrals of unwanted traffic obtained through cheating.


Wonder who said that? ;)

[loko-moko]

He clearly says the site is alright - hence traffic is not unwanted or illegal traffic, so your comments are pointless and a waste of bandwith.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko

He clearly says the site is alright - hence traffic is not unwanted or illegal traffic, so your comments are pointless and a waste of bandwith.

Now the traffic is alright,

From the moment they have un-flagged the account, he/she will start to make money and you will recieve a commission on this.

You will not recieve any refferal money for when he/she/it was cheating. Follow it?

[loko-moko]

Yes I understand that...

But he was never cheating is my point =)

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Robert from SI
The admin saw warez sites and such and properly flagged the account.

WAREZ = NO ;)


Originally posted by Robert from SI
Upon investigation we learned that these are free hosts and we allow free hosts more lattitude if they cooperate and remove suspect accounts.

He is now able to use the program again, they should be thankful. Many people do not get this oppurtunity to restart.

[loko-moko]

This happens with EVERY free web hosting provider - nothing new...

I get phone calls all the time from the FBI and AOL about warez, porn, and scams... And so does everyother FWP =)

Anyways I'm taking this private...

[Robert from SI]

loko,

Because every free-host provider ends up with warez traffic does not mean we are willing to pay for it. :)

Thats the free-hosts problem, not ours. :)

[loko-moko]

hehe

Are we gonna be flagged everytime from now on that a warez site is found?

[loko-moko]

Robert.

The referee asked me to ask you...

"Will I receive money for when my account was flagged"

"Will my referral receive monies earned during the period the account was flagged for?"

I tried explaining what you said, but he wants a flat out answer =)

[}:8) Supermoo]

Is this another private discussion held on a public forum, or can I help answer;

No & No!

Are we done yet? ;)

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by loko-moko
hehe

Are we gonna be flagged everytime from now on that a warez site is found?

I'd imagine you'll be flagged every-time you send worthless traffic. Although, I cannot speak for Standard Internet. So you may be able too.

[loko-moko]

Supermoo

You do not need to participate...

What you "imagine" and "assume" really does not matter, so if you do not know, why not just let Robert answer instead of drawing conclusions?

[Robert from SI]

Take it to email please...

[solace]

Supermoo, can you leave the 2 parties to sort in out in cases like this? Account holders who have problems with SI are silenced much too often than necessary by passionate supporters. Many of these people have genuine cases, and valid reasons for bringing these issues to forums.

And I really think both supporters and webmasters with problems should not speak on the behalf of SI, because the implication would be potentially misleading, especially forums like these are often not read critically, but taken for granted that everything is factual. Or if there is an argument, the more supported site will *seem* to tell the truth.

Webmasters bring up issue and supply with relevant facts, not with-holding necessary information necessary for judgement, and SI decides the way they want to deal with the issue. If 3rd parties want to interfere, I think the more useful way would be to restrict to share their own previous experiences, documented if possible, to participate in the discussion. Otherwise opinions count very little in factual, case differentiated discussions such as these.

[Edited by solace on 04-06-2001 at 11:29 PM]

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by solace
Supermoo, can you leave the 2 parties to sort in out in cases like this? Account holders who have problems with SI are silenced much too often than necessary by passionate supporters. Many of these people have genuine cases, and valid reasons for bringing these issues to forums.

And I really think both supporters and webmasters with problems should not speak on the behalf of SI, because the implication would be potentially misleading, especially forums like these are often not read critically, but taken for granted that everything is factual. Or if there is an argument, the more supported site will *seem* to tell the truth.

Webmasters bring up issue and supply with relevant facts, not with-holding necessary information necessary for judgement, and SI decides the way they want to deal with the issue. If 3rd parties want to interfere, I think the more useful way would be to restrict to share their own previous experiences, documented if possible, to participate in the discussion. Otherwise opinions count very little in factual, case differentiated discussions such as these.

[Edited by solace on 04-06-2001 at 11:29 PM]

A vaid opinion and I'm glad you announced here...

Although one thing burns in the back of my mind, a public forum is for public discussion. This means that it is open to public criticism.

Secondly, as the webmaster in question noted I do sepearte factual evidence from my own opinions...



Supermoo

You do not need to participate...

What you "imagine" and "assume" really does not matter, so if you do not know, why not just let Robert answer instead of drawing conclusions?


Obviously seeing the definition between factual evidence and opinons.

If you want my own experience and past experiences I've found contacting people in question directly, is a lot faster and efficent than taking it to a public forum and humiliating them. Public defimation in my opinion should only be used as a last resort, if used at all.

Now as the only person in this thread I can agree with, besides myself, claimed...



Take it to email please...

[Cheap Bastard]

Originally posted by }:8) Supermoo

Originally posted by Cheap Bastard
about the mail link: it'll put the e-mail addy you signed up with as 'reply-to' address...

Can you explain this a little? :consfused:

If you click the ''mail this person'' link in his profile, a mail will be sent to *the e-mail address he signed up with, for example: loko-moko@loko-moko.loko-moko*, and the reply-to e-mail address (the one he would reply to) would be yours (for example: super-moo@super-moo.super-moo)
get that now?

Also, i agree with solace. Until you become a SI admin, most of your reply's are pretty useless, and rather hateful to a person with a genuine problem. You can always make suggestions or comments, but you're just trying to make-believe you're an SI admin... I'm not an SI admin, and i'll never be (not smart enough), but i doubt you'll be either, so leave it to the professionals, and give them time to reply with ''take it to the e-mail'', so they can show these webmasters it really should be done in private.

[solace]

I quote:



Public defimation in my opinion should only be used as a last resort, if used at all.


That is a highly dangerous comment you have made. If the poster in concerned is a representative of a company, and is not an individual webmaster, just by that comment alone is sufficiently suggesting that he is defaming. And it is proven that he has not engaged in any defamotory actions, than you have, by accusing him. I suggest you try not to abuse legal terms at will.

Secondly, he had obviously stated that he is not getting the response from email, which is why he has to bring it public. The initial response Robert posted here is hardly informative at all, by saying "Both your sites are getting what you deserve". Now that would hardly have answered any questions the poster had isn't it, and this justify the poster to pursue the case further on the board.

Moo, I don't want to do what you did, by selectively quoting what I said to concretize your argument, because you really pasted your comments all over the board, and isolating your comments is too tedious.

What appears to be "factual" to you may not be the case for others. I am sure SI pays you, and is honest towards you. We are all happy for you. But people who bring up their problems to "public" forums obviously are experiencing problems, and is having a different experience with SI. You definitely do not know what is exactly going on, but you jump to conclusions at different stages, assuming they were "cheating", not following the book and so on. There are no truth in these claims at all, from the information the poster had provided.

Furthermore, a "public" forum can easily be ruined by an unbalanced discussion such as these. The only truth that matters in this discussion can only be provided by SI and the poster in concern. What you have said do not pertain specifically to their case at all. But what you had said certainly has a curtailing effect on potential posters who want to bring up their problems with any companies. In this case, since SI has such an avid supporter as you, they are more likely than not shut up. And these cases are important for webmasters seeking information, not just getting one side of the picture you are giving.

Look at your own posts again. You are literally jumping at everyone who wants to find out what is going on, making your own assumptions and conclusions.

Again, I emphasize my point on the fact that you do not have the right to speak on the behalf of SI, or any company for that matter. Give others a chance to speak Moo. Don't jump on them like you do. I am sure you want this forum to be a useful one.

[Edited by solace on 04-07-2001 at 12:51 PM]

[}:8) Supermoo]

Yes, I'm an outspoken supporter of Standard Internet and I was trying to help out a fellow member... I have been in a situation similar and have had a friend in the exact situation.

I'm sure this is your representation of what this board should be, from the small amount of time you've been here. A place where webmasters/posters will try and help one another out. Quoting past experiences if necessary, to back up any thoughts on the matter. I also like this idea, although I doubt it will become a reality...

I'm not an SI admin, I never claimed that I was. I just thought I could help, from my own experience.

Although, I do draw a line. If I don't actually know the person I've learnt from these boards to automatically assume the worst is possible. If enough evidence is provided I will try to help the webmaster in question, if not I'll try to rely on past experiences to a likley outcome.

*Points to post count* I've had many past experiences on this style of matter, viewing three webmaster advertising boards on a regular basis, over the past year.

I'm also pretty certain that Standard Internet do have faults in their tracking systems, I've been caught in these and have been 'flagged' before. There is my past experience, that was solved directley through email/ICQ. If it haddn't been solved I too would have come to these boards (just like loko).

Although, if I had wanted to try and recieve help I would have provided basic information on my own website. You cannot really get help unless you do that.

Another past experience that I've had on this board trying to stand up for a webmaster against Standard Internet. I almost got banned, along with the thread's disposal. Due to the lack of free speech on these boards.
(Yes, Peo... I've still got a grudge. Ron deserves his last post restored.)

It looks like I made the wrong call, and I didn't want to make it again. As far as I'm concerned, I have not made that wrong call.

You can claim that this post is completley irrelivant and that I'm just some stupid cow. Some people would believe you, for good reason.

Although, I think that this is how I act on these forums, these are my own beliefs. I'd strongly reccomend anyone who has any complaint to come here and post, although if you do... I'd like to see some basic information.

Like maybe the fact that... "My friend owns a free service, a free webhosting company."

Might help move things along, in the right direction. :)

[solace]

You certainly wasn't helping him. You were silencing him. The basic information you provided is not helpful in dealing with case-specific posts like this. Your experience you talked about isn't helpful, again, because you jumped to conclusions way to early.

Small amount of time I have been here? Don't jump to conclusion Moo. I have seen your very first post on FWS. I have seen your ascii art signature and all that. I have seen Worldzone started up from zero. I have seen banning of several members who are active on this board now. All these, I had seen as one of the first anonymous moderators of FWS dot net, back to the days when it was still using awsd board on a shared hosting account. By not flaunting my experience does not mean I don't have them. Because trying to apply them irrelevantly will do no one good.

Both of us should have said what we want to say. It is time to move on. For me at least. But please, I totally don't have anything against you. What I say, is for the good of this board. We need more balanced discussions. Cases like this, where the poster in concern is genuinely seeking for help, and not coming in to yell SI is SC*M and provide fake info, we have to give them the benefit of doubt. Otherwise, we would give the impression to readers that whoever having problems with SI are cheaters, and SI is infallible. Give people a chance.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Yes, I wasn't helping him because at the time with no information I though he was a cheat, which was show later.

Your right, let's just leave it. Also, I thought I'd seen that name somewhere...

Later :)

[solace]

cool :)

[venomx]

Atleast he is getting paid. Robert wont even answer my emails to tell me what I did wrong to not get paid.

[}:8) Supermoo]

I'd reccomend you start a new post on this matter, and address that problem, there.

Remember to include some account information if you think it may halp you.

Best of luck,