ccbills stats interface is the worst thing I've ever seen.

It seems that BV makes sales so he's happy.....I've also seen him bitch before...especially around two years ago so he doesn't portray shit as peaches and cream all the time.

Why would CCbill pay him? He's actually posted his stats up in here....

THIS truthful statement is very troubling.

I can't believe some webmasters are so NAIVE and STUPID that they blame CCBILL...

CCBILL is all fine and working.

The problem and cause of your bad ratio/sales is pretty obvious, do I need to explain it? Come on.. have you been on a box for the last 3-4 years?

I can't believe some people are so stupid and surprised of their bad sales and ratios.

CCBILL, Mr. Cadwell and their staff do an excellent job and they are one of the only (if not the only) company that is still ALIVE since the early days in a ruined business where hundreds of companies, sponsors and thousands of webmasters had to close their doors and quit in the last 2 years. Obvious reasons. At this point we don't have to explain why things are how they are.

double that

i've had a few days which were lower, but then fri, sat, and sun and i'm above average this week
my month with ccbill is pretty good

I think the problem lies here. the programs using cascade that are getting lost and not credited to the affiliate. thats my guess as one of the issues.

I'm not making things up about NATS. I'm making an educated guess that PROGRAMS that use NATS usually report second page clicks and don't figure 1st page clicks in their conversion ratio reported to the affiliate.

I know in the past this was the case (back when I used to promote other programs) and if one was to search here at GFY they could find numerous threads supporting my statement.

So which is the truer statement today: A or B or C

A: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 1st page uniques.

B: Most programs that use NATS report ratios using 2nd page uniques.

C: Most programs that use NATS report both 1st and 2nd page ratios.

Please don't confuse my statement that NATS is not capable of counting ratios using 1st page clicks. I'm sure that NATS can and does. But it's my understanding that in the past many programs that use NATS report ratios using the 2nd page click in order to make their ratios look better to their affiliates than other programs reporting ratios with just 1st page clicks. (like CCBill)

Are you saying this is not true anymore? (as i know for a fact it once was)

Maybe both ratios are reported now (or capable of being).

When someone comes in here and says they have a 1:250 ratio I automatically assume 1 of 3 things.

1: that's a 2nd page ratio
2: they are extremely filtering their traffic before sending it through the affiliate link
or
3: they are lying

Because 1:250 (1st page click) ratios are a thing of the past and have been for quite some time.

There are a few exceptions but we are speaking here in overall average general terms.

I agree .... but I find that most 'new' sites that come out are really 'same old same old' ...

Our CCBill program is doing fine, converting at under 1:500 year to date.

were all fucked :2 cents:

The answer is A and always has been. 2nd page hits are referred to as qualified clicks in NATS. In NATS a uniques is a first page unique, a click through the tracking link.

If you would like to try to make a point, please use actual information, not guesses, assumptions, and made up facts.