[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

As a new subsection of the Parasiteware forum, I've decide to create a wall of shame if you will, of all the unethical affiliates that are out there besmirching our industry and pilfering our earnings with their unethical practices. The purpose of course is to enlighten merchants and networks of such activities as an effort to curtail and hopefully end unethical activities within our marketplace.

Straighten up and work clean, and ethically - It will be better for all!

------------------
Sites listed in this forum is not subject to any single person's opinion, but rather a consensus of the ABW member base. If your site is listed in this subsection you may have the thread moved to another section only after you've proven that any / all unethical activity has ceased and the site owner pledges publicly not to re-engage in any such activity.

[Howard Gottlieb]

So are you wanting nominations?

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Yes and no.

Yes, as there will be a system to submit but not publicly (as not to damage affiliate sites that have tough competition (unjust submissions).

No, as in not just yet ... please allow me to get the submission system up and then YES!.

[Howard Gottlieb]

Let us know cause I sure have one that I would love to see at the VERY TOP of the list.

[Billy Kay]

Tread carefully... no need to open us up to "slander" or "libel" lawsuits

A definition of unethical - as agreed upon by our community - would be a prerequisite

[IOWNIE]

Wow! This takes balls! I once had a similiar forum where retailers could go to post names and pictures of bounced checks and I ended up getting sued by the people who bounced them!

Hopefully the community will be FAIR and JUST ( just like the OJ jury ).

Awsome AWSOME idea!!!

[Rhia7]

Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.

If your site is listed in this subsection you may have the thread moved to another section only after you've proven that any / all unethical activity has ceased and the site owner pledges publicly not to re-engage in any such activity.

Why does the accused bear onus of proof?

Don't let this turn out to be some kind of witch hunt.

Be careful of "wrongful convictions."

[Chuck Hamrick]

This has been long asked for in the industry and Haiko is the pro to go to. I am on board!

[Merchant Consultant Team]

Most of us know who does the "nasty stuff".
Some are vocal ABW persons.

I think that we should WARN them before posting...

[Chuck Hamrick]

In my opinion the intent is to bring this out for discussion and allow the questionable affiliate the opportunity to explain. We have seen several affiliates change their ways based on public discourse.

[Rhia7]

Originally Posted by Chuck Hamrick

In my opinion the intent is to bring this out for discussion and allow the questionable affiliate the opportunity to explain. We have seen several affiliates change their ways based on public discourse.

That will only work if the accused ones are members of this forum.
I'm not sure if someone who is not a member of this forum (let's say possibly a member with accusations against "the party" similar to accusations against Ebates) will respond to your invitation.

[AffiliateHound]

I have no idea what mechanism Haiko is developing, but I think in an effort to avoid "wrongful convictions", once an affiliate has been deemed unethical, that before posting that here, the affiliate should be notified and given the chance to present their side of the issue. If they fail to respond, or cannot show their conduct to be in fact ethical or the activities unintentional and quickly corrected, then go for it, and let them respond publically if they so desire.

The affiliates who are intentionally engaging in improper behavior deserve to be outed here, but the ones whose sites may contain innocent programming errors, or newbies who have otherwise unintentionally done something they did not know to be improper, should have the opportunity to correct their mistakes, before being branded a parasite.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by AffiliateHound

I have no idea what mechanism Haiko is developing, but I think in an effort to avoid "wrongful convictions", once an affiliate has been deemed unethical, that before posting that here, the affiliate should be notified and given the chance to present their side of the issue. If they fail to respond, or cannot show their conduct to be in fact ethical or the activities unintentional and quickly corrected, then go for it, and let them respond publically if they so desire.

The affiliates who are intentionally engaging in improper behavior deserve to be outed here, but the ones whose sites may contain innocent programming errors, or newbies who have otherwise unintentionally done something they did not know to be improper, should have the opportunity to correct their mistakes, before being branded a parasite.

Agreed 1,000%

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by Rhia7

That will only work if the accused ones are members of this forum.
I'm not sure if someone who is not a member of this forum (let's say possibly a member like Ebates) will respond to your invitation.

Actually, ebates is an active member and in the past have responded to me and allowed me to post their correspondance.

The truth will out as will the right and just resolution, the impetus here is NOT a witch hunt nor to damage anyone's credibility, but to only help persuade the bad players into being ethical and working correctly, and by the rules so that all have a level playing field with the same opportunity to compete.

Nothing more.

[Howard Gottlieb]

The issue to remember, though, is that some of the worst offenders have some fairly deep pockets that can be used to quiet critics. I learned a long time ago that you do not need to be right to sue or be sued.

I would love to see this effort go forward. But:

1. Does anyone think it will stop any of the parasites or get them to change their ways?

2. That a majority of merchants will suddenly have an ahh hah moment and mass drop those listed?

If one or both of those are not the end result than we are probably wasting time.

[Trust]

Yeah, what a few others have said already. We have some questionable practices where ethical networks have taken no action on, like recent ones on forced clicks. Still going on. We also have a thread with a coupon site outed as cookie stuffing, the title still says cookie stuffing but it wasn't actually cooking stuffing and many in that thread posted it wasn't.

"The truth will out as will the right and just resolution, the impetus here is NOT a witch hunt nor to damage anyone's credibility, but to only help persuade the bad players into being ethical and working correctly, and by the rules so that all have a level playing field with the same opportunity to compete."

Ethical networks should be taking the first steps here. Until they step up with actual rules, nothing much will get accomplished. Not sure what rules you're referring too. Goes back to some old threads and recent ones with people wanting them.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by visitourmall

The issue to remember, though, is that some of the worst offenders have some fairly deep pockets that can be used to quiet critics. I learned a long time ago that you do not need to be right to sue or be sued.

A few years ago I had a guy with a deep pocket tell me he was going to sue me soo bad that my but would bleed because I listed his company in the parasiteware forum. Shoot I've had three diferent investigators follow me and track my activities, some even came to my house, not just twice but thrice ... Fudge it, I don't care. Deep pockets, nor threats dont' mean anything either.

Originally Posted by visitourmall

I would love to see this effort go forward. But:

1. Does anyone think it will stop any of the parasites or get them to change their ways?

Only one way to find out no? I've seen three specific affs change in the past, others can also.

Originally Posted by visitourmall

2. That a majority of merchants will suddenly have an ahh hah moment and mass drop those listed?

Maybe not, but that's ok , they can't claim ignorance ... the info is out there, and free ... no excuses. Shoot, won't that just be another qualifier to help select ethical merchants? I think so.

Originally Posted by visitourmall

If one or both of those are not the end result than we are probably wasting time.

That's ok I've got time.

[Chuck Hamrick]

Affiliate managers have been asking me for year for a resource on questionable affiliates. If we can get affiliate managers to remove parasites and black hat (unethical) affiliates in large enough numbers then we can influence the networks. Better yet, contact your networks requesting action.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by Trust

Ethical networks should be taking the first steps here. Until they step up with actual rules, nothing much will get accomplished. Not sure what rules you're referring too. Goes back to some old threads and recent ones with people wanting them.

I know exactly what your saying, and i agree with it and also understand your dissapointment. What I'm trying to do is to create an impetus for ethical activity when possibly there isn't one. What does that mean? Shoot just being on this list is bad enough PR. Don't you think that someone would do whatever they can to be off it? I do ... Here's all they have to do to be off it ... be ethical and stop the bad practices ... easy. No BS, no hoops nor moons to jump over, just do your work with ethics.

Will it solve all, no but it sure will make many straighten up and fly straight. That's much more than what's happening now.

[Trust]

"Shoot just being on this list is bad enough PR."

If it was accurate. We already have it wrong with the example I gave above.

This coupon site is labeled as a cookie stuffer, except it wasn't cookie stuffing:

http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread.php?t=94224

You had a few think it was. You had some think it wasn't. Reread that thread. Brian didn't think it was, Sambay who's outed other cookie stuffers didn't think it was, Kellie didn't think it was, I didn't and more.

So you have the possibility of getting it wrong which could lead to problems as others have pointed out in this thread.

Then you have the issue of no actual rules on a lot of these issues, even tho people want them. It has to start there. A lot of times the networks leave it up to the merchants.

Then you have the whole deal of what is ethical and what isn't. Many times we can't even agree on that.

As far as the one you have already. I have a problem with those sites, since some of my own exclusive coupons are getting put up on those sites.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

We both know that thread needs to be split into a few threads and appropriate titles added. We'll discuss doing that and the timeline for it via the mod forum.

But I mean it, being on the list will not be a good thing.

[Howard Gottlieb]

You da man Haiko. I am all for this!

[Daniel M. Clark]

I'm all for it as well. As long as it's handled responsibly and accurately, I think it can be quite a powerful force for good. Sounds like Haiko's got some solid plans in that regard.

[IOWNIE]

When a Newbie wants to learn the secret to affiliate marketing and gets pointed to a Rick Astley video.....does that count as being unethical?

Man did I fall for that one hard! Loved it!

[Rexanne]

I think if just anyone is allowed to post, it could get ugly and misleading.

If the forum is well moderated and proof made before posting an aff site, then cool beans.