Boycott Seal of Approval

[Enchanted]

Hi,

I was just looking at the programs already approved and
programs suggested. It looks like everyone are in a big
rush to get the seal. At this rate, 90% of the companies
will get the seal, which is good but I personally feel that
any program nominated and goes for voting should be
around for at least 6 months, which in my opinion is
sufficient time for us to form some sort of opinion of the
program. It would also be sufficient time for most people
to reach minimum payout (if the program has a low min
payout) and make a judgement about how fast payments
are sent, how consistent (to a certain extent of course)
the program is etc..

But the opinion I get right now is that you like a program,
you nominate it and it gets 20 votes and the seal of
approval is given. Even programs that were launched a
few months ago.

Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, just thought that you
should add some extra value to the seal.

[AloraLyric]

I agree with you. Something should be done to keep the seal from losing it's value.

Have you read this thread?
http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2059

I also like your suggestion. Easier to form a solid opinion on programs that have been around longer..

[Enchanted]

I don't know, but for some reason, I too feel that the value of the seal has decreased.

[mumsgotit]

Altho' I have voted for a program or 2 before a six-month trial period, I've gotta agree with the general concensous here. How fair is it to ask people to rate the efficiency of payouts when a company hasn't been around long 'enuf' to pay anyone? There are a lot of programs I like, for the pay rate, or amount of emails, but without huge downlines, you're not gonna reach payout within 2 or 3 weeks-altho' some webmaster/mistress names pretty much assure hits with new programs.

[CyberEarth]

I don't think a name means that a program will necessarily be a hit. It means I'd be more inclined to sign up for the new program, but it should be treated seperately, and weighed accordingly. Perhaps the trustworthiness of the admin would be rated higher, but the site itself can't and shouldn't be judged by an admin's past actions with a different site.

As for the 6 months thing, I think that's a good idea. Or maybe even a shorter time period with a program with a lower min payout. Afterall, that is the point of these programs... to get paid. If a lot of members report good payout stats (timeliness, amount, types of payments, ect.), I'd be MUCH more inclined to join.

Also, I don't think payment per task should be a factor. Afterall, I could hire a whole mess of workers, tell them I'll pay them a million dollars each after they finish a job, and never pay. Or, like the trend in GPT, tell them they get paid at 2 million dollars. I still get my job done, and pay nothing. Like my paragraph above, it should be based on the admin, the amount/activity of users, the amount/activity of advertisers, and the pay out rate/schedules. Those things are what makes a program viable. Appearance is secondary, as long as it gets the job done. Of course, if a site is overly distracting or inefficient, it should lose points (how many people here also hate that ECF popup when you try and log into your account?).

[DAzHiredGun]

Please continue your comments here:

http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2059


Not fussin' about the new thread, I'd just like to keep as much of this as possible in one thread.


Thanks,

Ron