Talk:Autosurf/Archives/2012

Comment

Autosurfing was created by the Dutch - autohits.dk being the very first ever autosurf. Autosurfing was created to generate traffic first and foremost. The MLMers got a hold of it about 3 years ago and started the Ponzi scheme investment opprotunity. This article is off-base and whoever wrote it did not do their homework.

If you feel that is true, please edit the actual article with a reference included rather than on the talk page. Panfakes 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it has anything to do with the subject, but .dk is actually the TLD of Denmark, so those could be Danish as well. Dutch have the .nl TLD, as Netherlands. Crusher 16:20, 04 Feb 2008 (CET)

Autosurfs are not ponzi scams

Autosurfs are not ponzi scams, and I was surprised that there was no mention of them being so. This article was not factual and promoted illegal programs, so I edited it to be truthful.

Take note that not all autosurfs are not ponzi schemes. You are obviously biased, which is against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. And next time please end with your signature. - yxTay 14:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition that I personally saw made by you was incredibly biased. Autosurfs like ST and 12DP are illegal in the U.S. and you did not even mention the incredible amount of controversy on the internet regarding this. This is not biased, it's just honest. Please leave it this way, thanks.

Not all autosurfs are ponzis. Investment autosurfs, in which the article refers to, definitely are though. The fact that this article does not even reference the fact that they are ponzis and illegal in the U.S. is misleading and I will be editing it soon. I also noticed you are an autosurf member and include your referral link on your page, so you are clearly going to try and edit the page as well. Please leave it this way to reflect truth. Devero

I understand what you're trying to say, there are many autosurfs which are actually ponzis in disguise. But there's no need to claim all autosurfs as ponzis, remove tons of relevant data and edit an external link to scam.com. Moreover, what you're talking about are regarding paid autosurfs. That's different from autosurfs (not paid). You may want to add a sub heading for paid autosurfs. - yxTay 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the edits done by Devero is incredibly biased. I personally think that the earlier article has already explained both pros and cons about autosurf and I was surprised that Devero claimed the article 'never mention about them being ponzi scams', when in fact it did - Anon

---

Check the revision history; there used to be mention of this being a ponzi scam. But people pushing this scam on message boards are editing this article to make it look like Wikipedia is backing up their claims! Just do a quick google of autosurf mentions on message boards and you will see what I mean. This article needs to be brought under control. - Eric

---

It's amazing to me how people don't take a few minutes to get the facts. I see references to "ponzi scheme" all over the place. So, what makes a program a ponzi scheme? This guy Ponzi back in the 1920's got certain people to "invest" in his money venture promising a 50% return on your investment in 45 days. He simply paid existing investors with new investors money. That is a ponzi scheme.

I'm a member of several autosurfs. Read their "terms of agreement" which clearly states that this is NOT an investment nor a deposit. It's a non-refundable membership fee. And, their is no guarantee of earning any money. It's a membership based program. Not an investment, no promise of any returns. - Herb

---

Problems with this article

This article is:

1. badly written
2. appears to violate NPOV
3. not true for all autosurf programs

Marking as such. -- Anon.

My complaint would be the usage of the word "newbie". - Chocobean

The article is very unprofessionally written, and seems to violate the neutral POV policy. (ex: Only invest what you can afford to lose- maybe in something legal, NOT this). Marking as such. -- K

I think it's crap that you take down some links, but leave links to a completely biased website that collects for advertising. It sucks that those in power are limiting free speech.

The user 'Ponzi Nemesis'

Ponzi Nemesis spams in forums warning that 12daily Pro is just about to collapse. Here's one such example dated September 20 of 2005: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=5689

In that same forum, he posted another warning that a crash is imminent, this one dated October 29 of 2005: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=6786&page=1&pp=40 Dionyseus 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the links provided by Ponzi Nemesis. Whether that user is spamming in non-wikipedia forums is irrelevant to whether links should or should not be in the wikipedia article. In this case, the links are to a (two-part) article that is clearly relevant to the practice of autosurfing, and clearly presents the case against some types of autosurfing (those requiring investments), something that is discussed in the wikipedia article itself. It is highly useful to readers of an article to be provided links that support (ideally, both sides of) an argument. John Broughton 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam warning

I have removed the spam warning - there are only two external links in the article, and neither is pro-autosurf. (I'm sure that anyone interested in pro-autosurf - or autosurf program - links can find them by simply googling "autosurf".) I realize that there is a temptation to add links promoting specific autosurf programs, but I'd like to try removing the tag and seeing if the article remains relative spam-free, or spam is quickly removed. If not, then the warning should be re-inserted. John Broughton 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Multilevel Marketing

Some payment processors use Multi Level Marketing to pay out fees. If a program has only 1 level in which they payout commissions, it's probably sustainable. If a program has a written interpreneur plan, and sticks to its $%#^ plan and income is guaranteed because of real earnings instead of only people who "pay in to be a member" it's NOT a ponzi, NOT a pyramid and it's a legitimate business if it keeps all applicable laws.

signed : Anonymous.

No, it can be sustainable with many levels AS LONG AS its income exceeds what it has to pay out.

Can we agree that all paid autosurfs are ponzis? It seems to be the "verifiable" line to take. wimbledon andy 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to prove (verify) that ALL paid autosurfs are ponzi schemes. In fact, there are several points of difference: no promise/guarantee of impossibly high rates of returns (even if some do this, not ALL do it), and a funding source outside of members (advertisers) (again, at least for some). By contrast, all HYIPs are ponzi schemes, as far as I can see. John Broughton 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessarily true, because all "investment" autosurfs ARE hyips. I believe that there are one or two in a thousand which actually have a solid business plan such as selling advertising, domain parking etc, for example you may join, buy ads and NOT surf. Similarly, an HYIP which is based on a proper business will also not be a ponzi, such as the one run by AsianPay, which offers e-gold exchange services. It "loans" e-gold from members to sell to other people, and pays it back with a small profit derived from the exchange fee charged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.71.167 (talk • contribs).

The question really here is finding a source that meets wikipedia:verifiable criteria. I'm not disagreeing with your one-in-a-thousand estimate, by the way.

As for HYIPs that aren't ponzis, I doubt it. The "HY" in "HYIP" stands for "high-yield", as in WAY more than 20% per year. The problem is that any business model that is very profitable is that unless there is a barrier to entry, competitors will rush in (in this case, presumably, to lend e-gold at a lower, but still quite profitable price), and quite soon (unless, again, there is some unusual factor), profits will be much closer to normal - in otherwords, not HY. [This isn't the place to debate whether any HYIPs are legitimate, by the way - I apologize for the diversion. If you want to continue the discussion, the talk page of the HYIP article is the right place.] John Broughton 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PayPal

All autosurfs are against paypal's terms of service, including those which are not "investments"/ponzis and are legal by most definitions (that is, the traffic exchanges). Several manual surfs have had their paypal account closed/frozen, which is an error on paypal's part because they misunderstand the business model... although some have had their paypal reopened after many calls with paypal support and explaining to them what the site actually does. OTOH, it is paypals right to deny any types of business even if they are legal. What's the best way of putting this in the article? Could also go into PayPal (verifiable.. will forum links do?) 218.103.137.41 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could find something on paypal's website about HYIPs, that would be the best thing to quote (and link to). Forums aren't really that authoritative, unless they actually quote a letter from paypal. Feel free to post a link here if you find one in the gray area, for further discussion before it goes into the article (or not). And as far as placement of the text, this article is a better place, I think. John Broughton 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Autosurfs are pyramid schemes

Do we have any evidence of any autosurfs which are NOT pyramid schemes? I have changed the first line of the article to simply define autosurfs as a type of pyramid scheme, although the intro section should probably be entirely written to take this into consideration. Unless evidence of legit autosurfs can be found. It is easy enough to find sources which say autosurfs are pyramid schemes, see http://www.10news.com/news/13422465/detail.html for example. --Xyzzyplugh 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf!?!

Why do we have the disambiguation "Not to be confused with Astroturf" here? It seems like a joke. Who would really get here by accident looking for Astroturf? --Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, removing. 216.59.224.223 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

After all...

...I may not get the concept of the whole "traffic exchange" systems... but isn't autosurf itself a fraud on pay-per-view advertising systems (even if unprovable)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.210.55 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)