This is why I quit using them. After a few months with 30k-50k visitors and getting credit for less than 150-200 in those periods (as most people visit places like CoinDesk before anything else, and therefore are already "claimed"), I got fed up with it and stopped. The system is really screwed up, such that:
1) User is tricked to visit site A. That site gets the payment
2) User willingly goes to site B and views 10 articles. That site gets absolutely nothing
This is the complete opposite of how it should be. They are promoting people spamming/tricking users into visiting a specific site first so they get paid.
Thanks for your feedback. I've
explained why it works this way. 1) and 2) are indistinguishable for us.
If 99.6% of your audience intersects with the audience of other sites that use a-ads then it looks very suspicious (our network is not that ubiquitous). Even if it intersects, you have more chances to get unique impressions than your competitors since you say your users stay longer on your site and thus are more likely to generate a unique impression for you. Non-unique impressions may generate income too since some advertisers reward useful traffic, though currently in average it brings <10% of income.
a-ads is the worst system I have see in over 25 years.
In the other hand it is funny to see that I have already earnt with a-ads 10000 satoshi.(in my wallet)
So does it work for you?
Since I am a publisher for a-ads I see 5 or 6 times the one or two advertiser text or banner and earn nothing for this.
If I see my pages,I only see the same two banners and my friends too...
Really I understand why I see so few a-ads among hundreds of sites I visit and almost all my visitors have (saying a-ads) seen a-ads banners before coming to my pages.
It seems I attract only visitors having already seen a-ads.
Something is wrong with a-ads system and it is a pity...
yesterday 272 impressions and 0 unique impression...
but I have displaid 272 times your banner.
And you tell us the system is fair?
How much would Google pay you for 272 non-unique impressions? We are not pay-per-impression network anyway. If you have 0 unique impressions then we try to monetize it with CPA/Revenue sharing model. If your visitors are useful for the advertisers then you earn, isn't it fair?
let's suppose I'm a potentiel advertiser:
I see 272 impressions and ZERO unique impression.
What do you believe I do?
I believe the site is visited by ghosts...
Do you think I want spend a single satoshi for a site who has ZERO unique impression?
That's why we try to monetize such ad units with the CPA/Revenue sharing model. Most advertisers probably wouldn't pay for 272 non-unique impressions, but they would probably give them a try if it costs nothing to them.
If we had just 1 advertiser that buys 100% of traffic of all our publishers then s/he would get a certain amount of unique impressions and that amount would correspond to our metric (not yours). We have more than 1 advertiser, so we split those unique impressions and distribute them with respect to their advertisers' budgets. It is a pretty straight forward logic in my opinion.
Of course if you think that an advertiser wants to buy ads from your particular ad unit by picking it then this metric is not a very good marketing tool. But let's be honest: most advertisers wouldn't pick up small ad units manually anyway, even if their traffic is free! That's why we have categories and by default all ad units of satisfactory quality that have unique traffic are included. If the ad unit is so small that it can't generate even unique impression, then we try to monetize it by displaying CPA/Revenue sharing ads for free.
Even if there is a 100% intersection of your audience with the audience of other sites, you still have a chance to get unique impressions, that is proportional to your traffic. This metric represents the relative size of your traffic the same way as amount of found blocks represents the computing power of the bitcoin mining pool.