About Dating Ads Traffic

Why this site exists

Affiliates planning a dating campaign face a specific research problem: the numbers they need are scattered, undated and frequently wrong. Minimum deposits, accepted verticals, blocked country lists and creative restrictions live across dozens of help centers and policy pages, each maintained on its own schedule. Network directories aggregate this data and then leave it untouched for years.

The cost of that staleness is real money. A buyer who plans a $50 test budget against a network that raised its minimum to $100 does not discover the gap until the account refuses to activate. A buyer who assumes a landing page will pass Google certification does not discover the aggregator restriction until the campaign is rejected. Both problems are avoidable with an hour of primary-source reading that nobody wants to do repeatedly.

We do that reading and date-stamp the result. Every deposit tier, policy rule and country list on this site was pulled from the network's own documentation or the platform's own policy page on a stated date, then re-checked before publication. Where a company does not publish a figure at all, we say so and name the weaker source we used instead rather than passing a directory number off as verified.

Our history

The site started in 2019 as a working notebook. Smith Jones had spent several years buying traffic across dating, iGaming and subscription products, and had built the habit of reading network terms directly rather than trusting comparison tables — a habit formed after budgeting a campaign against a deposit figure that turned out to be two years out of date.

Those notes became public pages when it was clear that the same corrections had to be made every quarter and that no existing resource was making them. The first published comparisons covered push and popunder networks. Coverage widened to platform policy as Google, Meta and TikTok each introduced formal gates for the dating category between 2024 and 2025, which turned compliance from a footnote into the main obstacle for most buyers.

Today the site covers network selection, entry economics, format fit, traffic quality controls and the policy layer that determines where dating offers can legally run. Every page carries a verification date and names the sources behind its figures.

Who writes here

That work is mine. I am Smith Jones, a Performance Media Analyst with more than a decade on the buying side of performance media, running acquisition campaigns across dating, iGaming and subscription products in Tier 1 and emerging markets. My focus sits in two areas: traffic quality auditing, meaning the separation of real users from automated volume in push, pop and native inventory, and the advertising policy layer that decides where regulated verticals can be promoted at all.

I am the named author on every page and reachable on LinkedIn; a fuller account of how I work is on my author page. Where a page carries a figure I could not verify against a primary source, I say so in the body text rather than in a disclaimer nobody reads. The full standards for authorship are set out in the editorial policy.

What we stand for

Accuracy over completeness

A table with six verified rows is more useful than one with twelve rows where half the figures came from aggregators. When we cannot confirm a number against the company's own documentation, we either mark it as unverified in the text or leave it out. We would rather publish a gap than a guess, because a guess that reads as fact is the thing that costs a reader money.

Transparency about money

Some outbound links on this site are commercial. We say which relationships exist rather than presenting the site as having no commercial interest, and we do not let those relationships change a figure, a restriction or a stated drawback. What we collect from readers, which is very little, is set out separately in our privacy policy. The terms page sets out how our commercial arrangements work in detail.

Independence of the comparison

No network can pay to change its deposit figure, its accepted-vertical column or the drawbacks we name. Where a network is highlighted in a table, the highlight marks a commercial relationship and does not indicate a ranking — our comparison tables deliberately contain no scores, no stars and no ordering by quality, because those are the fields most easily bought.

Dates on everything

Advertising policy changes several times a year and network pricing changes without notice. Every page states when its figures were last verified. If you are reading a page whose verification date is more than six months old, treat the specific numbers as indicative and check the linked source before committing a budget.

How a page gets made

Every page follows the same six steps. The full methodology, including our source hierarchy and what we do when two sources disagree, is documented in how we check data.

1. Scope. We define the question a reader arrives with — for example, which networks accept dating traffic and what it costs to start. The scope determines which facts the page must carry and which are outside it. Sections that do not answer a reader question are cut before writing begins.
2. Primary-source collection. We read each company's own help center, documentation or terms page, and each platform's own advertising policy. Directory listings and competitor articles are read only to find what has been claimed, never cited as evidence for a figure.
3. Conflict resolution. Where sources disagree, the company's own documentation wins. Where a company's marketing page contradicts its terms, we treat the discrepancy as content and report both, because that gap is usually the thing a reader most needs to know.
4. Drafting. The person who did the verification writes the page. This keeps the text tied to what was actually confirmed and prevents the common failure where a writer smooths over a gap in the research with a plausible sentence.
5. Adversarial review. A second pass reads the draft as a skeptic: every sentence that would remain true if you swapped in a different company gets cut or made specific, and every figure is re-checked against the source note. Claims that survive only because they sound reasonable do not survive this step.
6. Dating and revision. The page ships with a verification date. We revisit pages when a platform announces a policy change, when a network updates its documentation, or on a scheduled review, and we mark what changed rather than editing silently.

What we do not do

We are not an ad network and we do not sell traffic. We cannot access your advertiser account, release a held payout, reverse a rejected campaign or intervene in a dispute with a network — those requests must go to the company involved, and the contact page explains which requests we can and cannot help with.

We also do not publish scored rankings of advertising networks. Scores in this category are the field most vulnerable to commercial pressure and the least useful to a buyer, whose decision depends on their GEO, offer type and budget rather than on somebody else's weighted average. We publish the underlying facts and let the reader rank them.

Get in touch

Our current work covers dating ads traffic, where the network comparison and the platform policy breakdown are both maintained under this process. Corrections are the most useful thing you can send us. If a figure on this site is out of date or wrong, tell us which page and which figure and we will check it against the source — our correction process and response times are set out in the editorial policy. General enquiries, press requests and partnership questions each have their own address on the contact page.