Which ActiveRevenue sources send bot traffic?
Judge every ActiveRevenue visit by {source_subid} and {keyword}. Separate feed arbitrage from real intent before you build the Micro Targeting blacklist.
source in ActiveRevenueThe buyer pastes bad source IDs into the campaign’s Micro Targeting sources field set to Blacklist mode — sub-source IDs formatted with a leading dot (e.g. ".12456" for {source_subid}) and publisher feed IDs ({pubfeed}/{source}) as-is — or lets the CPA-goal Auto Blacklist add underperformers automatically.
How bot traffic slips in through ActiveRevenue sources.
ActiveRevenue sells pop, push, native and banner inventory sourced largely through publisher feeds, and its click parameters mirror that structure: a {conversion} token carrying the unique click identifier, a {campaign}, a {source_subid} for the sub-source, a {banner} for the creative, and a {keyword} recording the term the visit was matched against. Two of those change how quality has to be read. The {keyword} means traffic often arrives through a search or feed match rather than a fixed placement, so intent can differ enormously between two clicks from the same source. And the source is two-tiered — a publisher feed sits above the sub-sources inside it, and the campaign’s Micro Targeting blacklist distinguishes the two by syntax. A verdict attached to both the {source_subid} and the {keyword} reads quality at a finer grain than the feed.
The distinctive risk on feed-sourced inventory is keyword-matched arbitrage, where the term attached to a click is not evidence of what the visitor wanted. A feed partner acquires visitors cheaply — from pop inventory, parked domains, a toolbar or extension prompt — and matches them against commercially valuable terms before passing the click on. The {keyword} in your report reads like high intent while the person behind it never typed it, and nothing in the keyword itself gives this away. It shows as a mismatch between the value the term implies and how the visit is judged.
The second pattern follows from the two-tier structure: a feed’s aggregate can look acceptable while one sub-source carries almost all of the invalid volume. Judging at the feed level gives the two worst outcomes — block the feed and you lose the good sub-sources with the bad, keep it and you keep paying for the bad ones. Judging at the {source_subid} level makes the proportionate decision possible, and it is the finest level the blacklist can address.
What to watch on ActiveRevenue
{source_subid} inside one feedGroup your report by publisher feed, then break each feed down by {source_subid}. A feed whose blended numbers look tolerable but whose volume concentrates in two or three very weak sub-sources is the most common shape here, and it argues for sub-source blacklisting rather than dropping the feed.
Segment by {keyword} and compare each term’s invalid share with how commercially valuable the term is supposed to be. A term that reads as high-intent while its visits are judged invalid is the signature of upstream matching rather than real demand.
ActiveRevenue can add underperformers to the blacklist automatically against a CPA goal, which decides from outcomes rather than traffic quality. A cut source judged valid was sending real people your offer didn’t convert — a targeting decision disguised as a quality one.
What ActiveRevenue lets you judge by.
Invalid share broken down by:
- Source Sub ID
{source_subid}
Per-click id: ActiveRevenue passes a unique click id, and ValidVisit stores it with each visit, so a verdict traces back to the click in ActiveRevenue’s own reports.
Compare bot & invalid-traffic breakdown across every ad network →See your own ActiveRevenue sub-sources judged this way.
How ValidVisit attributes ActiveRevenue traffic
Each ActiveRevenue macro maps to a normalized parameter, so every judged visit is pinned to the right campaign, creative and publisher.
https://yoursite.com/landing?utm_source=activerevenue&utm_medium=pop&vv_click_id={conversion}&vv_campaign_id={campaign}&vv_publisher_id={source_subid}&vv_creative_id={banner}&vv_keyword={keyword}| Token | ActiveRevenue macro | Maps to | Identifies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unique Click ID | {conversion} | click_id | click |
| Campaign ID | {campaign} | campaign_id | campaign |
| Source Sub ID | {source_subid} | publisher_id | publisher |
| Banner/Creative ID | {banner} | creative_id | creative |
| Keyword | {keyword} | keyword | keyword |
- ActiveRevenue macro
{conversion}- Maps to
- click_id
- Identifies
- click
- ActiveRevenue macro
{campaign}- Maps to
- campaign_id
- Identifies
- campaign
- ActiveRevenue macro
{source_subid}- Maps to
- publisher_id
- Identifies
- publisher
- ActiveRevenue macro
{banner}- Maps to
- creative_id
- Identifies
- creative
- ActiveRevenue macro
{keyword}- Maps to
- keyword
- Identifies
- keyword
Macros not yet checked against ActiveRevenue’s documentation.
The verdict works the same way on every network. ValidVisit never changes your ActiveRevenue account: you make the exclusion there yourself. How the verdict works →
ActiveRevenue traffic quality, answered.
Where do I blacklist a source in ActiveRevenue, and how do I format it?
In the campaign editor’s Micro Targeting step, which comes after the main targeting and holds an IP-range field and a Sources field that runs in whitelist or blacklist mode. Sub-source IDs from {source_subid} take a leading dot — “.12456” — while publisher feed IDs go in plain. A sub-source ID entered without the dot won’t be read as one, so check the syntax before assuming a block failed. Sources can also be disabled from the campaign’s optimization and reporting section.
The {keyword} on a click looks like strong intent. Why would that visit be judged invalid?
Because the keyword records what the click was matched against upstream, not what the person wanted. On feed-sourced inventory, traffic acquired cheaply elsewhere can be associated with a valuable term and passed on, so the term describes the deal between the feed and the network rather than the visitor’s intent. When a high-value keyword consistently produces invalid visits, that gap is one of the more reliable signs of feed arbitrage.
Which ActiveRevenue tokens give the most useful segmentation in ValidVisit?
{source_subid} does the most work: it identifies the sub-source inside a publisher feed and is the finest tier Micro Targeting can block. The {conversion} token, despite the name, is the unique click identifier — it ties each judged visit back to an ActiveRevenue click record and carries a server-to-server postback. {keyword} is what sets this network apart, since comparing implied intent against measured quality is a check the other tokens can’t give you. {campaign} and {banner} show whether a weak pattern is sub-source-wide or specific to one creative.
Detect fraud on other pop / pop-under networks
Adcash
AdMaven
Adsterra
Bidvertiser
ClickAdilla
ClickaduWeighing a blocker for pop / pop-under traffic? How ValidVisit compares to PureGuard, Adscore and Tracker bot filtering.
Find the bots in your ActiveRevenue spend.
See which publishers and placements send real buyers vs bots — every visit judged Valid or Invalid, worst first.
Join the waitlist with just your email · 7-day trial at launch
One script · no cookies · no device IDs · raw IP never stored