Discover everything you need to know about Online Marketing. Dive into expert insights, actionable tips, and proven strategies to make the most of online marketing in your marketing campaigns.
I’ve been involved with safelists and traffic exchanges for more than 20 years, and every once in a while I stop and think about what we’re actually doing.
We all want people to look at our advertisements.
So we click other people’s ads to earn credits, which we use to show our ads to people who are clicking to earn credits so they can show their ads to us.
Round and round we go.
It’s like walking into a room full of salespeople where everybody is trying to hand out business cards, but nobody particularly wants to take one.
Everybody’s selling.
But who’s buying?
Seriously. Are we actually advertising to potential customers, or are we just advertising to each other?
And if that’s what we’re doing, why does any of this work?
Let’s Admit Why Most of Us Are Here
I don’t think there’s much mystery about why people use safelists and traffic exchanges.
They’re trying to promote something.
Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, “Boy, I can’t wait to look at 100 advertisements for random affiliate programs today!”
Well, maybe somebody does. I’ve met some pretty enthusiastic surfers over the years.
But I’m willing to bet most people wouldn’t spend nearly as much time looking at advertisements if there weren’t credits involved.
I certainly wouldn’t. I’ve spent plenty of years earning credits myself.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s how these systems are designed to work.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Getting somebody to look at your advertisement because they want credits isn’t the same as getting somebody to look because they’re interested.
That’s a pretty important difference.
So are we all just wasting our time?
I don’t think so.
We’re Not Exactly Strangers
One thing that makes safelists and traffic exchanges interesting is that a lot of us know each other.
Maybe not personally. I’ve never met most of the people I see advertising every day.
But I recognize their names.
I recognize their websites.
I know which programs they’ve been promoting.
And when somebody I’ve seen around for years suddenly starts advertising something new, I notice.
That’s especially true when a new program launches.
You start seeing it everywhere. Familiar advertisers begin promoting it. People get curious. Some join. Others sit back and watch to see what happens.
There’s an entire little community operating underneath all those credits.
And I think that matters.
We’re not necessarily looking at thousands of completely anonymous advertisements. We’re repeatedly encountering people and businesses we’ve seen before.
Familiarity doesn’t automatically create trust. Somebody can become well-known for all the wrong reasons.
But recognition gives an advertisement something that a completely unfamiliar advertiser doesn’t have.
A history. A reputation. A reason for somebody to think, “Hey, what’s this person promoting now?”
That’s not something a traffic counter can easily measure.
Somebody Must Be Paying Attention
I’ve run enough advertising campaigns over the years to know that most visits don’t turn into anything particularly exciting.
But some do.
People sign up. They join mailing lists. They discover new programs. Sometimes they even spend money.
Last July, I ran my Safelist Attention Project through 45 safelists to see whether people were actually paying attention.
Instead of promoting a product, I sent visitors to a page where they could voluntarily click a button confirming they’d noticed it.
After cleaning up the data, I ended up with 8,392 visits and 143 deliberate button clicks.
That’s a 1.70% interaction rate.
Not exactly a number that makes you want to run out and buy a yacht.
But here’s the thing.
Nobody earned any extra credits for clicking that button. They’d already done what they needed to do to get their credits.
Yet 143 times, somebody took that extra step.
Does that mean the other 98.3% weren’t paying attention? Of course not. Some may have read the page and moved on.
But it does tell me that at least some people were doing more than blindly clicking their way through another batch of advertisements.
They were paying attention.
And that’s really all I’m getting at.
People can be clicking for credits and still notice something that interests them.
It happens.
Maybe We’re Advertising to Exactly the Right People
Here’s another possibility.
Maybe advertising to other advertisers isn’t nearly as ridiculous as it sounds.
Probably somebody who already does online marketing.
And where do you find a concentrated audience of people actively involved in online marketing?
Well…
Safelists and traffic exchanges.
Imagine that.
Of course, this doesn’t mean every offer belongs here, or that every advertiser is going to succeed.
If you’re promoting the same tired opportunity that everybody has already seen 500 times, you’re probably going to have a hard time getting noticed.
But the same thing that makes this audience difficult to advertise to might also make it valuable.
These people understand online marketing. They need advertising. They use marketing tools. And many are always looking for the next interesting program.
Maybe the audience isn’t the problem.
Maybe we’re just not always giving them something worth noticing.
So, Are We All Just Advertising to Each Other?
Yes.
To a considerable extent, I think we probably are.
I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I own advertising sites myself, so I’m certainly part of the system.
Most of us are here to promote something, and the credits are what keep the whole thing moving.
But that doesn’t mean nothing worthwhile happens along the way.
People recognize names. They discover new programs. They follow what other marketers are doing.
They join things. Sometimes they buy things.
Most of the time, they’ll probably just collect their credits and move on. That’s the reality of this kind of advertising.
But every once in a while, something catches their attention.
Maybe the real problem isn’t that we’re advertising to each other.
Maybe it’s that too many of us forget there’s an actual person on the other side of the advertisement.
Someone with interests, problems, preferences, and money to spend.
They just happen to be earning credits while they’re doing it.
And that brings me to one final thought.
If you found this article through a safelist, there’s a pretty good chance you clicked the link because you wanted credits.
Yet here you are.
Reading an article about people clicking advertisements for credits.
There’s something wonderfully ridiculous about that.
And maybe it proves at least a small part of my point.
Yes, we’re advertising to each other. But “each other” isn’t nobody.
A year ago, I had an idea I thought was pretty cool. I knew how I wanted it to work. I had spent a lot of time thinking through the logic behind it.
But there is always one question you can’t answer until you put something in front of real people:
Will it actually work?
After one full year of My Daily Mailer, I finally have an answer.
I think it did.
And looking back through the numbers, I may actually like the idea behind it more now than I did when I launched it.
The Idea I Really Wanted to Test
I’ve been using safelists since 2003.
I’ve promoted on them, tracked them, written about them and operated them. I’ve watched the industry change quite a bit while the basic mechanics of a safelist stayed surprisingly similar.
One thing kept bothering me.
The economics of a traditional mailer don’t naturally balance themselves.
Members earn credits. Sites give away credits. Upgrades create credits. Promotions create credits. Balances accumulate.
Eventually, those credits turn into mail.
But there isn’t necessarily any connection between the amount of mailing power being created and the amount of activity available to support all that mail.
That was the problem I wanted to play with.
With My Daily Mailer, one Mail Token has a very specific value: one mailing.
But that’s not the clever part.
The part I still think is coolest is this:
The amount of MT members earn for reading changes based on how active the mailer is.
The economy responds to the mailer itself.
Member activity helps determine how much future mailing power gets created.
As conditions inside the site change, the earning rate can change with them.
Instead of constantly trying to force balance from the outside, the system is designed to move toward balance on its own.
It’s a little nerdy.
I know.
But I still love it.
The Members ARE the Economy
That’s also why My Daily Mailer depends so much on participation.
When somebody reads an email, they’re not simply clicking to collect an arbitrary pile of credits.
Their activity is part of the system.
Reading creates the conditions that allow mailing.
Mailing creates new messages to read.
Those reads create more mailing power.
And around it goes.
That’s the experiment I wanted to run.
Could a safelist economy regulate itself based on what the members were actually doing?
A year later, we’ve had enough real activity to give that idea a pretty serious test.
Year 1 By the Numbers
I pulled a full 365-day report directly from the My Daily Mailer database for this anniversary.
During Year 1:
More than 2,700 members joined My Daily Mailer
Members sent 28,305 mailings
Those mailings produced almost 15 million emails
Members earned 32,531 MTs
The mailer delivered more than 1.76 million reading hits
More than 100 members made upgrade payments
Those are real numbers from a real year of people actually using the site.
And I’m proud of them.
But there is another part of the report I like even more.
Month 12 Tells Me More Than Month 1
Launch numbers are fun.
They’re also dangerous.
You can launch something new and get a flood of curiosity.
People join because their friends are talking about it.
Affiliates promote it.
Everybody clicks around to see what’s new.
Then six months later…
Crickets.
So when I went through the Year 1 report, I wasn’t especially interested in proving that My Daily Mailer had a good launch.
I wanted to know what happened after everybody stopped caring that it was new.
September 2026 was month twelve.
During that month, members sent 2,621 mailings.
Those mailings generated more than 1.35 million emails.
The system delivered 174,812 reading hits.
And on an average day, about 144 members were actively reading mail.
That’s month twelve.
Even more interesting, the mailing volume throughout 2026 was remarkably consistent.
Not one giant launch spike followed by a slow fade.
People found a rhythm.
They read.
They earned MTs.
They mailed.
Then they came back and did it again.
Some Members REALLY Use My Daily Mailer
The Year 1 report also reminded me how much of the site is driven by a relatively small group of extremely active members.
There were 270 members who completed at least 500 reads during the first year.
Together, those members accounted for more than 1.13 million completed reads.
And 243 of those heavy readers also sent mailings.
I love that.
Because that’s the system doing exactly what it was designed to do.
The people doing the reading aren’t trapped on one side of the equation.
They’re earning the ability to become senders themselves.
Read.
Earn.
Mail.
Repeat.
The economy keeps circulating.
And to those members who have spent hundreds—or thousands—of reads helping keep that cycle moving:
Thank you.
My Daily Mailer would just be software without you.
Then I Accidentally Tested It Against Everybody Else
One of my favorite moments of My Daily Mailer’s first year didn’t actually happen inside My Daily Mailer.
I’ve been working on a new online project for quite a while now.
I’m not ready to talk about what it is yet, but lately I’ve been spending a surprising amount of time on something I thought I had already done:
finishing it.
At some point, all the important pieces were working.
The main features were there. The pages worked. Nothing major was obviously broken.
That feels like the finish line.
It isn’t.
Once I started going through everything more carefully, I kept finding little things.
A sentence that sounded awkward.
Something that didn’t look quite right on my phone.
A step that made perfect sense to me because I already knew what was supposed to happen.
None of these were big problems.
But together, they made me realize there’s a big difference between something that works and something that is actually ready.
You Already Know Too Much
I think this is one of the hardest parts of working on anything yourself.
You know what everything is supposed to mean.0
You know the backstory.
The person seeing it for the first time knows none of that.
So instead of asking:
Does this work?
I’ve started asking:
Would this make sense if I had never seen it before?
That’s a much better question.
And it doesn’t just apply to building websites.
This Applies to Marketing Too
This is where I think it gets useful for almost anybody working online.
Think about something you’re promoting right now.
Maybe it’s an email, a landing page, or an ad you’ve been running for a while.
You probably know exactly what it is, what it does, and what you want people to notice.
But would somebody seeing it for the first time know the same thing?
That’s where things get interesting.
Look at your promotion without filling in the blanks yourself.
Is it immediately obvious what it’s about?
Is the next step clear?
Could something be simplified?
Sometimes improving a promotion isn’t about adding more.
Sometimes it’s just about making what’s already there easier to understand.
The Same Thing Happens With Almost Everything
We finish something, make sure it works, and move on. That makes sense.
The problem is that “finished” makes us stop looking.
Sometimes one more pass is where you catch the friction — something confusing, unnecessary, or not nearly as obvious as you thought it was.
Those can be small changes, but they can completely change how something feels.
I’m Learning to Respect the Last 10%
I used to think getting the major pieces done meant a project was basically finished.
Now I’m starting to think the last 10% is where you stop looking at what you made as the person who created it and start looking at it from somebody else’s point of view.
That applies whether you’re building something big or writing a short email.
Before you call something done, give it one more look.
Not as the person who made it.
As the person who is about to see it for the first time.
You may be surprised what suddenly jumps out at you.
Talk soon,
Jerry
P.S. Pick one thing you’re currently promoting and look at it with fresh eyes today. Don’t ask whether it works. Ask whether it’s obvious. That’s a much tougher test.
For the first half of July, I sent the same unusual page through 45 different safelists.
It wasn’t a sales page.
There was no product to buy, no form to fill out, and no promise of making money.
Instead, the page told visitors that they had become part of a safelist experiment and asked them to click one simple button:
“Yes… I Noticed This Page”
The page used for the Safelist Attention Project. Visitors were asked to confirm that they had deliberately noticed it.
That was the entire point of the test.
I wasn’t simply trying to find out which safelists could generate the most page loads. I wanted to know which ones sent visitors who were present enough to notice what was in front of them and deliberately respond.
After 8,433 visits, the experiment recorded 389 confirmed submissions.
I expected the safelists that sent the most traffic to produce the most attention.
That isn’t what happened.
The results showed something I have suspected for a long time:
Traffic and attention are not the same thing.
A traffic counter can tell us that a page loaded. It cannot tell us whether the person on the other side actually noticed it.
That is what the Safelist Attention Project was designed to explore.
Why I Ran the Safelist Attention Project
I have been using safelists for more than 20 years. If you’re unfamiliar with how they work, I’ve also written a beginner’s guide to safelist marketing that explains the basics. This experiment takes things a little further by looking at what happens after someone visits an advertised page.
During that time, I have published plenty of safelist rankings and traffic reports. Those reports can be useful. They show which sites are active, how much traffic they send, and sometimes which ones produce sign-ups or sales.
The problem is that a normal traffic counter can only tell me that a page loaded.
It cannot tell me whether anybody was mentally present.
The page may have opened in a background tab. Someone may have been clicking through several messages at once. The visitor may have waited for a timer, collected a reward, and moved on without really processing the page.
That does not necessarily mean the visit had no value.
Repeated visibility, branding, familiarity, and future recognition can all matter. Someone may notice an offer today and respond to it weeks later.
But I wanted to measure something more deliberate.
Earlier this year, I ran a very simple safelist experiment that asked visitors to click a button simply to show that they had participated.
The response made me curious about what else this kind of test might reveal.
This time, instead of looking only at the experiment as a whole, I wanted to compare the safelists themselves.
Which sites would send the most traffic?
Which would produce the highest percentage of deliberate interactions?
Would the same platforms lead both lists?
What Counted as Attention?
I used the same email, landing page, button, and tracking rules for every safelist.
The source code in the URL was the only intentional campaign difference.
The page did not sell anything.
There was no opt-in form, payment button, affiliate offer, or long sales presentation.
Visitors were told that they had become part of an experiment. The main action on the page was the button:
“Yes… I Noticed This Page”
Clicking that button was what I counted as an attention click.
After clicking, visitors were asked what had made them notice the page. That gave me a second layer of information that I will explore in another article.
Each safelist received its own tracking code. The system recorded the source, visit, visitor ID, session, timestamp, click, and follow-up answer.
A new visit was recorded each time the page loaded. Refreshing the page created another visit.
A persistent browser cookie was used to recognize returning visitors. That allowed me to separate total clicks from distinct tracked visitors who clicked.
This distinction is important:
Total clicks measure deliberate interactions.
Unique clickers measure how many distinct tracked browsers or visitor IDs interacted.
The unique counts do not guarantee that every ID represents a different physical person. Someone using two devices could receive two IDs. Two people sharing a browser could share one.
Still, it gives us a much better view than treating every page load as a completely different person.
I also chose not to use time on page as the main signal.
A safelist page can remain open while someone is doing something else. A deliberate button click is not perfect proof of deep concentration, but it does show that the visitor saw enough of the page to understand the request and respond.
This was a structured real-world marketing experiment, not a laboratory-controlled scientific study.
The goal was to create a consistent comparison under normal safelist advertising conditions.
The Experiment by the Numbers
From July 1 through July 15, 2026, I logged 391 submission records across 45 safelists.
The experiment recorded 8,433 raw page visits.
Here is the overall picture:
Measurement
Result
Safelists with confirmed sends
45
Confirmed submissions
389
Raw recorded visits
8,433
Final analyzed visits
8,392
Distinct tracked visitors
7,380
Attention clicks
143
Distinct tracked clickers
94
Follow-up answers
105
Overall attention rate
1.70%
In other words, 1.70% of the analyzed visits produced a deliberate click on the attention button.
That percentage may look small, but remember what was being measured.
These were not ordinary clicks from an email to a website.
Everyone included in the visit count had already opened the email and reached the experiment page. The button measured whether they noticed and deliberately interacted with what they found there.
The Safelists That Stood Out
I used a minimum of 100 final analyzed visits for the main leaderboard.
The table below shows the qualifying platforms that stood out most clearly during this experiment.
The “Clicks” column shows total deliberate interactions. The number in parentheses shows distinct tracked clickers.
SendCircle provided only about 2.1% of all analyzed visits, but it produced approximately 22.4% of all attention clicks.
That is a large difference.
It also was not a case of one visitor repeatedly clicking and inflating the total.
Fifteen of SendCircle’s tracked clickers clicked once.
Five returned and clicked during additional visits. Those five repeat visitors produced 17 clicks between them, but no single visitor clicked more than five times.
Repeat engagement contributed to the result, but the response was spread across enough different visitors to make it meaningful.
Under this particular experiment, SendCircle was the unmistakable attention leader.
That does not mean it will outperform every safelist with every offer.
It means its visitors responded exceptionally well to this email, page, and request during this test.
My Daily Mailer Combined Reach With Attention
My Daily Mailer produced one of the best combinations of traffic volume and deliberate interaction.
It sent 1,005 analyzed visits, making it one of the largest traffic sources in the experiment.
Those visits produced:
30 attention clicks
19 distinct tracked clickers
a 2.99% attention rate
My Daily Mailer generated almost as many total attention clicks as SendCircle while working with a much larger audience.
Its percentage was nowhere near SendCircle’s, but that is exactly why volume and rate need to be viewed together.
A high response rate from a modest traffic source and a solid response rate from a high-volume source are two different kinds of success.
My Daily Mailer showed that it could deliver substantial reach without losing the ability to generate deliberate interaction.
Full disclosure: I own My Daily Mailer and Mister Safelist. Members of those sites may already be familiar with me, my writing, or the way my pages look, and that familiarity could have influenced how quickly they recognized and interacted with the experiment.
I included both sites because they were part of the same tracked test, but that possible familiarity effect is worth keeping in mind when reading the results.
Click Leverage Was a Strong Independent Performer
Click Leverage delivered 342 analyzed visits and produced 10 attention clicks from eight distinct tracked visitors.
Its attention rate was 2.92%.
That placed it very close to My Daily Mailer and List Avail on a per-visit basis.
It delivered a healthy sample, a competitive attention rate, and clicks spread across several different tracked visitors.
I would consider it one of the strongest all-around independent performers in the experiment.
Mister Safelist Produced Broad Unique Attention
Mister Safelist generated 14 attention clicks from 668 analyzed visits.
Its 2.10% rate looks modest next to SendCircle, but there is something important inside that number:
All 14 clicks came from different tracked visitors.
There were no repeat clickers driving Mister Safelist’s total.
My Daily Mailer produced more total attention, while Mister Safelist spread its attention across a broader set of unique visitors without relying on repeat participation.
Again, these are different kinds of performance.
One platform generated more total interaction.
The other provided a very clean example of broad unique response.
Zodiac Mailer Shows Why Unique Clickers Matter
Zodiac Mailer had the second-highest raw attention rate in the table:
127 analyzed visits
8 attention clicks
2 distinct tracked clickers
a 6.30% attention rate
At first glance, that percentage looks like a clear second-place finish.
The unique-clicker count changes the interpretation.
All eight clicks came from two tracked visitors. One of them clicked during six separate visits.
I do not think that result should be hidden or disqualified.
The original measurement counted legitimate attention clicks per visit, and those visitors repeatedly noticed and interacted with the experiment.
That is real repeat engagement.
It is simply not the same thing as receiving eight clicks from eight different visitors.
The positive interpretation is that Zodiac Mailer produced unusually strong repeat attention from a small number of highly responsive people.
More data would be needed before concluding that the result represents its wider audience.
List Avail and Fast List Mailer
List Avail just cleared the 100-visit qualification threshold with 104 analyzed visits.
It produced three clicks from three different tracked visitors, giving it a 2.88% attention rate.
That is a promising result, although the smaller sample means that a few additional visits or clicks could change the percentage quickly.
Fast List Mailer delivered a larger sample of 238 visits and generated five clicks from four tracked visitors.
Its exact attention rate was 2.1008%.
Neither platform should be overinterpreted from one experiment, but both earned a place among the more interesting results.
There Was More Than One Way to Perform Well
This experiment did not produce one universal definition of “best.”
It revealed several different strengths:
SendCircle: Highest attention rate and strongest overall response
My Daily Mailer: Strong combination of high volume and substantial attention
Click Leverage: Strong independent balance of sample size and response
Mister Safelist: Broad unique attention with no repeat clickers
Zodiac Mailer: Strong repeat engagement from a small responsive group
List Avail: Promising attention rate at the qualification threshold
A normal traffic ranking would mostly reward the platforms that delivered the most page loads.
An attention ranking tells a different story.
The biggest traffic source does not automatically produce the highest response rate.
The highest response rate does not automatically represent the broadest audience.
The platform with the most unique clickers does not necessarily produce the most total interactions.
Each measurement describes something slightly different.
What the Rankings Really Show
The central lesson is not that traffic volume is unimportant.
Without traffic, there is nobody available to notice the page.
The lesson is that traffic and attention are not interchangeable.
One safelist can send a large audience and create valuable reach.
Another can send fewer visitors but have a higher percentage of them deliberately engage.
A third may create repeated exposure that causes the same visitors to notice the message more than once.
That is why I have become less interested in traffic numbers by themselves.
Sending more visitors does not automatically fix a page or message that people ignore.
The way an idea is presented still matters.
The same audience can react very differently to a different headline, image, email, or call to action.
The Safelist Attention Project gives us another way to look at that problem.
It does not just ask:
“How many visitors arrived?”
It asks:
“How many were present enough to respond?”
What Made People Notice the Page?
After visitors clicked the attention button, I asked them what had caught their attention.
There were 105 recorded answers.
The eyes image was the most frequently selected response, followed by the overall page design and the headline.
That is interesting, but it needs its own article.
Repeat visitors could answer during more than one visit, so the total answers and the number of distinct respondents are not the same.
I will examine that part of the experiment separately rather than squeezing a second study into this report.
For now, the important point is that the page itself mattered.
The safelist delivered the visitor, but the message and design still had to earn the interaction.
What These Rankings Do Not Prove
This experiment measured one specific kind of deliberate interaction.
It did not measure:
sales
opt-ins
long-term customer value
affiliate referrals
brand recognition over time
whether someone returned days later through another route
The results also apply to one subject line, one email, one landing page, one visual approach, one call to action, and one period in July 2026.
A different offer could produce a different ranking.
I also used my existing safelist accounts.
Those accounts did not all have identical membership levels, mailing intervals, or potential audience reach. That affects how much traffic each safelist could deliver.
The attention-rate comparison helps separate interaction quality from raw volume, but differences in membership privileges and audience composition still matter.
Small samples can also create unstable percentages, which is why I required at least 100 final analyzed visits for the main table.
Finally, a platform that did not stand out under this particular experiment may still provide value through reach, repetition, branding, delivery speed, or better performance with a different type of offer.
This is not a list of good safelists and bad safelists.
It is a record of what happened when I asked 45 safelists to send visitors to the same attention test.
Safelist Traffic Kept Arriving After I Stopped Mailing
My final confirmed submission was sent on July 15.
I left the experiment open so I could see how long traffic continued to arrive.
A full week later, on July 22, the page still received 22 human-likely visits after identifiable automated activity was removed.
Two of those visitors clicked the attention button.
One came through SendCircle.
The other came through List Avail.
That means the final day was not simply crawler traffic or leftover technical checks.
Real visits and deliberate interaction were still happening seven days after the last mailing.
I will look more closely at the delayed traffic in another article because it raises an interesting question:
How long does a safelist mailing continue producing exposure after it leaves the newest-message area?
Final Thoughts
I started this experiment expecting the largest traffic sources to dominate.
Instead, SendCircle delivered the clearest example of why traffic volume and attention quality need to be measured separately.
My Daily Mailer showed the value of combining reach with response.
Zodiac Mailer showed how repeat engagement can create a very different kind of attention.
No single number tells the entire story.
That may be the most useful finding of all.
This experiment did not prove which safelist is universally the best.
It showed which platforms stood out when all 45 were asked to send visitors to the same page using the same email, button, and tracking rules.
There is still plenty left to examine.
In the next parts of this series, I will look more closely at traffic volume versus attention, what visitors said made them notice the page, repeat participation, how long safelist traffic continues after mailing stops, and the differences between My Daily Mailer and Mister Safelist.
In the meantime, I would like to hear from you.
Do these results match what you have seen in your own safelist advertising—and what would you like me to test next?
Thanks for reading,
Jerry
P.S. If you are working on your own safelist campaigns, the most important thing you can do is track more than raw hits. My free Safelist Marketing Tactics guide explains the practical side of creating, testing, and improving your campaigns.
The Safelist Attention Project
Follow the experiment from the beginning:
I Tested 45 Safelists: Which Ones Sent Visitors Who Actually Paid Attention?
