Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
Which is more typical and accepted? Surfer clicks on webmaster #1's link 90 days ago. Surfer doesn't purchase. Surfer clicks on webmaster #2's link today, and makes a purchase.
Currently, Webmaster #1 will be credited. Is this standard?
|
That's not standard, it's ass backwards. The newest cookie set should always get the sale. Who does it the way you mentioned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan
If a person clicks on your referral link and then later they click on someone else’s, yours is the one that counts
This method of crediting encourages cookie stuffing.
|
Who wrote that, are you quoting someone or is that your thoughts?
"Cookie stuffing" can be done either way, cookie stuffing doesn't matter if you thef first or last person to set the cookie.
Also this method means it will be a lot harder for new affiliates to make any money. Surfers will click on ads for different companies potentially several times before they buy and it could be over long periods of time. If I started promoting a company like this when they first launched (and cookie stuff them myself) and I had my cookies out there all over the place then the people who come after me, who might infact have a better ad then me and actually get the person to JOIN not just click a link, will never make the sale.
Ass fucking backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
In my opinion, the cookie should not be overwritten for a shorter time if the surfer entered the paysite. Like 20-30 minutes. That way, the original source will be credited and the paysite can't overwrite/cheat/leak.
|
That would be ideal to make sure no one was using spyware or other bullshit to try to steal sales. You could probably make it a couple minutes and it would work fine and no legit people would ever miss out.
I can't believe we are actually having this discussion in 2010 and that there could be potentially companies out there that would give the sales credit to the first person to set a cookie.