borked

In any case, I think the chance of identifying a false positive - ie saying someone is not unique/already identified when in fact this is their first visit - (the most damaging) is far far less than coming across a false negative - ie saying someone is unique when they've already been there before) - (meaning they got in under the barrier undetected)

Without something like this (for whatever reason you would want it), a false negative is totally acceptable, but a false positive isn't since you would be "restricting" a unique user incorrectly.

Unless of course, you're shelly who would die in shame of letting a false negative through, since the affiliate that originally sent that user wouldn't get credit. Still, for an aff programme, combining this with traditional methods could end up with something quasi-bulletproof

__________________

For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)