firefox ctrl+shift+p may be good for us
 

the new firefox private browsing seems very promising. guys that don't have any idea how to clear cookies or history and are terrified of their wives and families may finally feel safer about looking at porn.

maybe we should all make an effort to spread the word about this great new feature. what do you think?

Absolutely... because we need more surfers killing cookies and wiping out affiliate's potential sales!!

Perfect! :thumbsup

i guess i only thought of it from the perspective of people that don't look at porn at all now for fear of getting caught. your take on it makes me rethink my position somewhat.

still, i think most sales are made by browsing and buying on an impulse right then and there vs coming back later.

this feature could also be better for membership retention - not getting caught = less cancellations.

Good against cookie stuffers...this is 2009, cookies affiliate system need to go anyways, it's ancient

Worst idea ever.

okay, okay. i'll go crawl back in my hole now.

stuffing in firefox is next to impossible anyways :2 cents:

NO need, don't let the bastards get you down.

Now.... weren't you going to show yer tits?
:winkwink:

Thats why we track by IP also Stuart, our system sets a cookie but also grabs there ip and assigns it to that affiliate.

is there a way to tell if a surfer is in private mode ?

:thumbsup

best idea, lets make no sales ever again!

no sales ever again? the cookies are valid for the current session which is when nearly all sales are made and i still see positives to this feature beyond that issue.

just because i'm brainstorming doesn't mean you have to tear me a new asshole. it's just gfy for fucksakes.

it's that time of the month for you isn't it ?

okay, i was wrong, i get it. you guys are just harsh sometimes.

:error

You were just thinking of it as a personal user, not a business user..... and as a personal user of a browser, it's a great feature, but as a business person wanting to get every last sale you're entitled to... it's a problem.

It's not that you were wrong. :2 cents:

She still might be right. With AFF we use session cookies and also pass the affiliate id through the URL all the way up to the reg page. So if someone blocks out cookies then you only lose sales for people who saw the ad, closed the browser, reopen and get to AFF via typing it in (not by finding the ad and clicking on it again or a bookmark). So if the loss of credit sales is less than the increase in surfers/orders because they fear less of being caught then it's a net gain.

^ Satan Cash's method is more reliable, because if implemented correctly, the first webmaster to send the visitor to the website will receive the sales credit.

With your method if a user decides to purchase later, goes to google, and finds your site using another affiliates website, then original webmaster loses the sale. Even though he was the one to send you the visitor initially.

Satan Cash's method would only fail if the users ip address changes, but either way it still should improve your odds of being credited with the sale.

I think nats also credits affiliate per ip.That would explain why nats ratios are always better then ccbill ratios.

They are equally important in my opinion, as a HUGE portion of people have dynamic IPs... I believe dialup users still outnumber high speed and even high speed is dynamic unless specifically asked for otherwise.

Both methods are "limited time" methods which are great to have in addition to the cookie method.... none of them are perfect.

I thought ccbill DOES use other methods besides cookies

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:2 cents::2 cents::thumbsup