About the cookies thing what about this ...

[xxxice]

Visit one of your sponsors with your link code in it and pretend that your are a surfer. Click on the members area button. I am sure that people do this sometimes to see what would happen. I like when I see a page come up with no links. Essentially forcing the person to go back to a page with your ref on it. But, what I have noticed a good amount of programs have another page that says. Sorry you are not a member but join here. This join link does not have my ref in it. Is this common?

[xxxice]

Anyone else see anything like this?

[Diligent]

Yeah, I've noticed the same but I've always guessed it's already been "cookied"... so You *should* get credited anyways.
Obviously there's room for "abuse" there though...

I'll just keep my faith in most sponsors there until a decreasing amount of signups would call for more investigating.

[xxxice]

Yeah, I've noticed the same but I've always guessed it's already been "cookied"... so You *should* get credited anyways.
Obviously there's room for "abuse" there though...

I'll just keep my faith in most sponsors there until a decreasing amount of signups would call for more investigating.

But wouldn't the page with the other refcode if clicked overwrite the first cookie?

[Diligent]

Hmm, good question...

I've seen two scenarios:
1. An empty ref-string there & then, like "ref=&consoles=no"..
2. A ref-string with the sponsor's own hard-coded ref-code, like "ref=non-member&blabla" / "ref=01&blabla" / similar..

In the first case, I'd suspect I'll get credited because no other string is there to overwrite any previously "cookied".
But in the second case... well, that would just look like a blatant "nah, screw the affiliate".

I'm really not sure though, I don't know enough of the technicalities to be certain - scenario#2 above would look *very* suspicious though..

[Konda]

Some, probably quite a few, sponsors use this as another traffic leak. In other words, they will overwrite your cookie with another one with their own affiliate code.

[Scotty.T]

But wouldn't the page with the other refcode if clicked overwrite the first cookie?

Check it out, take it a step further.

Click the join and continue through to the actual enter CC details page. View the source of the page and look for your ref code. Is it there or is it someone elses. Just an idea.

[xxxice]

Check it out, take it a step further.

Click the join and continue through to the actual enter CC details page. View the source of the page and look for your ref code. Is it there or is it someone elses. Just an idea.

It is the other ref when I do this.

[pornonada]

Check it out, take it a step further.

Click the join and continue through to the actual enter CC details page. View the source of the page and look for your ref code. Is it there or is it someone elses. Just an idea.

tried it as well on several sponsor programs so far, seems that about 2/3 of the sponsor programs i tested use there own refcode/overwrite cookie when you click on the member link and hit 3 times the yes button for user/pass. Seems that after that "scenario" your refcode/cookie is gone.

So far i tested 9 programs in the short time i had right now and only 3 use the normal "no authorization" page and the other 6 programs overwrite "your" refcode with their own.

As i'am also no script guy i'am not sure how it's handled technically, but from what i know the last cookie/refcode get's the sale, or???

[Diligent]

...

So far i tested 9 programs in the short time i had right now and only 3 use the normal "no authorization" page and the other 6 programs overwrite "your" refcode with their own.

As i'am also no script guy i'am not sure how it's handled technically, but from what i know the last cookie/refcode get's the sale, or???

I believe that's correct, a newer cookie sent from (and valid for) one specific place ("sponsor.com")... overwrites any previous cookie.

Wow... 6/9 seem to overwrite huh..? Looks like a standard practice then
Technically though; sponsors should be able to "session-cookie" our ref-codes as well.. which means the regular "cookie'ing" may look fishy to us
whilst they actually have our stuff "recorded behind the scenes".
But how would we know??

I guess we could go over to a friend or two and have them do test-signups under this "scenario" and see if we're credited.

But on the other hand... How much $$$ do we lose on this really?
Maybe it's something we could let sponsors do instead of seeing even lower PPS-payouts? I don't know.. *shrugs*

[Konda]

But on the other hand... How much $$$ do we lose on this really?
Maybe it's something we could let sponsors do instead of seeing even lower PPS-payouts? I don't know.. *shrugs*

You would be surprised to see how many people click the members link first, before they join a website, but I wouldn't see it as loosing. Without such 'traffic leaks' many sponsors wouldn't be able to pay $30 + per signup. If they would change these practises, you will get paid less, so you are not loosing really.

[chadglni]

You would be surprised to see how many people click the members link first, before they join a website, but I wouldn't see it as loosing. Without such 'traffic leaks' many sponsors wouldn't be able to pay $30 + per signup. If they would change these practises, you will get paid less, so you are not loosing really.

You have been brainwashed like a good little sheep. Who told you they couldn't pay $30 per sale without certain traffic leaks, the sponsors?

So what about the 3 programs that don't use this method, they will go broke or have to pay $20 per signup instead? Nope. The reason sponsors say they can't afford $30 per signup or more without this and without that is that they ONLY count stats from an affiliate. Very few take into consideration that the massive number of type-in and other no ref signups that magically appear (came from affiliates) as well. If they really wanted to divide the money up at say 50% to the affiliate the payouts would be a little more than $30. ;)

Affiliates brand sites so well in such a short amount of time that programs could shut their doors to affiliates and make money forever on the branding that they had received up to that point. The affliates should get a fair fucking shake and if a sponsor wants to do shady ass shit like this they should be 100% up front about it where NOBODY could say a word.

And for those that don't want to read all of the above here is the short version, If sponsors weren't making a killing paying your ass PPS then they wouldn't be driving $100,000 cars and living in million dollar homes while vacationing in Costa Rica and going to 42 webmaster shows a year.

[baddog]

I have a question.

Surfer goes to webmaster A's site (for sake of this hypothetical a sponsor provided gallery), clicks on sponsor's banner, but isn't impressed with the FHG and decides he won't sign up.

4 days later, same surfer goes to webmaster B's AVS site, which happens to promote the same sponsor. The surfer enjoys the AVS so much, he joins the sponsor's program not even realizing it is the same program.

Who should get the credit for the sale? Webmaster A or webmaster B, and why?

[chadglni]

B of course.

And to solve the problem in the first post

LINK TO JOIN.

[Konda]

You have been brainwashed like a good little sheep. Who told you they couldn't pay $30 per sale without certain traffic leaks, the sponsors?

I didn't say all, I said many. There are many sponsors that wouldn't be able to pay $30+ per signup if they didnt have any traffic leaks and paid their affiliates for all type-in, upsells and exit console signups, etc.

In the other topic people were complaining that the affiliate programs should have 1 year+ cookies and that the type-in traffic should also go to the cookied affiliate, etc.

What I meant to say was if sponsors will do all that, they will probably pay you less per signup.

[chadglni]

I didn't say all, I said many. There are many sponsors that wouldn't be able to pay $30+ per signup if they didnt have any traffic leaks and paid their affiliates for all type-in, upsells and exit console signups, etc.

In the other topic people were complaining that the affiliate programs should have 1 year+ cookies and that the type-in traffic should also go to the cookied affiliate, etc.

What I meant to say was if sponsors will do all that, they will probably pay you less per signup.

I agree they will, they like to keep that money in their pockets so no reason to change now.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Theres 2 possible scenario's happening here.

#1 the tracking code is hidden

#2 your getting stiffed

I wont mention any names , but i have seen programs do this before ( skim the ref off )

There are other times when its either not readily apparent or impossible to tell without manual trial under each scenario

[Dirty Dane]

I didn't say all, I said many. There are many sponsors that wouldn't be able to pay $30+ per signup if they didnt have any traffic leaks and paid their affiliates for all type-in, upsells and exit console signups, etc.

In the other topic people were complaining that the affiliate programs should have 1 year+ cookies and that the type-in traffic should also go to the cookied affiliate, etc.

What I meant to say was if sponsors will do all that, they will probably pay you less per signup.

Thinking of it as a win-win situation is kinda naive.
No way I would continue promoting a program with significant traffic leak or if it shaves. Thats not serious biz, its stealing, and if it does that, it will get less traffic and affiliates, and in the end their dirty tricks will only make money off people like yourself.
If the program has options, as PPS with or without consoles, that's ok. But shaving is no excuse.

[Matiz]

But on the other hand... How much $$$ do we lose on this really?
Maybe it's something we could let sponsors do instead of seeing even lower PPS-payouts? I don't know.. *shrugs*

Ok, affiliate A sends for example SEO-Traffic that happens to be unexperienced surfers who try out every traffic leak.

Affiliate B sends hardcore porn surfers who are not easy to convince but when they really like a site, they join immediately.

So, what happens when the sponsor uses traffic leaks to maintain a high PPS payout? Affiliate B profits from the traffic of affiliate A.

Personally, I simply want to get credit for MY sales.

[Diligent]

Ok, affiliate A sends for example SEO-Traffic that happens to be unexperienced surfers who try out every traffic leak.

Affiliate B sends hardcore porn surfers who are not easy to convince but when they really like a site, they join immediately.

So, what happens when the sponsor uses traffic leaks to maintain a high PPS payout? Affiliate B profits from the traffic of affiliate A.

Personally, I simply want to get credit for MY sales.

True, true... It's good more awareness on this is brought to maybe less aware affiliates so as many as possible can take their stance towards it...

It's a shame many sponsors choose to hide these issues as far as possible for the extra

[bigalownz]

i just notice one

http://www.myfriendshotmom.com/maintour.php/me/12/A/ etc

and if they click on members

then click on full member and if they dont have a login it goes to

http://www.naughtyamericavip.com/reject.html

then they click on join

the ref code is now
http://www.naughtyamericavip.com/maintour.php/someone else /18/A

so it means someone else gets the sign up and not me

[xxxice]

Hehe it would be nice to see some sponsors step up and fix this. But, since the thread originated 4/2006 does not seem like much has changed

[RawAlex]

Yeah, I've noticed the same but I've always guessed it's already been "cookied"... so You *should* get credited anyways.
Obviously there's room for "abuse" there though...

I'll just keep my faith in most sponsors there until a decreasing amount of signups would call for more investigating.

Depending on a cookie to do the job is just not acceptable.

The process should combine cookies (where available) with hardcoded tour links (ie: everylink carries the link code or other tracking information forward in it, which requires every tour page to be generated with PHP, no big deal)... and php sessions or other.

Basically, each of these things should be compared out at every step and made sure that there is no sudden switches or sneaky updates of the affiliate code.

There are steps that can be taken, but honestly, most sponsors don't give a flying fuck because at the end, the sale is still made and they still make THEIR money.

[xxxice]

i just notice one

http://www.myfriendshotmom.com/maintour.php/me/12/A/ etc

and if they click on members

then click on full member and if they dont have a login it goes to

http://www.naughtyamericavip.com/reject.html

then they click on join

the ref code is now
http://www.naughtyamericavip.com/maintour.php/someone else /18/A

so it means someone else gets the sign up and not me

Good question ...

[xxxice]

Ok tried it got the same thing doesn't look good