Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    442
    Do you know that you are not SAFE even using the new CJ domains?

    Do you know that some of the new CJ domains still redirecting through qksrv.net?!

    YES! It is true. I just found out today when a few of my visitors complaint to me that SOME (not all) of my CJ links is not working.

    I try to figure it out. And found out that it is because the visitors have ads blockers installed.

    I am not complaining about ads blockers as there are too much of them and the ads blocker creator understand nothing.

    How this blocker works is simply to block everything from qksrv.net.

    Then CJ came out with a much "briliant" idea on the new domains to bypass the original qksrv.net domain.

    BUT! Even if you use the new domains, some of them (merchant specific) stilll REDIRECT through qksrv.net in the LOOP of redirecting!!!

    And the link never get passed and will be blocked. And thus complaint emails coming in.

    PLEASE CJ, I'll forgive the blocker because they don't understand. BUT CJ! YOU UNDERSTAND! Why are you still doing that?

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    RedFish

    as long as there are greedy people who only wants the money for themselves and not share it around, they will always find a way to deprive you of your earnings.

    don't blame cj. educate your visitors instead. let them know that if they want to shop, they should disable whatever ad-blocker they have. why on earth would they want to block ads anyway if shopping is what they want?

  3. #3
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    I always wondered about that. I figured they HAD to redirect through a single domain at some point, otherwise they couldn't set the right cookie. I just checked one, and sure enough--it redirected through qksrv.net.

    You said "some" redirected through qksrv.net. Are you implying that some don't? If so, I doubt that they track correctly.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  4. #4
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    218
    What they NEED to do is redirect thru someotherrandomhostname.qksrv.net and still pass/check a qksrv.net cookie.

    Since only WWW.qksrv.net is being affected, this would go a long way towards a real solution.

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador buy_online's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,234
    Some of the so called "Ad-blockers" work by not loading the qksrv links on the original page. If you are using the new URL's, you should be Okay with these types of ad-blockers.

    Some of the others (as I understand it), follow your path, as you click-through. When your browser attempts to load through a restricted domain you get stopped. I think that's what Redfish is saying...

    Fred

  6. #6
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    442
    >You said "some" redirected through qksrv.net. Are you implying that some don't? If so, I doubt that they track correctly.

    Yes, some don't. I think the merchant's thank you page tracking pixel will also redirect, redirect and redirect to check for cookie.

    Hmm, if merchant is still posting the OLD qksrv.net tracking pixel, I am sure it will be blocked too.

    > educate your visitors instead

    It is information age today and everything is just clicks away. If a visitor don't like a website, they will leave. You can't simply ask them to adjust to best resolution 800x600 or use Mozilla Firefox because your site serve best on them.

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    quote:
    Originally posted by RedFish:
    > educate your visitors instead

    It is information age today and everything is just clicks away. If a visitor don't like a website, they will leave. You can't simply ask them to adjust to best resolution 800x600 or use Mozilla Firefox because your site serve best on them.
    that reminds me of an angry email i once got from my visitor. he was annoyed by the many cookies that my pages are generating. so then, either i go down to his level, or i educate him that cookies are essential to online shopping.

    in the same manner, why would visitors want to receive sales offers but at the same time block the ads?

    adblockers don't just block cj. this is not just a cj problem. and even if cj changes everything from qksrv.net, it will just be a matter of time before the adblockers block the other domains too.

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    39
    I've wondered about this also.

    It looks like CJ is setting up CNAME's for the new domains and pointing them to www.qksrv.net, so qksrv is still seen. Another way of doing this is to set A records for the new domains and point them to the 216.34.x.x ip, bypassing the reference to qksrv.

    Tuan

  9. #9
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    Yes, but if they redirect to 216.34.x.x, the cookie will be set for 216.34.x.x instead of qksrv.net. After the shopper checks out, the image tag on the checkout page will not find that cookie. The clickthrough and checkout image most both be on the same domain (or redirect through the same domain) in order for CJ to track the sale.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    39
    Hi Michael,

    Thanks for the clarification regarding clickthrough and checkout image links being (or redirected) on the same domain. By clickthrough, do you mean the actual link or the tracking 1x1 image?

    Thanks Again, Michael.

    Tuan

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    687
    I vaguely remember a couple of months ago, Todd said that they were working with the merchants on a one to one basis to change their tracking qksrv links over to the new domains. Is this what you are talking about? If so, it looks like cj dropped the ball on this one.

  12. #12
    I like traffic lights
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Southern hemisphere - away from Fukushima
    Posts
    2,936
    ALL CJ link HAVE to go through qksrv.net at some stage in the redirection process because that is where the cookie is dropped from.

    So host file blocking still works (as in the file distributed with Kazaa Lite, etc).

    Yes, the number one priority right now is to pressure merchants to ensure their transaction image is changed from qksrv.net to one of the other domains, to prevent Nortons from blocking the final step in the affiliate-aggregator-merchant releationship. Without the final step, it's all a waste of time.

    Educate your surfers on removal of poisoned hosts files, and put download buttons on your websites for non-MSIE browsers.

  13. #13
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    All I know is that for the last couple of days, I have being working on some of my pages and I have noticed that some of the CJ. banners don't display on the pages and while some of they do go to the merchant site after I click on the invisible graphic, some will just give me a 404.

    The ones that the graphics don't show but gets to the merchant site, do show up on the CJ reports page.

    I also noticed that the pages will take longer to load if it's looking for those graphics, specially on one of the new domain links and in some of the smartzone banners.

    Sal.

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    changing over to new domains will only buy us more time - until the blockers catch up with them. this is only a temporary fix.

    a more permanent fix would be to make the surfers be aware what adblockers are doing to their browsers.

  15. #15
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    My CJ income has tumbled over 80% this year from my last 5 year averages. Miserable Christmas with traffic up on my site 35% in both visitors and page views.

    Screw these networks climbing in bed with the BHO popup Adwhores to pillage their merchants pocket books. Screw the cookie stuffers with their incessant popups and unders, as both parties are driving even more shoppers to seek Ad Blockers. I want a 100.00/month slotting fee from any network just for placing their merchant links on my sight. Let's all demand this the moment we produce 2000 monthly legit clicks to any of them.

    Rise up webpage slaves and and burn the pimps for the Adwhores at the stake, as they can't bring themselves to bann them due to money flow. Flowing into the networks and sleazy affiliates pockets from brain dead merchant's budgets.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  16. #16
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    I agree that, from everything I know, all the redirects do hae to go through qksrv.net at some point.

    Another puzzle: It's super easy to find out many, or perhaps all, the domains CJ is using. (I don't think it's appropriate to say more about how to do this.) Indeed, I found quite a lot in a matter of seconds. Presumably the Symantecs of the world can use the same method, then block all the domains. So: I applaud CJ's effort to circumvent Symantec's misguided blocking, but I worry Symantec has the upper hand here.

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador sjangro's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,529
    Drewbert's got it right. If you change a domain and want the cookies to remain intact, you've got to redirect through the old one.

    That's an effective method against those who merely pattern match and remove HTML from a webpage to block ads, as the big adblockers do.

    It cannot combat the host file modification methods and such that work down at that level.

    Ben, yes, it's a big game of cat & mouse. IMHO, the cat is big and slow, has more important things do do, hundreds of slower mice running around at its feet, and doesn't really have it in for any one provider enough to chase it down with that sort of fervor.

    The list of what they do block is arbitrary at best and hardly thorough.

    With the damage they've done, it's just plain irresponsible, and I would hope that nobody would knowingly block so broadly as to effect so much more than the display of some banner ads.

    All that seems like the product of too little thought, effort, and resources. Not the sort of orgranization that could or would employ such techniques to hunt down the fast mice.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    at least cj is responding to this issue the best it can, and for that I for one am just thankful.

    Scott, if you can come up with a list of how the surfers can disable (at least temporarily, if that's what they want) the adblocking features of different antivirus or other softwares, i'd be happy to place that at the help section of my site.

    I'm sure, that kind of info would be helpful to the surfer who took the time to complain to redfish that his cj links are not working.

  19. #19
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    ScottJ said it all ... listen to Scott!!!!!

    quote:
    ... at least cj is responding to this issue the best it can ...


    If that's the 'best that CJ can do', do you really want to trust your sales reporting to it/that?

    Sorry Todd, just asking ...
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador sjangro's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,529
    >>Scott, if you can come up with a list of how the surfers can disable<<

    If by "you", you mean CJ, I should have mentioned, Waytogo, I don't work at CJ anymore. Merely an interested party.

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    Scott

    you were right that this is a cat and mouse game. exactly what i've been saying.

    however, you are under-estimating our opponent. the current cat may be slow, but we don't want to wake up someday and find that it has gained new feet. we need a more permanent fix and not just play catch-up.

    if you received the LS invite, it has a relevant quote. something like, he who arrives at the battlefield first is well-prepared and well-rested for the fight.

    we can't just let the adblockers dictate the game. let us paunch back where we they least expect us to come.

    what i meant by "you" is yourself and other software experts here.

    we can whine and whine, but we really have no control over cj. what we do have is complete control over our own sites. so, i was wondering if we can fight back using that control.

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    This is such an old issue, should have been resolved a long time ago, but CJ doesn't seem to have the ability to correct issues in a timely manner.

    Whether it's a bug with the Account Manager (I reported one back in July that still isn't fixed!) or a CoC violation report, CJ seems to move very slowly.

    As for the ad blocking, I've been recommending Trend Micro PC-cillin to people. It doesn't block ads, and does everything else better than Norton does. It's fast, doesn't slow down your computer, and you get real time virus and firewall updates. I love it!

    We have to get the word out that Norton is not a good program: it does slow down your computer, and there are lots of operational issues that seem to go back to having Norton on a computer. Tell people to dump Norton, and that will get the point across!

    Andy

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador sjangro's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,529
    >> what i meant by "you" is yourself <<

    fair enough, just wanted to make sure it was clear that these are only my own opinions.

    There have been other threads around here pointing out resources for you to educate your users.

    >>however, you are under-estimating our opponent<<

    I don't see them as an opponent, honestly. I don't think they're on a battlefield against relevant text links and tracking tags that serve a valid purpose in ecommerce other than advertising. I think those are just caught in a careless implementation of a poorly implemented banner adblocker.

    Adblockers are in high demand due at least in part to our fellow webmasters who have crossed the line allowing advertisers to publish distracting ads that force you to strain to read the rest of the page or tempting you to "punch the monkey".

    Unfortunately for CJ (and others), they had text links and tracking tags going through the same domain as banners.

    Personally, I'm all for end-users' choice as to what appears on their screen. If they want to block certain content, fine. I also believe that webmasters should have a choice over whether those users can view their content for "free".

    Norton's offense, IMO, is that they've included this adblock software as a "feature" with their firewall software and it is enabled by default. There is little documentation on it, very little indication that it is getting installed, and while it is operating, zero indication that it has blocked something (at least in the 2004 product, 2005 is out now). Pages that have content blocked just look broken. That's not user choice. The combination of that and the over-reaching blocking strategy, I feel, is irresponsible. So much that I can't believe that they intended to interfere with business with their solution.

    Utopia would be for the adblock software to declare in the HTTP request that the user does not want to see ads, so the webmaster can act appropriately. The response would have indication of their position on ad -viewing preference and the browser would react accordingly.

    That's industry standards, P3P-esque, sort of stuff that will likely never materialize. But it would be cool.

    >>we can whine and whine, but we really have no control over cj. what we do have is complete control over our own sites. so, i was wondering if we can fight back using that control.<<

    This we agree on. Though like other industry issues, we cannot expect the end-users to be sympathetic (unless they cannot view content, then they'll care). That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

  24. #24
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    513
    TI Master said it, I sent specific instructions on how to bypass hostfile blocking more than a year ago, and Received no answer, after being told that the document was scalated.

    I would bet my money I can fix this issue in 1 day with all the CJ tech guys looking to me. But CJ never answered about this, they need to hire some smart tech people, I mean SMART.
    Fer(nando) - US & EU Marketing

  25. #25
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    8
    quote:
    Originally posted by Andy:
    This is such an old issue, should have been resolved a long time ago, but CJ doesn't seem to have the ability to correct issues in a timely manner.

    Andy


    What does CJ control? Correct me if I am wrong, but whatever they do they are vanerable to 3rd parties, since everything is transacted in the "open". I wonder if there any thought to not getting rid of BeFree and migrating all of the clients to that tracking method??? I know that it would be painful to move, but after a year there is no solution in sight and Symantic, Norton, Adaware and Kaazalite are the most popular downloads in the world today and who knows what is next. Personally, I have three of the four of them on my computer.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CJ affiliate links still getting blocked - help!
    By dsiomtw in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 26th, 2013, 10:18 PM
  2. Featured: Attention Publishers: LinkShare Merchandiser Product Links Format Update
    By Catherine Hagan in forum Rakuten LinkShare - LS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 28th, 2011, 09:56 AM
  3. Links Blocked?
    By grayday in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 6th, 2003, 11:08 PM
  4. cj blocked?
    By donsteitz in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 28th, 2003, 07:17 AM
  5. Affiliate Links Being Blocked by Norton Utilities and Kazza Lite?
    By jimmymac in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 16th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •