Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    I am sure this question is answered in ancient threads. I did try to find the answer-honestly (I tried to find it dishonestly too). Anyway, what terrible thing would happen to me if I nixed the bit--you know that annoying little one by one pixel that feeds the BeFree data warehouse with my users browsing habits.

    The bit always throws off formatting, doesn't provide any useful information to me, and my programming would be a lot easier if I simply stripped the annoying little thing from my code.

    If I nixed the bit, would I jeopardize commissions?

    I admit, I have a history of being casual with the bit. I often put it at the end of a page. Several pages have bits from ads long ago removed, ooops.

    What about other networks. Would I have a problem if I nixed Linkshare bits?

    thanks for answering a repeated question.

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,087
    I think if you don't use the 1x1 pixel you'll also be negating the terms of the network for "whatever" reasons they choose to use the pixels.

    I know they don't have much in line with usable information for us, and I'd like to axe them little buggers outta my code too, but I think they are required - "DO NOT ALTER THE CODE Bla bla bla . . ."

    Oh, but one thing in that 1x1 code string I DO alter is the removal of border="0" in the end if its used in a text string. No sense in adding bytes to the insult of the 1x1. If you think about it, every border="0" in a text code string adds 11 bytes to the bloat. Multiply that by thousands of code strings in a given site and you save serious poundage.

    [ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Cyclone ]

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    If you read the BeFree press releases and web site, it was actually quite clear that the purpose of the bit was to create customer profiles for the BeFree spam engines. The bit is an extremely affiliate unfriendly thing. It gets in the way of formatting, and its purpose was to build a spam engine that would cut the affiliates out.

    That's beside the point. The main reason I want to nix the bit is because it would be alot easier to program without it. I was making a little php script for advertising sales. I didn't want to have to write extra code for the stupid BeFree bit.

    BTW the reason for the border=0 is that some older browsers automatically showed a border on images...especially when they were part of a link...so you would have a big blue dot. When you remove it, a very tiny number of people will get a teenee blue square on the screen.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,087
    quote:
    If you read the BeFree press releases and web site, it was actually quite clear that the purpose of the bit was to create customer profiles for the BeFree spam engines. The bit is an extremely affiliate unfriendly thing. It gets in the way of formatting, and its purpose was to build a spam engine that would cut the affiliates out.


    Then why use BeFree at all? If you realize they are AGAINST affiliates, and they ARE, in more ways than that, then why run anything through them?

    Waste of breathe. I've been saying this to the wind for years now~! Best of luck

  5. #5
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    339
    The IMG 1X1 pixel is actually used to track the Impressions to your User Account ID. That is the primary purpose, no matter whatever else it may be used for.

    It is usually designed as a 1 image per 1 link. It seems that ALL the image calls could be stacked at the end of a page and achieve the same result. However, removing them at the same time the link was removed would be an affiliate nightmare to manage.

    For formatting purposes, I move the IMG segment to follow the link rather than precede it... if formatting is a problem.

    If the IMG segment is removed, tracking of Impressions will not occur, but CTRs should track, regardless. (I have read this on other threads)

    If I am wrong, correct me... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    Jim in Texas [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    The tracking of sales and click throughs works just fine. (I've tested that). The big question is whether or not merchants will use nixing the bit as a cause for denying commissions.

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    22
    What about taking off that NOSAVE word along with BORDER=0 and adding ALT="-" for image?

    Trying to validate through any HTML validator owned or on this Planet is a nightmare because any page with lots of BEFREE links gives you 2 errors for each link, and you can hardly see ordinary little errors stuck in between them.

    In 1999-2000 I took off the entire Tracking lines and did fine with two good merchants. Now am afraid to becuz all said about how BEFREE is now.

    One thing OK about their Cookie, it doesn't set off the MSIE6 Red Eyeball like all the CJ tracking cookies do! Whether or not the Merchant has a Compact Privacy Policy, if you've got a CJ link on a page, you've got the Redball glaring you. Take off the tracking line, and it goes away.

    Totter

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    84
    quote:
    I am sure this question is answered in ancient threads. I did try to find the answer-honestly (I tried to find it dishonestly too). Anyway, what terrible thing would happen to me if I nixed the bit--you know that annoying little one by one pixel that feeds the BeFree data warehouse with my users browsing habits.

    The bit always throws off formatting, doesn't provide any useful information to me, and my programming would be a lot easier if I simply stripped the annoying little thing from my code.

    If I nixed the bit, would I jeopardize commissions?

    I admit, I have a history of being casual with the bit. I often put it at the end of a page. Several pages have bits from ads long ago removed, ooops.

    What about other networks. Would I have a problem if I nixed Linkshare bits?

    thanks for answering a repeated question.


    The 1x1 pixel (which is what I believe you are referring to as the "bit" :-) is there to capture impressions. Tracking of click-throughs and sales are not tied to the 1x1, so there shouldn't be any interference with commission tracking if you choose to remove the "bit". The downside to removing the pixel is that you will less rich reporting data--no impresssions, means you won't be able to know how many times that link was viewed. Removing this pixel shouldn't affect your ability to get paid by merchants since it's not related to click-throughs or sales. However, if you belong to a CPC program, you should check the terms and conditions agreement as they may require the tracking of impressions (to protect against suspicious activity), otherwise, I don't think it should be a problem.

    In the future if you have questions, you can also get help by logging on to Reporting.net, and on the left hand navigation clicking on the "Help" button. A variety of topics are addressed (including this one), and if you need more help, there's a button to click on for escalation.

    In regards to later posts about the "Be Free spam engine", I assure you that there is no such thing. For more information on what information Be Free collects from our various constituents (affiliates, merchants and end users), please check out our Privacy Policy.

    Hope this helps!

  9. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. I got bit!!!!
    By guinness618 in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  2. A little bit of Everything
    By Chris Berbert in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 28th, 2008, 07:33 AM
  3. Bit of a introduction, need a bit of advice at the same time
    By justhomdotcom in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 30th, 2006, 11:25 AM
  4. Need *Nix alternative to ...
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 4th, 2003, 06:49 PM
  5. *nix Events script
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 4th, 2003, 08:47 PM

Posting Permissions

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