Results 1 to 5 of 5
June 16th, 2005, 03:55 PM #1FAO Todd
Todd. This quote is from a merchants post (click here) regarding eBates.
1/. What are your feelings on this?
2/. Do you think this is ethical?
3/. Why is this allowed?
and the most important question
If this is allowed why do CJ as our suposed "Trusted Third Party" not give affiliates the links with the "magic code" code already included?
Not to worry though, we're not changing our mind! We actually are even more confident in our decision to not accept them into our program. They do re-direct cookies. It's a plain fact. He didn't say that directly, but they basically said that unless you affiliates change the code that CJ gives you directly, you will not get credit for the sale.
So, I don't understand how that's legal? You have to change something on YOUR end so they can't redirect your hard earned money? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Call me crazy, but I can't believe that CJ doesn't pre-populate all of your links with that "magic code" to prevent re-directs when you pick it up! That would take care of the majority of this problem I would think.....One day parasites and their ilk will be made illegal, I bet a few Lawyers will be pissed off when the day comes.
Mr. Spitzer is fetching it nearer
June 17th, 2005, 03:12 PM #2
I think there was a misunderstanding and something got lost in the translation of the conversation. eBates does not redirect on CJ links and does not redirect on server side redirects with afsrc=1 appended to them. There is no need to append CJ generated links with afsrc=1.
Does this answer your concerns?Todd Crawford
Co-Founder, Impact Radius
Give me a minute before I post again
June 17th, 2005, 03:48 PM #3Originally Posted by ToddCrawford
If I decide to append the "&afsrc=1" to every new links that I get from CJ from now on, would that cause any problem?
You say that "There is no need to append CJ generated links with afsrc=1." But, if we still decide to append the "&afsrc=1" to every links that we get from CJ, would those CJ generated links still track?
June 17th, 2005, 05:03 PM #4
Disregard my previous question, I finally figured out.
June 17th, 2005, 06:33 PM #5
Yeah, I think there IS a problem with it
Quoth Google Guy
I've been aching for a long time to mention somewhere official that sites shouldn't use "&id=" as a parameter if they want maximal Googlebot crawlage, for example. So many sites use "&id=" with session IDs that Googlebot usually avoids urls with that parameter,
This could account for a lot, especially if Google whats to get rid of affiliate sites.
Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!
By Gordon in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 33Last Post: May 19th, 2004, 07:43 PM