Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Affiliate Network Rep Jackie Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 15th, 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    27
    Source Checker™ 101
    Promotion Protection for Merchants
    The Source Checker module is used as part of LinkConnector’s FraudFREE™ protection system to inspect each referring URL to a merchant’s site to ensure it is approved, not only for the merchant’s account, but for the merchant’s specific campaign. If a recorded referrer is not from a valid, approved website for the specific campaign, the affiliate is not credited for the traffic.

    Source Checker gives merchants the control to approve not only an affiliate, but the individual websites that the affiliate uses to promote the merchant’s
    various campaigns. This means that a merchant may approve an affiliate, but not approve all of the affiliate’s websites for the merchant’s various campaigns. With the ability to closely monitor where their promotions are being displayed, a merchant is able to ensure that the traffic to their site is highly targeted while maintaining control of their brand.

    Brand Control for Merchants
    Another key benefit of the Source Checker module is that it allows the merchant to restrict affiliate promotion on certain websites, including search engines if deemed necessary. This gives merchants more control over their brand and products.

    Source Recognition for Affiliates
    The Source Checker module is used as part of Naked Link™ campaigns to uniquely identify the referring affiliate in order to assign appropriate click/cookie credit.

    Source Recognition for Merchants
    The Source Checker module is used to check referring URL calls for Pay Per Lead, Pay Per Sale, Pay Per Call, and Pay Per Leave events made by the merchant. Source Checker ensures that event tracking code has not been placed on sites that the merchant does not control.


    Frequently Asked Questions

    Why can't I put code on any site that I own?

    Merchants deserve the final say on where their products or services are promoted. It is very easy to request the merchant’s approval of an affiliate website in LinkConnector. Allowing this approval sets the right tone for a successful affiliate-merchant relationship.

    What happens if the referring URL is not present after a user clicks on an affiliate link?

    For standard campaigns, if a referring URL is not present, LinkConnector will still record the click/cookie on behalf of the affiliate. For Naked Link campaigns, no credit can be given when the referrer is not present since referrer is used as the primary identifier of an affiliate.

    Since referrers can sometimes be manipulated, how does LinkConnector protect against this?

    FraudFREE has other modules within it to detect abnormally high ‘no referrer’ activity from any affiliate in a standard campaign. These FraudFREE modules will also recognize when a referrer is being altered in any type of campaign by comparing the data from each affiliate to population data.

    What percentage of the time is referrer not available?

    When looking at referrer statistics for a website, referrer is often not available or in an usable form. This can be caused by many factors—a user typing in the URL on the address bar, a user using a bookmark, a user arriving on a site from an e-mail, referrer being blocked by the browser or by a plug-in, and many more. But, most of these factors aren’t related to a direct linking method from a website. The best way to think of this limitation is to consider the percentage of time referrer is not available or is in an unusable form for a standard linking campaign. LinkConnector data, dating back to early 2004, indicates this to be true less than 5% of the time.

    We are happy to discuss any of this information with you!

    Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,

    Jackie

  2. #2
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Lane
    If a recorded referrer is not from a valid, approved website for the specific campaign, the affiliate is not credited for the traffic.
    And once again, you're using referrer information to not credit affiliates for sales. This appears to be a recurring and disturbing theme at LinkConnector.

    There are numerous legitimate reasons why a referrer may not be valid. Affiliates shouldn't be penalized for those. Use it for fraud detection definitely, but don't just automatically eliminate affiliate sales.

    There are enough reasons why sales don't track. You don't need to add more.
    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

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Jackie, for kicks. Since this has been asked for almost a month and your company keeps avoiding the question.

    How did you come up with your 95% quote? This should be easy, you should be able to turn to someone and they reply - here you go, here is how we came up with that number. You either did some testing, which then tell us the methodology used so we can verify the tests, or you pulled the number out of your butts and you have no answer to my question, which is my guess at this point.

    I am giving you the benefit here, because I can post my findings that others can verify, and let me tell you – they sure aren’t near 95%. But maybe you are basing this off some insightful testing method I overlooked.

    And you based so many aspects of your company around an unreliable, broken technology that your original answers about it just affecting merchants using naked link are disingenuous if not outright lies.

    I know you guys are patent happy on all this, but did you ever think for a second why this technology that you did not create, that existed for years was not used in this manner? (which I am not saying it wasn't) It’s like someone saying they are going to patent homing pigeon mail delivery in the age of email. It is not a step forward.

    So before you post another answerless 101 post.

    Why doesn't your company live up to its word? Why not answer all of the questions already raised in the other 101 posts? What are you hiding?

    My question being. What methodology did you use to come up with your 95% rule for referrers being passed? What percentage works for your naked link technology since that included reliance on javascript? Do any of your other technologies rely on javascript as well as referrer information?

    With your patents, do you have the ids or links to the patents?

    Live up to your own words. Address the questions being asked.

    You have merchants asking where are the linkconnector affiliates. I can make a guess, staying the heck away since your company refuses to be forthcoming with honest answers to the questions being asked. Stop the pr puff 101 posts, answer some questions.

    Chet

  4. #4
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    For standard campaigns, if a referring URL is not present, LinkConnector will still record the click/cookie on behalf of the affiliate. For Naked Link campaigns, no credit can be given when the referrer is not present since referrer is used as the primary identifier of an affiliate.
    I'm more confused now!

    Example:
    On SAS, we can see the:

    Last Page Clicked = http :/ /www .MySite.com/(merchant link, page)
    OR,

    Last Page Clicked = , (Nothing will show up Here)

    But we always get pay on any of those clicks if the visitor buys anything from that merchant.

    So what I am gathering from the Naked Link Technology™ is that in a similar situation on were the last link clicked on my site go to a merchant on your network, I will not get pay if for whatever reason the (merchant link, page) is not there when when you're looking at referrer statistics for my website, even if you see that my website is the one that send you that visitor?

    Nevermind this post, I will wait for the outcome anyway, I was just thinking outloud and decided to post.

    Sal.
    ...

  5. #5
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Thumbs down
    What Michael said. This whole network reeks of a system set up to not pay, and otherwise milk, anyone who affiliates with it.

  6. #6
    Analytics Dude Kevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,904
    I would like to think that's not their intention, but a post on it might behoove them
    :crickets:
    Kevin Webster
    twitter: levelanalytics

    Kayak Fishing
    Web Analytics and Affiliate Marketing

  7. #7
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    Got to agree. t sounds like they want to find a million and one excuses not to pay. Of course, if your links don't meet their exact criteria they still keep the sales from anyone you sent to them. It isn't as if those pages go to "page not found" or something.

    Yeppers! Free traffic! What a deal. For merchants, that is.

    I wouldn't touch this one.
    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!

  8. #8
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    I don't think that's their intention, but that's certainly the end result.

    The technology and innovation is excellent, but it's being used in the wrong way.
    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

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    What makes it worse for them is they start these threads and then don't come back to answer questions brought up. You should have confidence in your product and know the answers, so this shouldn't be a problem.

  10. #10
    Affiliate Network Rep
    Join Date
    May 6th, 2005
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey
    And once again, you're using referrer information to not credit affiliates for sales. This appears to be a recurring and disturbing theme at LinkConnector.
    Michael—Not sure if this statement points to a possible philosophical difference or a misunderstanding of our message.

    Philosophical response: LinkConnector is trying to redefine Affiliate Marketing because we feel there are many opportunities to make it better. Source Checker is an example of a paradigm shift (which we recognize may or may not ultimately be accepted by the industry). Many merchants are frustrated with the lack of control afforded them in the current Affiliate Marketing networks. They have little to no say about where their products are promoted. This lack of brand control is now also morphing into a serious legal problem for merchants with the advent of legislation like the CAN SPAM Act. The purpose of Source Checker is to remove any and all incentive for affiliates to promote a merchant from websites not previously approved by the merchant. We feel, and most merchants agree, that this is the best way to ensure compliance with a merchant’s terms for a campaign. The back-end fraud control effort required in other networks is often not practical resulting in a loss of brand control for large affiliate marketing campaigns. Without some sort of technological solution for merchants in this area, we feel merchants will begin to significantly reduce the number of affiliates with whom they deal to gain desired control resulting in lower overall commissions for affiliates and networks.

    Misunderstanding response: There are many different scenarios whereby credit may or may not be awarded. For those scenarios, I refer you back to our FAQs under this original post. If you have another scenario not covered by the FAQs, please post it and we will respond. But, this statement generally refers to a scenario where we receive a referrer and it is not from one of the affiliate’s approved sites for a particular merchant’s campaign. If this was the purpose of your statement, please see the philosophical response above.

    One additional (previously unmentioned) thing about Source Checker is that it will notify an affiliate via e-mail that they are sending traffic from an unapproved website. These alerts will occur daily so an affiliate can easily rectify the situation by either simply getting the website approved by the merchant or start sending the traffic elsewhere in order to receive compensation for that traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey
    There are numerous legitimate reasons why a referrer may not be valid. Affiliates shouldn't be penalized for those. Use it for fraud detection definitely, but don't just automatically eliminate affiliate sales.
    As we said in the original post, I don’t think Source Checker penalizes affiliates for many of the legitimate reasons why a referrer may not be valid or is missing. The one exception to this we addressed is in a Naked Link campaign where referrer isn’t available and there is nothing we can do without referrer. If you have other legitimate reasons in mind that were not addressed already, please post them and we will respond.


    Mr. Sal, I think any question in your post in this thread was answered above. But, if you don’t agree or if you have additional questions, please feel free to post your questions (or call me) and I will respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    This whole network reeks of a system set up to not pay, and otherwise milk, anyone who affiliates with it.
    And

    Quote Originally Posted by SSanf
    (I)t sounds like they want to find a million and one excuses not to pay.
    LinkConnector only makes money when an affiliate is paid. Our fees are charged to the merchant and are based on a percentage of commissions paid to affiliates. I can assure you it is not our intent to design a system which ultimately pays less to affiliates. Everything we do is an attempt to reintroduce integrity into Affiliate Marketing. The more merchants feel their marketing dollars are being paid to honest affiliates in accordance with their terms, the more money they will shift to Affiliate Marketing away from other advertising expenditures. Our hope is that this is a rising tide that will carry all ships with it—merchants, affiliates, and LinkConnector.


    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey
    The technology and innovation is excellent, but it's being used in the wrong way.
    Michael, you have a lot of good and thoughtful questions. We would welcome a phone conversation with you to explore our technologies deeper and get your opinion on the best practices to reach our philosophical goals if and when you feel you have the time.

    Choots Humphries
    President, LinkConnector Corporation

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Choots
    LinkConnector only makes money when an affiliate is paid. Our fees are charged to the merchant and are based on a percentage of commissions paid to affiliates. I can assure you it is not our intent to design a system which ultimately pays less to affiliates. Everything we do is an attempt to reintroduce integrity into Affiliate Marketing. The more merchants feel their marketing dollars are being paid to honest affiliates in accordance with their terms, the more money they will shift to Affiliate Marketing away from other advertising expenditures. Our hope is that this is a rising tide that will carry all ships with it—merchants, affiliates, and LinkConnector.
    http://www.linkconnector.com/accounttype.htm

    Choots, you are now just bordering on straight out lying. You do collect monthly fees - a bit high for your quality level. I imagine with the thought we see put in the system so far, it doesn't cost much to run your network, so those fees...

    And thanks for answering my question about the 95%. I see you really are out here answering questions, not just doing spin control... man i barely got that out before i busted into 20 minutes of non-stop laughing.

    So come on, answer the questions just don't spin the damage. The only thing you are leaving people with is the idea your network is broken and you can't discuss it because it is simply built on broken technology.

    Chet

  12. #12
    Affiliate Network Rep
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by chetf

    How did you come up with your 95% quote? This should be easy, you should be able to turn to someone and they reply - here you go, here is how we came up with that number. You either did some testing, which then tell us the methodology used so we can verify the tests, or you pulled the number out of your butts and you have no answer to my question, which is my guess at this point.

    I am giving you the benefit here, because I can post my findings that others can verify, and let me tell you – they sure aren’t near 95%. But maybe you are basing this off some insightful testing method I overlooked.



    Don't beat up on Choots for not having posted to your reply. He left that to me, and I have been very tardy with the reply.


    Let me start by saying that you are correct, it has been too long for this particular issue to not have been addressed by us. I have several reasons why I have not done so, but you don't need excuses, you need an answer, so here goes.


    First, let's start with some representative sample data I ran recently from our tracking.




    The first thing you will note about this sample data is that the average is 93%, so perhaps we might more correctly say that referrer data is available 93-95% of the time. We had stated 95% number based on what we had observed going back to early 2004. This measurement was based on millions of clicks across various websites. But apparently, as indicated by the sample I've provided from this year, it has adjusted slightly for reasons I'll explain below.



    Second, we attempted to provide you with some reasons in our post above as to why traffic logs sometimes report high 'no referrer' activity.



    When looking at referrer statistics for a website, referrer is often not available or in an usable form. This can be caused by many factors—a user typing in the URL on the address bar, a user using a bookmark, a user arriving on a site from an e-mail, referrer being blocked by the browser or by a plug-in, and many more. But, most of these factors aren’t related to a direct linking method from a website. The best way to think of this limitation is to consider the percentage of time referrer is not available or is in an unusable form for a standard linking campaign. LinkConnector data, dating back to early 2004, indicates this to be true less than 5% of the time.


    But the primary reason that 'no referrer' activity has increased for web logs is due to the increased activity of search engine spiders. In the past couple of years, Google has increased the frequency of its visits to web sites. Couple that with the advent of an MSN spider over that same timeframe and the numbers are staggering. On average, spider visits can account for 5-10% of visits recorded in a log, and even more on sites that are well indexed in the search engines. (BTW, spiders are also the chief reason why the percentage of Javascript disabled users is so high and increasing. You see, spiders do not have Javascript enabled. The real number for real internet visitors with Javascript disabled is somewhere around 1-3%.) But I digress…



    Of course, the percentage of 'no referrer' activity reported in a web log has little bearing on our technology as we are really not interested in most of the traffic that shows up as 'no referrer' in the log. What we are interested in is tracking referrers from our affiliates. So, if you throw out all the other reasons why 'no referrer' is present with visitors to a page, our 95% figure is probably incorrect. It is probably much higher! In fact, this has peaked my interest so much that I may have our technical staff build a utility to at least exclude spider traffic from our numbers to see how high it really might be.



    I hope that addresses your question regarding our numbers and why they differ from the information you have found on referrer availability. While we still may not agree with each other on this issue, at least now you have more information about why we claim what we do.



    Last, I was going to thank you for the respectful tone of your most recent posts, but when you accuse people of lying just because their perspective may differ from yours you cross the line as respectful poster. If we can keep our posts in this forum to dealing with the questions at hand and not slamiing each other, I think we will all be much better off.

  13. #13
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    Okay, let's say my web site is www.amazing-bargains.com and that's what I have registered.

    Are your filters going to keep me from getting credit with these referrers?

    (Blank)
    amazing-bargains.com
    Amazing-Bargains.com
    66.98.208.26
    Blocked by Norton
    Field blocked
    beta.amazing-bargains.com
    http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/dia...g-bargains.com
    XXXX
    XXXX:
    [unknown origin]

    Those are common, but that's just the start. Just because there IS a referrer doesn't mean it's correct. I've seen times when the referrer is from a totally unrelated site (probably that they were browsing in a separate window at the same time). I can see the user has a unique IP address. I can see their original referrer when they enter my site. I can see them moving around my site (with internal referrers), then I see an oddball referrer for this user from a site that doesn't link to me, but they're accessing a page that could have linked from the previous page they visited on my site.

    This kind of stuff happens. To not credit affiliates because the referrer is missing or incorrect is just flat out wrong.
    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

  14. #14
    Affiliate Network Rep
    Join Date
    May 6th, 2005
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    10
    cheft—my posted reply related to our minimum charges is for the benefit of others reading this post. You seem only to want to argue and I’m done arguing.

    We don’t charge merchants a set-up fee, an annual renewal fee, a minimum transaction fee, an ad serving fee, or an e-mail fee. We do charge merchants a LinkConnector Fee (20% to 30% of what merchants pay their affiliates), a LinkConnector Tracking Fee of $0.0025 to $0.0050 per track (which is only applicable to merchant-only tracking events not involving an affiliate or their traffic), and a Product Feed Setup Fee for Self-Managed merchants (which represents a close approximation of our costs).

    Related to the LinkConnector Fee, we impose a minimum of $200 for Self-Managed merchants and $1000 for Managed merchants ($500 until June 1, 2006). This minimum is only applicable after a merchant has been in our network for at least 2 full calendar months. The purpose of this minimum is to align ourselves with merchants who take Affiliate Marketing seriously and are willing to do all the work required of them to be successful merchants. Any merchant with any Affiliate Marketing potential that does their part to make their campaigns successful will not need to worry about these minimums. For those that are doing the work and growing their success within LinkConnector, but are not growing fast enough, we usually are willing to extend the grace period for the minimums for as long as we see they have the potential in our network and for as long as they continue to work hard to grow their Affiliate Marketing efforts. If a merchant can not reach the minimums in a reasonable amount of time, we suggest they seek out another Affiliate Marketing solution so we can expend our resources more aptly on the merchants that prove a good match with our network.

    Choots Humphries
    President, LinkConnector Corporation

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    123445
    Last edited by chetf; February 18th, 2006 at 10:23 PM. Reason: missed post

  16. #16
    Affiliate Network Rep
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey
    This kind of stuff happens. To not credit affiliates because the referrer is missing or incorrect is just flat out wrong.

    As we've stated many times in the past, our Account Reps continually encourage merchants that use our Naked Link Technology (NLT) to reward affiliates at a higher rate than they do for standard campaigns. While this is no guarantee that they will, there are several that do. For those that do up their commission structure, credit is given when the referrer is missing. I would concur with your feeling that those merchants that don't are just not playing fair.


    The key with any affiliate-merchant relationship is a solid, fair partnership. If the merchant gains SEO advantage by using NLT, they need to be fair by rewarding affiliates for this advantage. That is the message we preach to our merchants, and many are listening.

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    No wonder your data is much higher, you are checking for a different failure.

    I am checking to make sure the correct referrer is being passed, not that it is empty. You aren't paying based on the referrer being filled, you are paying for it being filled correctly. That is different, your testing is not an accurate measure of the chance of an affiliate being paid.

    Also because there is no way of guaranteeing the referrer click count will only work when a sale is counted, you need to consider all equally - all being sales, not a percentage of them being sales and that being acceptable because most won’t be sales.

    So even using your own data, the second most popular site has 88.19% empty referrer. Add another 2-3 percent for those programs that stuff data into the referrer and you are looking at 15% of all potential sales for that site being discarded!

    I ran test with 20,000 clicks moving visitors from one site to another (in case the software just throws up the current site's url in the referrer (at least one of them does this). My percentage of valid urls being passed was slightly over 87%, with the worst performing sites being the highest tech sites. The best being mom and pop home spun sales sites. Encapsulating the referrer check in javascript, the percentage dropped down to around 84% the worst being under 80% (but some of that is explained below by page size). Seems most people who block one do the other, or at least the gap of doing one or the other is not as great as i first suspected.

    Your testing does not make a comparison for javascript and in fact your data has no ability to even account for lacking of javascript because you only are looking at data passed by javascript (for your sites relying on that, and while I used both javascript and not so I could compare data for the test, I think it is only fair to look at worst case – since that is what I am seeing in the field on your merchants).

    (to understand this, stgelais is only looking at the end result – if we got a click X number had referrer information. The problem is many merchants in their system use the javascript version of the software, so if an end user blocked both referrer and javascript – that data would not be counted as a blank referrer, it would simply not show up in the test - in the real world the affiliate would not be made (correct me if I am wrong stgelais, you did not explain your testing methods javascript or not, just the raw data.))

    I based my system off of yours, using your code and discarding any known bots at the end and continuing until I had 20,000 valid clicks. I did not only use ie, mozilla etc because some blocking packages also hide browser type.

    Other data of note.

    The farther down the page the code was, depending on the page size, the worst it performed. For slow loading sites, (guessing) people on dialup will move off the page before it is fully loaded, killing the code from being called because unlike server side checking, you do not count data on request but delivery. I placed my code in the same place your merchants do – the very bottom of the page. The page size is a big variable in this – but that is in the hands of the merchant, not you.

    The higher the tech – the more knowledgeable the user base, the worst it did. I did not compile based on isp, but I wonder if aol or other major isp made a change to use new protection software the impact it would have with the more newbie audience.

    Opening in a new window has no effect. In fact if your browser is not blocking and you are loading the page quickly - it is pretty hard not to send the referrer on a straight link. Previous comments on IE and new windows seem to have been fixed by MS.

    Using almost any redirect method will cause the referrer not to be sent. So people who use javascript, php, perl, any script to count clicks and then apss on the user - it will not work. But of course that defeats the purpose of nakedlink, but does effect the other ways linkconnector uses referrer data.

    As for this:
    Last, I was going to thank you for the respectful tone of your most recent posts, but when you accuse people of lying just because their perspective may differ from yours you cross the line as respectful poster.
    Um no. It is not a different perspective. It is simply a misstating of the facts. To say you make no money unless affiliates make money is simply not true. Call the fee anything you want, but this statement is true – A linkconnector merchant could not make one penny for an affiliate and linkconnector would still be paid up to $1,000 for that month by the merchant. And since the original statement was addressing possibility, that sentence is true, choots original statement is not. You are posting on an affiliate board, trying to recruit affiliates and merchants, I would expect the representative of your company to speak clearly and factually correct, not for people to have to decipher the statements.

    I do not think that is too much to ask. But I am curious, since your testing method did not account for the correct data being sent, just data. My saying that is incorrect testing – does that mean that is just a difference in perspective??

    I find it really odd you would be so casual with that testing when it is what you are basing paying affiliates on. I would have originally assumed you tested regularly encompassing all the possibilities so you could see the full data set – or not, since the referrer data is simply not trustworthy for financial transactions and you seem hell bent on sticking with that technology regardless of any testing.

    I am disappointed by your posting of some unexplained numbers and then congratulating yourself on the idea those numbers show something good. I had wondered about the methodology of the testing, and still am forced to wonder because your reply was simply incomplete.

    And for your snarky – the numbers are really this or that – well that is just amateurish, since you are asking affiliates to accept a number, or merchants to make changes in payouts based on this number. I would have guessed you would not be so casual with it. Lets pretend that number is really 99%, its not, this is pretend, but if it was you would have come back here triumphantly as you have with the 97%. So what does that tell the merchants you told it was 95% and they should adjust their payouts to compensate for that? Should they congratulate you on getting them to overpay.

    Choots, you now have stated extra compensation is needed for both the seo nature of your program and the problems with referrer tracking. Can you post a merchant who does higher payouts because of these two things?

    So call this arguing, don’t answer, but you really should think about treating numbers you throw around as meaning something, not just sales pitches and spin to get people into your program.

    Chet

    *disclaimer. I tried to use a variety of sites and linking sites for this test. Overall my users tend to use firefox more than the Internet average. One site used for testing has a rather large main page, but I was able to find linkconnector merchants with the same page sizes and code in the same places. I did not discard the same visitor across multiple days, merchants/affiliates might not have the same level of repeat visitors if you were buying ppc etc. I tried my best to produce real world impartial numbers, but if you are unhappy with the numbers here, you can perform your own tests. Before making any financial choices based on the numbers here, I would suggest you do your own testing and base your choices on those numbers. I have no knowledge of how linkconnector did their testing since they did not describe that methodology but if you have questions about their numbers – ask them not me. Any comments on their numbers by me was based on guesswork on my side.

    If any linkconnector employee believes my numbers inaccurate or incomplete, please contact me to discuss them, again I made my best effort to have a complete test and I post the numbers here based on my testing as described.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Final words.

    The testing was both better and worse than I expected. If you put non javascript code at the top of the page, have a general sales site attracting non-techy crowd, it performed much closer to the 95% number linkconnector claims (which I still think stinks). ( i realize i may have misspoke above, it seems if you block referrers you most likely block javascript, but it does not seem that if you block javascript you always block referrers, my numbers are a little muddled not breaking them out separately, but the end number is correct. Firefox extensions are the future not the past, this will only get worse.) By not having all merchants placing the code in the same place, and providing them all with the same non-javascript version of your program, you are creating two classes of merchants.

    Much like my problem of kowabunga making merchants pay for upgrades gives an uneven experience for the affiliates, the same is here. If you are married to the naked link idea, you would do much by upgrading everyone to the same system and requiring placement of the code to be standardized. You should not be happy that some merchants track well, but you should be unhappy that some merchants track so poorly.

    Chet

  19. #19
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    chetf, thanks for the testing and explanations. I see your arguments as persuasive, consistent with my data from similar tests and view your arguments as reasonable and also beyond posturing. In addition, the experience I have in finding fraud and how bad players manipulate referral headers, leaves me to draw conclusions that I would say are very much aligned with yours. Appreciate the time you took here.

  20. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Email checker help
    By Affiliate Ian in forum Programming / Datafeeds / Tools
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 20th, 2006, 04:00 PM
  2. Broken Links Checker (URL-checker) in ASP?
    By imbrod in forum Programming / Datafeeds / Tools
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2003, 02:21 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
  •