Printable View
Quote:
Affiliate programs do not use 3rd party cookies.
Really?
An affiliate program using netrefer or income access software that pulls images (and deposits cookies) from remote servers different to the destination website would surely be the definition of "3rd party advertising cookies"?
AFAIK affiliate cookies are not SET until the aff link is clicked/actioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGooner
Whereas these ad companies, are setting these cookies (or whatever they use to track surfers) in a web page one visits.
It's akin to employing an iframe in a covert manner, and loading gaming site(s) directly in your gambling portal. Doing this would set the aff cookie tag(s) on anyone who accessed your portal.
As far as banners, I load all my banner etc., locally, so I can't comment on that topic!
Is this what "cookie stuffing" is?Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieDave
I can confirm this is being done as I've helped a few sites track down nefarious assholes over the years. I've been informed of some of their methodologies for making matches... it's effective, yet disturbing in some ways. No digital privacy, that's for sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGooner
Now even more confusion.
When we talk about affiliate cookie it is always on the domain of the sportsbook. So for example IA Pinancle has affiliate cookie of domain pinnacle.com. When visitor comes through your link and later directly through typein, you would not get the credit otherwise. It is a 1st party cookie.
Netrefer at Unibet is a bit problem, I am not sure whether I am sure if it is like this, but I think: they use many Unibet.xxx domains like unibet.com or unibet.se etc. At least in some countries the tracking was through unibet.com, which looks like 3rd party cookie, but it is not. It was just done (I think) through iframes, where both affiliate click at unibet.se for example got affiliate cookie at unibet.com. Then at registration through unibet.se logically also some part of unibet.com via iframe was loaded. But I think they do not do it anymore and this is not the standard way how to do it. If anyone is checking affiliate cookies you should always check if the cookie is on the root domain of the book/casino. Otherwise complain. Cookie that is not on root domain is defacto analogy of session cookie that is however still limited by the duration of the cookie unlike real session cookie.
------
Now the second issue are the images etc (but not the affiliate cookies as described above). Yes they use second party cookies quite often, typically the ad serving domains are not on the domain of the casino or sportsbook. But those cookies impact us just indirectly and they should now affect the tracking. It can affect ad-targeting and make it worse, but this has huge impact for adcompanies, not to affiliates like us, who place at position A creative B.
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by PROFRBcom
One big and rogue bookie did cookie stuffing for years to themselves. Their banners were stuffing their own affiliate cookies. So just showing banners was spreading the cookies. Amazing right? Maybe this is why they became even more rogue.
The loss must have been enormous. Also the servers of the sportsbook must have been constantly overloaded, because each load of the banner caused a hit on their servers. So they overpaid for infrastructure and still the site was underperforming. On the top they gave much more credit to affiliates until they decided they must steal (which caused them another huge loss in the end).
Things like that make me much less paranoid about the world. What we think is a malicious intention is usually just total dumbness and lack of interest.
I can’t imagine they will shoot themselves inside the foot and put in force something similar for Google Chrome due to the fact ads are Google’s business, I been using it with my recently IP address: 192.168.1.1 I used, however, I can see the pressure developing on them particularly if Microsoft follows with Edge.
/start short side track
Your 192.168.1.1 IP address is not the publicly exposed IP
All 192.168.x.x are private IP's (yours came from your router or other NAT device
If you would like to know you publicly exposed IP, visit a site similar to https://www.whatismyip.com/
/end side track
As for Google blocking ads in Chrome, their built-in ad blocker could easily block most ads except their own depending on how they structured it.
Concerning cookie stuffing itself, the GPWA was part of exposing a HUGE cookie stuffing operation many many years ago...that must have been around 2004 or 2005. The exposure helped more affiliates and operators as well have a better understanding, and in those days, operators were more interested in listening to the collective responses of affiliates. (Thanks to those operators that still listens, although they are harder to find then those days)
Then there was the controversy over things like Ezula and Gator, back in 2003 era. (they predominantly replaced affiliate tags/links with their own when clicked from an affiliate site)
Rick
Universal4
Dominique took up the fight against that. Eventually after 2 or so years of fighting the cause, she, along with SlyCin (Cindy founding owner of GPWA) and the support of other members here, the hijacking of tags/links became outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by universal4