Official forced cookie rogue webmasters List

[AK]

Feel free to add also feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

http://www.bettingway.com/www/

<img src="http://images.bet365affiliates.com/Channel.aspx?CID=125&amp;LnkID=grm_10771&amp;oty=1&amp;lng=6" border="0"></a>  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td align="center" height="19" width="100%">
    <img src="http://www.bettingway.com/www/immagini/divisore.png" border="0"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td align="center" height="19" width="100%">
<a href="http://www.calciosport365.com/home/default.asp?affiliate=365_015094&amp;lng=6&amp;oty=2&amp;tzi=4" target="_blank" onmouseover="window.status='http://www.bet365poker.com'; return true" onmouseout="window.status='Done'; return true"><img src="http://images.bet365affiliates.com/Channel.aspx?CID=230&amp;LnkID=grm_10771&amp;lng=6" border="0"> 

[AK]

Ah this thread is pretty much pointless.

I was just taught away where it's 99.9% impossible to find.. I'm sure the ones doing this pretty much have it mastered down...

Even down to a auto programmer where only 1 in 3 or 4 views is cookied so the percentage of clicks is never 100% which makes it impossible to catch.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

I agree, but it's up to the affiliate programs to be actively looking for them.

Here's one I found. xxx.artfunbet.com Stuffing for two different gambling programs.

[matted]

Can someone explain this issue to me? Perhaps I am missing something completely, but what are these folks doing wrong? I'm just saying I don't understand what is unethical.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

Matted,
It's pretty easy to explain. Cookie Stuffing is a form of theft from real webmasters. Here's why. The offender places a special script on his or her website that placed the affiliate cookie on the players browser. There's no click involved. The page may not even have content on gambling.. it may be content on Amercian Idol or something. So ,when the player does go to a real affiliates site, and clicks on the info the cookie is not registered because the a cookie is already "stuffed" in the browser thereby giving credit to the original website that placed the cookie there.

I'm sure I watered it down so it doesn't sound so bad, but It's malicious by nature.

[sipka]

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but is this only possible if the affiliate program doesn't use the "last" affiliate rule but the first one? If they use the last referrer affiliate's cookie, then how is this possible?

[CityGuard]

You're correct Sipka. This hurts affiliates in cases where the affiliate program is using non-overwritable cookies rather than over-writing them so that the last cookie is used.

It hurts the casinos even when last cookie is used because the affiliate who did the cookie stuffing would get credit for the player even if that player actually signed up directly with the site (such as in response to an offline ad, organic search, PPC advertising, etc.). They end up paying the cookie-stuffing affiliate even though that affiliate never actually sent the person to the casino's website (and as WagerX pointed out, the cookie stuffer could even be a general website rather than a gambling website).

The issue is basically abusing the way the technology is structured so that they can receive commission without genuinely having played a role in the referral process, but programs can avoid some of this abuse by using the last cookie.

[casinojack]

Is one way, but the biggest abuse is by the ones who should NOT get credit at all....

[matted]

OK - that's what I thought...

In the example provided at the top, where is the example of cookie stuffing?

And to play devil's advocate... What if someone lands on my page for "Casino X" with an easy domain name... Isn't it within my right to get credit for that cookie knowing that many users will simply type it in... I realize that is different than just randomly setting cookies - but is that unethical?

[casinojack]

Most programs state for you to get paid the user must click the banner, text add etc.


most of these offenses, are in a forum, downloading software, or visiting a myspace page, etc etc.

In regard to AK post, I have not had the chance to verify it myself.

EDIT: Note when most of use here use this term, we mean in regards to get commissions for sales that do not belong to you. If you set your own cookies, say for forum login, this is fine, as it is a valid cookie. I myself have used these techniques to verify what i am being sold in advertising, using executable images, and this is fine. Most publishers do not like it, as is a great way to see your true impressions, but that is another topic...

[oc+]

How do we prevent this? or is this out of our control?

[Simmo!]

OK silly question then maybe.

I thought that if a visitor goes to Affy Site A clicks to Casino A but doesn't sign up, then later goes to Affy Site B, clicks through to Casino A again, Affy Bs cookie overwrote Affy Site A's cookie anyway?

I've run tests on several casinos (MG, RTG & Wagerworks) and every one I tried without exception updated the cookie from the 2nd visit. Where I would have a problem "ethically" is when people stuff their cookies into other peoples forums, blogs etc.

But if I'm right on the above, then putting a cookie on your own site wouldn't give me a problem because the way I see it, there's every chance what you said made me go to the casino, even if it wasn't at that moment.

[universal4]

This hurts affiliates in cases where the affiliate program is using non-overwritable cookies rather than over-writing them so that the last cookie is used.

I have been saying this exact same thing for YEARS!

In my opinion, the ONLY fair thing to do is allow all cokies to be over-writeable and the affiliate or link that made the sale, (sent the visitor at the time of signup) is the one that should get paid.

I am fine with cookies lasting a few days, weeks or whatever the casino or group allows (providing they are over-writeable)....

Rick
Universal4

[Fortune Palace]

How about a situation where a visitor comes to a casino XX review page by following a trail of pages after searching for some long-tail keyword phrase, likes the review, clicks over, but doesn't register.

Some time later, the same visitor decides to sign up with casino XX but can't remember how they found the original site. They then search for 'casino XX' and find a high ranking site who then gets the credit for the work the first site did.

I know that my review pages don't rank highly (and will never outrank the superaffiliates), but the whole point of my site is to get visitors to those pages when they initially searched for something else.

It may not be the 'normal' way things work, but it should be considered.

[universal4]

Well Andy, you have a point BUT....

If the cookie is not overwriteable it doesn't matter because the first affiliate to cookie them gets vcredit.

The affiliate that makes the sale is still the fairest way to go and the scenario you laid out would be rare since they would hopefully sign up when you made the sale...

If they decide later, and it truly was YOUR review which closed the sale, then hopefully they can find your site and if not...well that happens....

But sticking to the theme of the thread...cookie-stuffing hurts us all no matter where we fall on the debate of who should get credit....

The cookie that is not overwriteable means the credit is likely going to more so-called super affiliates....and less to those who are making some of the sales...

Rick
Universal4

[Simmo!]

Creating a list of webmasters/sites that use stuffing would not only be fairly fruitless (after all, what can we do about it), it would also constantly change and maybe in some instances, sites may be "rogued" incorrectly depending on what they are doing.

The best approach would be to petition the casinos that don't overwrite cookies to change the strategy, much like Virgin did last year when it was suggested.

[AK]

http://ray101bassman.forumotion.com/

ya sorta like this huge cookie stuffer right?

Thanks for the PM and info regarding them....