Sorry if this topic makes you guys check your address bar to make sure you're not a DP.... in 2006. But I'm just coming back to putting some Commission Junction links up and am having trouble remembering the discussion from back then. My recollection is that this was foisted upon them by Google because they didn't want aff links polluting their results or some such thing.
So... I've always hated the CJ javascript for in-body text links. The main reason is that I don't control the link text and it often doesn't fit the article content. My preference is to use the HTML version and, assuming I'm truly motived, redirect through a nicer looking link than http://www.tkqlhce.com
Also, the JS links break if the user has JS off.
I don't really care about the outbound link/link juice issue. I do care about expired links, but not excessively.
Given that, is there any reason to prefer the Javascript links? Anything I'm missing?
QuoteGiven that, is there any reason to prefer the Javascript links? Anything I'm missing?
I don't know of any advantages to using JS for aff links.
Google seems to be following JS links whenever it wants to these days.
I use normal links, but mask their destination with redirects (and sometimes even a little cloaking)
Will the js links give you impression stats?
When running fx. Tradedoubler links you can use the js versions and actually count the impressions. Might be something you can use, but personally I'd prefer using html links and redirecting them through our own system.
QuoteI use normal links, but mask their destination with redirects (and sometimes even a little cloaking)
Tut, tut, shame on you.
One of the top 3 rules for affiliates getting booted out of networks is masked or cloaked links, what you hiding and who you hiding it from?
There's no good reason to use JS links that I know of. I never do, primarily because I want to control the link text and I want to run the clicks through my own tracking redirects.
> One of the top 3 rules for affiliates getting booted out of networks is masked or cloaked links
What, really Jim? Virtually every big affiliate runs links through redirects if only for tracking purposes.
What networks are these? No US network that I've ever worked with (or for) minds this "masking" one bit. As long as you're not being sneaky, misleading, or otherwise duping your visitors into clicking, of course. But masking itself does not equal bad.
Further, all networks have terms that you won't mess with their code, but truth is they don't mind that either. If you pull just the click URL out and use that, you're ok. That language is primarliy there so that if you screw it up, you can't blame them.
>>Will the js links give you impression stats?
I believe so. Basically, like the hidden image in the standard HTML version with CJ, you're downloading the JS file every time the page is requested. You can add the SID parameter just like for any link.
Some of the Javascript links have added functionality that can be worth it, especially in a set it and forget it setting. For example some merchants have banners that will auto-update, so you leave the same code, but "Back to School Specials" become "Halloween Sale" becomes "Black Friday Deals" and so on and you don't touch anything.
>>redirects
when I'm not lazy, site.com/go/description => http://andorezers.com/1432adgobbledygook?SID=description
Seems good enough for me and I don't see anything in the CJ or merchant TOS that prohibit that type of redirect.
PS, if you're on Drupal, this makes basic redirection so simple
http://drupal.org/project/gotwo
If you're on Wordpress, this helps manage redirects, but takes more work than gotwo
http://urbangiraffe.com/plugins/redirection/
QuoteOne of the top 3 rules for affiliates getting booted out of networks is masked or cloaked links, what you hiding and who you hiding it from?
Nah - perhaps you misunderstood - I am not hiding anything from the the affiliate network, just the SE spiders.
The cloaked links are also fine in this case - I got approval from the network concerned before implementing it.
Basically, the links do not show as links for SE spiders, but do for any other visitors.
QuoteBasically, the links do not show as links for SE spiders, but do for any other visitors.
To avoid bleeding the link juice or for other reasons?
I just do this
example.com/go/tag and then disallow the /go directory in robots.txt.
I know there are implications for bleeding link juice from any visible link, no-followed/disallowed though it may be, but
[confession]I'm lazy[/confession] busy
QuoteTo avoid bleeding the link juice or for other reasons?
As this is in an open forum, I can't explain fully - but one reason is to change the footprint a little (ie some with link cloaking, some without), and the other is to stop spiders from following the links completely.
Quote...then disallow the /go directory in robots.txt.
Doesn't stop the rogue spiders and bots sadly - my normal php redirect file does some filtering, but some scrapers were getting though and playing havoc with the stats.
If anyone wants more information, PM me.... can't post the most important info in the open.
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
Quote from: jangro on December 02, 2010, 10:46:58 PM
There's no good reason to use JS links that I know of. I never do, primarily because I want to control the link text and I want to run the clicks through my own tracking redirects.
> One of the top 3 rules for affiliates getting booted out of networks is masked or cloaked links
What, really Jim? Virtually every big affiliate runs links through redirects if only for tracking purposes.
What networks are these? No US network that I've ever worked with (or for) minds this "masking" one bit. As long as you're not being sneaky, misleading, or otherwise duping your visitors into clicking, of course. But masking itself does not equal bad.
Further, all networks have terms that you won't mess with their code, but truth is they don't mind that either. If you pull just the click URL out and use that, you're ok. That language is primarliy there so that if you screw it up, you can't blame them.
No you are right on the masking, cloaking not so much.
It's contentious about just grabbing links from creative though. Ideally if you want meaningful stats as a network for display or e-mail and you have taken the trouble to segment the links for that purpose it's not helpful if an affiliate grabs say an e-mail creative and sends search traffic.
Staying on the right side of compliance and regulation for CPA networks is always a challenge, so trying to enforce policy can be aided greatly by affiliates if they understand the reasons behind the rules.
That being said, I agree it's not always 100% black/white there will often be grey.
Unfortunately, too many affiliates are suspicious of the reasons for the network knowing too much, often if the network knows they can help. As an example, someone gets a Google Slap, a good network should be able to help. E-mail affiliate can't get Hotmail delivered should be the same situation. Don't know = can't help.
Yeah, cloak the links or redirect, or both.
Off topic a bit but... Doing direct PPC aff work without masking referer is just stupid. Some networks as a rule pass on referer info, I'd rather not let the merchants know what terms I'm bidding on.
I cant think of a good reason to even give a clue to a merchant what the bid terms are. Hide baby hide.
>Hide baby hide
Couldn't agree more! Well, that would be to hide from network weasels as well.