Brujah

Which is more typical and accepted? Surfer clicks on webmaster #1's link 90 days ago. Surfer doesn't purchase. Surfer clicks on webmaster #2's link today, and makes a purchase.

Currently, Webmaster #1 will be credited. Is this standard?

__________________

• Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com
• For Sale: Obscenity.com

Mutt

that's not standard - it's the last affiliate who gets credit for the sale. CCBILL's system works that way.

__________________

Brujah

I was looking at the Themeforest referral program.
http://themeforest.net/wiki/referral/referral-program/

__________________

• Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com
• For Sale: Obscenity.com

BIGTYMER

The newest cookie should get the credit.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life

newest cookie should get the credit as far as i'm concerned.

Dirty Dane

Not so sure about that. I have sometimes signed up to a CCBill program through another affiliates links, then checked my own link (which I always do with standard browser settings). Often, it is the first affiliate that shows up at the signup page.

rowan

If a person clicks on your referral link and then later they click on someone else’s, yours is the one that counts

This method of crediting encourages cookie stuffing.

Kirby

thats the way it should be IMHO

Adraco

The affiliate closest to the sale, i.e. the one last visited by the surfer, most often gets credited for the sale. Encourages you as an affiliate to play fair and care about converting your visitors right away. If they visit another site and then signup, it may not be your work, but because that other site was being persuasive and made to convert.

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is not affected by the beliefs, or doubts, of the majority.

ottopottomouse

In that example Webmaster #1 failed at selling though if they didn't buy for 3 months. In my opinion Webmaster #2 actually made them buy the product.

__________________
↑ see post ↑
13101

Kirby

What if webmaster #1 referred the serfer from his good ranking search engine page, but then the server wanted to look around for free stuff, and when he failed to find much he just clicked the link on whichever site he was last, so now webmaster #2 gets the credit for doing nothing.

webmaster #1 introduced the surfer to the content - did actual work
webmaster #2 just got lucky

CurrentlySober

Thats why I used to hate sites that had a link to a review site at the bottom of the tour...

I mean, you told them about the site, and got them interested enough to go visit. Surfer reads site, looks at tour etc, considers joining... BUT OH LOOK! A link to an 'independant review site!

Surfer checks it out, decides yeah, it DOES have X number of videos, and it is updated X amount of times like tour says... I'll join...

Surfer joins and review site gets the credit!

But without you, the surfer would have never visited site in the 1st place ! So, I dont promote any sites with review buttons anymore...

__________________

My Dream Gal... XXX

seeandsee

last sender should get sale

__________________
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year

Contact here

ottopottomouse

Making it more complicated but even if they saw it on Webmaster #1 then spent 3 months trying and failing to steal it they would still actually be buying through the Webmaster #2 link even if he did get lucky on the day. Even the warez forums would have a claim to have contributed to his desire to purchase.

If I go and look at a new car at garage #1 then look at some others at garages #2 #3 #4 then eventally buy it from garage #2 all the garages would have been trying to sell it to me but only garage #2 gets the money. Can't see much of a difference.

Need an affiliate program for the review site as well as the sponsor

__________________
↑ see post ↑
13101

TheDA

Sadly it happens a lot. It's just another of the dreaded traffic leaks!

Dirty Dane

In my opinion, the cookie should not be overwritten for a shorter time if the surfer entered the paysite. Like 20-30 minutes. That way, the original source will be credited and the paysite can't overwrite/cheat/leak.

Wizzo

__________________
Looking for Opportunity!

will76

That's not standard, it's ass backwards. The newest cookie set should always get the sale. Who does it the way you mentioned?

Who wrote that, are you quoting someone or is that your thoughts?


"Cookie stuffing" can be done either way, cookie stuffing doesn't matter if you thef first or last person to set the cookie.

Also this method means it will be a lot harder for new affiliates to make any money. Surfers will click on ads for different companies potentially several times before they buy and it could be over long periods of time. If I started promoting a company like this when they first launched (and cookie stuff them myself) and I had my cookies out there all over the place then the people who come after me, who might infact have a better ad then me and actually get the person to JOIN not just click a link, will never make the sale.

Ass fucking backwards.

That would be ideal to make sure no one was using spyware or other bullshit to try to steal sales. You could probably make it a couple minutes and it would work fine and no legit people would ever miss out.




I can't believe we are actually having this discussion in 2010 and that there could be potentially companies out there that would give the sales credit to the first person to set a cookie.

__________________
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

will76

for every 1 time it happens like that it happens 1000 times the other way.

__________________
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com