Talk:Cookie stuffing/Archives/2013

Question

This looks like a fairly reliable source for information on cookie stuffing. Should it be worked into the article as a source? http://www.benedelman.org/cookiestuffing/ LinguistAtLarge (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Added as a reference to the article LinguistAtLarge (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarify?

I've read this article several times, and I still don't understand how this process works. I get that the cookie is put on my computer without my awareness (and is affiliated with a different site/company), but how does it influence my decision to visit that site and do business? Does it re-route me there when I do a search for certain items? Does it create a pop-up? Does it take over my browser? That part of the story is left out completely in every description of "cookie stuffing" I've read online. It seems that, once again, we have a demonstration that people who are good with numbers are very poor with words.

Answer: If someone cookie stuffs your PC, that cookie can tell other sites you visited someone's site when you didn't. For instance, it could tell Amazon.com that you visited an affiliate site when you did not. Then if you buy something from Amazon, they will pay a commission to the affiliate site who placed that cookie on your PC - because amazon believes you visited that affiliate site, saw their products, then went to amazon to buy it. The cookie-stuffing lies about where you've been, and steals commissions from legitimate sites that make income on affiliate sales. I don't normally contribute to Wikipedia, because the inner circle here brutally deletes and modifies content which I don't care for. This should answer your question however, if an overzealous editor doesn't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.72.80 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased and Unbalanced

I'm sorry but I must agree with JalanB that there is an unfair bias in this page. First off, the text states that pop-ups (and pop-unders) are acceptable forms of cookie stuffing. Therefore, if a user visits affiliate's page "A", which in turn pops up vendor's page "B" and cookies the user, then the user will be legitimately cookied for all future purchases even though the user has not actively clicked on anything. The user can close the popup window, and still be cookied for any future purchases. This is considered "legitimate use" by all major affiliate networks.

Taking another scenario: If page "A" were to contain a gigantic full page advertisement saying "VISIT PAGE B", and that page were to cookie the user via an iFrame, the user is similarly cookied for all future purchases whether or not he actively clicks anywhere. In both cases visitors are cookied with no clicking or interaction.

Note that both scenarios listed above involve zero user interaction, and both result in the affiliate being credited with future purchases. And yet one practice is considered "fair" and the other considered "unfair" by some affiliate networks. This is hair-splitting at best, and in the second case (unlike the first) there is actually a valid reason for the user to collect future affiliate revenues as page "A" ran a full page ad!

At issue here is that this is indeed a very grey area and the problem lies with an unclear basis behind the rules. Clearly, user interaction (ie: clickthrough) is NOT necessary for valid affiliate cookie setting. And so the user experience when visiting a so-called "black hat" cookie stuffing site, or a legitimate affiliate site is largely identical. (They are cookied invisibly).

This is certainly not a clear cut case of morality and right-and-wrong. This is a case of "rules" set by a few large industry players like Commission Junction. Furthermore, the above comment that cookie stuffing is "anything other than illegitimate" is contradicted within the existing text already, with the admission that pop-ups are acceptable.

The entire basis for crediting affiliates is not, and has never been iron clad. Affiliates have always been able to blow away other affiliates cookies. A perfect example is this:

1) You click on an ad, and land on Amazon. (You're now cookied for all purchases, and Affiliate 1 will be credited). 2) You browse a forum one week later and a pop-under window opens Amazon. (You're now cookied for all purchases again, but now Affiliate 2 will be credited).

Affiliate 1's cookie was blown away. That's legitimate by all rules of fair play in affiliate marketing. AND it's considered cookie stuffing.

This article is very biased and needs to be changed to reflect the competitive landscape of affiliate marketing and include legitimate use scenarios.

Proaktivity (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The determination should be made by payment and ownership. If you own the website or are paying a website host, then your cookie is legitimate. When you you place it on someone else's property, you are stealing. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)