Quote:
Originally Posted by newB
Wikipedia would disagree - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie_stuffing
On a related note, I have seen quite a few "sites" that were nothing more than an I-framed sponsor site slapped on a separate domain - actually a once prominent GFYer who has been rather quiet lately, seems to have a number of these "sites". I would assume that most sponsors would take issue with this, but apparently not. This guy has also bragged quite a bit about how much money he makes with minimal effort, so maybe he's on to something. |
Wikipedia is way off on that. Doesn't surprise me though.
It was us webmasters who invented the phrase "cookie stuffing" years ago. Those that weren't around, just don't know what it means.
And putting an I-framed sponsor site on a domain isn't "cookie stuffing". It's what almost every affiliate that submits to tubes does. They re-watermark a sponsors tube clip with their own domain and then iframe (or redirect) the appropriate website with their affiliate code on it.
Back then "cookie stuffing" was when you put a dozen or so 1x1 pixels that the surfer couldn't see and had a bunch of different programs you promoted i-framed on them. If you had a high traffic site it would work awesome because you would cookie the surfer first.
So if later on, another webmaster who actually was trying to market that site got a click to one of those sites...the "cookie stuffer" got credit for the sale.
Maybe the term has "evolved" now with new unexperienced webmasters everywhere that don't remember what it was called. To me it is and always will be the practice of putting a cookie on a surfer without the surfer ever seeing the website that they are being cookied for.
Anyway, it didn't sound to me that what borked did was "cookie stuffing". And that, along with his honesty with Amazon caused them to agree.