why are CJ/trading scripts inaccurate...
Up until now, trading scripts (CJ scripts included) were (and still are) relying on the value called HTTP_REFERER (one of the parameter passed by visitors? browser to your Web-server when moving from page to page) to identify the origin of a visitor and by that, accrediting the correct trader for traffic he sent. In return for traffic a trader sends to you, you send traffic back to his site (sometimes additional factors such as ?quality? of traffic influenced the amount of traffic you send back). That is how trading relations form today: If you do not get traffic from your trader you do not send any traffic back to him.
If you've ever wondered why most CJ sites requires that the return URL will be in the same domain as the one where you send traffic from, it is because it's a way to identify that traffic is sent by you ? through a match of the Domain.
Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest apparent weaknesses of trading and CJ scripts. The reason is that a considerable percentage of traffic over the Internet lacks this HTTP_REFERER parameter - over 13%! There are many reasons for that, for example: around 4% of traffic over the Internet is generated by users who use Norton personal firewall. In addition to being a firewall, it is also a system to "protects your privacy". What Norton personal firewall does is eliminating the HTTP_REFERER parameter and replacing it with an encrypted and hashed (?unrecognizable?) HTTP_WEFERER. More reasons for the lack of HTTP_REFERER will be: other privacy protection software, HTTP_REFERER disabled browsers, visitors behind proxies and more (most don't even supply a hashed version of this parameter ? not that one can really be used) ?
As a matter of fact the percentage of HTTP_REFERER "free" traffic is constantly increasing, part of it is because of the popularity of firewall while the other part is because of the increasing concern of people with privacy. This number is predicted to increase until majority of traffic over the Internet lacks this parameter.
So what is the problem? Well... if you're trading with somebody and sending 1000 hits, (assuming he uses a CJ script or any other trading script that relies on HTTP_REFERER) your trader will see only 850 to 900 hits coming from you. If you ever wondered why your traffic counters are sometimes have a totally different value than your trader?s, it is (most probably) not because he/she cheat you (unless the difference is much bigger than that), but because of the absence of HTTP_REFERER and their inability to identify all traffic sent by you as such. Also - if you ever wondered why so many sites say they send 120% of the traffic they get, it is not because they are too generous but because it goes to compensate for the lost traffic and the lack of accuracy of the script. This 120% "trick" is often used as the ?official? way to compensate for the lost traffic. But as the percentage of traffic without HTTP_REFERER grows there will be a need to increase the 120% to 150% or even 200%. This may be sooner than you think. Some use a ?special? logic saying that ?everybody looses to everybody, so in the end we are all even ;)??
Now, the question you may want to ask yourself is: ?Is this an acceptable solution to compensate for the inaccuracy? Is it a valid way? Do I like it??? While the problem is less urgent at 13%, what would you say when it triples and gets to 40%? Ask yourself the following question: ?Would you sign up to an affiliation program, where 30% of your sales are lost???
If you've ever wondered why most CJ sites requires that the return URL will be in the same domain as the one where you send traffic from, it is because it's a way to identify that traffic is sent by you ? through a match of the Domain.
Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest apparent weaknesses of trading and CJ scripts. The reason is that a considerable percentage of traffic over the Internet lacks this HTTP_REFERER parameter - over 13%! There are many reasons for that, for example: around 4% of traffic over the Internet is generated by users who use Norton personal firewall. In addition to being a firewall, it is also a system to "protects your privacy". What Norton personal firewall does is eliminating the HTTP_REFERER parameter and replacing it with an encrypted and hashed (?unrecognizable?) HTTP_WEFERER. More reasons for the lack of HTTP_REFERER will be: other privacy protection software, HTTP_REFERER disabled browsers, visitors behind proxies and more (most don't even supply a hashed version of this parameter ? not that one can really be used) ?
As a matter of fact the percentage of HTTP_REFERER "free" traffic is constantly increasing, part of it is because of the popularity of firewall while the other part is because of the increasing concern of people with privacy. This number is predicted to increase until majority of traffic over the Internet lacks this parameter.
So what is the problem? Well... if you're trading with somebody and sending 1000 hits, (assuming he uses a CJ script or any other trading script that relies on HTTP_REFERER) your trader will see only 850 to 900 hits coming from you. If you ever wondered why your traffic counters are sometimes have a totally different value than your trader?s, it is (most probably) not because he/she cheat you (unless the difference is much bigger than that), but because of the absence of HTTP_REFERER and their inability to identify all traffic sent by you as such. Also - if you ever wondered why so many sites say they send 120% of the traffic they get, it is not because they are too generous but because it goes to compensate for the lost traffic and the lack of accuracy of the script. This 120% "trick" is often used as the ?official? way to compensate for the lost traffic. But as the percentage of traffic without HTTP_REFERER grows there will be a need to increase the 120% to 150% or even 200%. This may be sooner than you think. Some use a ?special? logic saying that ?everybody looses to everybody, so in the end we are all even ;)??
Now, the question you may want to ask yourself is: ?Is this an acceptable solution to compensate for the inaccuracy? Is it a valid way? Do I like it??? While the problem is less urgent at 13%, what would you say when it triples and gets to 40%? Ask yourself the following question: ?Would you sign up to an affiliation program, where 30% of your sales are lost???
Comment