how many surfers type the "pic urls"?
 

I was wondering, if anyone have an estimate on how many surfers are typing the paysite URL when watching pic(s). Or just a guess?

This is the Perfect place to ask
We got more surfers here then on AOL

what do you mean by pic urls?

well - most pics offered for promotion has watermarks with the URL to the paysite. That must have some effect on some surfers.

We would only be speculating

8

percent?

my point:

When an affiliate is making a gallery (not using FHGs), and the referal tracker is cookie based only, his sale depends on if the surfer hit the referal links. If the surfer look at the pic, and type the watermarked URL, then the gallery maker doesnt get credit.

Now, if its only few percent it could still be lots of money in total. I know it is possible and how to set a cookie already when they enter your own made gallery, like the FHGs. Question is only if it is worth working with it.

:)

No idea, but I'm sure some do.
Some times, when I'm browsing around, and I see a URL on a pic, I type it, if there is no link to the site. If there is a link, I follow it.

More than enticing your surfers, you are protecting your content, so I think it's worth it.

if you make galleries, I am sure the percentage is low enough to brush it off. if you are a pay site owner, the percentage point is high enough to make you almost smile at the number.

think about it, how many pictures do you look at a day and how often do you actually type the watermark url into your browser? For me it was less than 5%, and that's only if I wasn't shown a readily available link to the site.

Another interesting question is, how many people will take a link like this - "http://blah.com/hotchick/1/?referer=blah"
and delete the appendage to see the actual main site "http://blah.com".... which would kill your referal fee unless the site sets cookies right away....

Now that I think about it, I'm sorry I took the time to type this whole thing because it's a pretty trivial question and I gave a long winded answer and neither one of us are any richer for the time spent. I'm going to get a drink now, thanks.

I am number one on google for a "teen" related image search.

It could be as high as %10 but most just click...

Very very low I would guess.

i've always been surprised that nobody looked into this more. i'm assuming most of you have seen www.tinyurl.com, it would be very very easy to make something like this so you can track watermarks.

obviously no surfer is ever going to type in http://www.cockgag.com/123456/12/1/a/ *but* you probably could get them to type in http://ade.cockgag.com/ just as easily as they would www.... you'd have about 20k different users or what ever you wanted to track before you even need anything longer than just www.

if i ran sites myself i'd have set this up a long time ago, or even just runnign tgp's, the small amount of effort required to watermark your pictures differently per campaign or whatever is negligible and you might just learn something useful and have a reply (or not) next time somebody asks this.

long ref-codes is no problem. You can use mouse-hideovereffect or just use redirection codes on your domain if you have that feature at your host (like cPanel etc.)

What is important (from the affiliates point of view) is to set the cookie at once, before they surf further from a single picture.

I talked to another webmaster regarding this, and he used a script that set ALL his ref-codes when they surfed at his sites, overriding others codes. He would not show me how :ticking

.

ya that would be easy enough as long as you have control over the domain/server... now doing it on a freehost or with fhg's etc would be alot harder. i had misunderstood your original thing tho, i thought you meant surfers typing in the watermark so it could work when they send it to friends (viral) or over p2p etc..