CCBILL links: what is the difference between...?
 

what is the difference between using this type of link for a ccbill sponsor:

versus using the:


would there be a difference in the timing of stats ie. delays etc.?
how does a sponsor handle the direct request?

(I know one is used for hosted galleries..., but my question is about the differences in how the click is routed and stats collected?)

The top one is a .htaccess redirect to reform the URL in the second example below. the sponsor knows their CA code, they just need to know what the PA (affiliate) code is to form the URL.

Both links end up going to the URL in the bottom example. One is just easier to remember.

Go with the second one if possible. Sponsors always end up fucking shit up when they use redirects.

NOT THE CASE AND 100% FALSE.

The URI going to refer.ccbill will immediately load the cookie which is used to track the surfer.
The URI going to the sponsors site is doing just that...going to the sponsors site/content first then depending on how the sponsor has decided to link to the real refer link the cookie will be set then. :2 cents:

Your right.... I think I said that, just a bit differently.... :thumbsup

Uhh, actually no. htaccess has nothing to do with a php script. And nothing will be tracked without the cookie being set...which only happens when you visit the refer.ccbill URI.

Yawn... okay your right. I'm too tired to argue. G'nite...

well, the reason I ask is it seems like it takes longer for stats to show up for clicks on the first example, so it lead me to wonder how the click tracking is done when you are actually sending your surfer to the sponsor directly first rather than routed through ccbill

yea re: what nookster said

the 1st link isnt giving you credit for traffic.
its sending the traffic to their gallery.

if that gallery sucks
or the surfer's wife comes in
and they close the browser
without hitting the ccbill link
u just lost that referral.

better to get your id
stored in ccbill and then
send them to the gallery.

the first referrer gets paid,
at least until the cookie expires..

thought about it a bit more, and thinking that actually what happens is when you send a surfer with the first link, that is merely setting a cookie that if the surfer looks at the sponsors landing page and looks at some thumbs or trailers, and then leaves, it won't even be reported to ccbill... the only time ccbill would know about it is if your surfer hits the 'join now' link

am I correct?

so the "refer.ccbill.com........" linking method would be the only one that would give you true ratios and accounting of clicks sent I think

thanks plsureking and nookster, got it figured now

so I wonder why the sponsors set up their hosted gallery auto generators to do it the first way? is it so ratios don't look as bad?

if u look at the links
inside the actual gallery page
they will usually be the 2nd type
you have listed here.

what the sponsors are doing
is waiting to write that cookie until
the surfer passes thru the gallery

your ccbill affiliate admin panel
isnt going to show stats until a surfer
clicks that refer.ccbill link.

so if they get lost or stuck
you wont see any traffic stats.

the 1st way is the standard and accepted way
of doing it even tho it would be better for affiliates
to send them to ccbill first.

i only know why i do it the first way
and thats ease of programming lol

the gallery urls hold important stuff
like which gallery/template to show
and sometimes internal tracking variables.

i dont want any urls to get
screwed up passing thru ccbill.

however, for you, if u can add
a sponsor's gallery/tour url to the end of
the ccbill link (and the gallery displays ok)
then u should do it..

So then in theory, the longer link code will result in overall worse ratios than the shorter one?

I base this on, if the short one does set the cookie until clicked through, it would probably result in a better join ratio?

No? Or and I high?

yes, I think that is how it works, the longer linkcode (the refer.ccbill.com/cgi.......) will result in worse ratios but ultimately much more accurate ratios if you are talking about actual traffic that you send to the sponsors

yea u guys got it right.

ccbill link first will track all traffic.
other one will only track your traffic
if they continue on after the gallery..

go with 2nd link form

agreed, but it is a heck of a lot of extra work when you are importing, a lot more work :2 cents:

I could be wrong, but I thought the first link is a program not using grouping, and second is a program using grouping.

Problem is when the gallery is not under the site's base URL, would the cookie from CCBill work?

Check out the second one! Would be better

most likely the gallery isnt writing a cookie

the links on the gallery page
that go to the tour or homepage
are the 2nd ccbill refer type.

so nothing is tracked
until the visitor clicks a link
to the site from the gallery

IF that happens..

Once the surfer hits refer.ccbill.com.... the cookie is set and the click is tracked in the CCBill system.
We always recommend that you click through the linking code to the signup form and look for your PA in the source.

thanks for the reply Paul:thumbsup

The first URL is just passing the affiliate id # to a FHG. Inside of the code on that FHG, link #2 is built. So when the surfer clicks on something on the FHG, they bounce through link #2 and thus bounce through ccbill and set a cookie. The advantage of linking to a gallery like that is it doesn't count raw views of the gallery, only actual clicks to the tour.

You still fail to link the two. htaccess is not needed if you have the php script handling EVERYTHING. That would be one of the sloppiest and wasteful scripts I've ever seen if it's the case. Anyways, you deviated from his questions.

could be looked at as a disadvantage, as it shows a higher ratio when in reality a more valuable ratio to the webmaster would be using total clicks sent to the sponsor :2 cents:

The modified style (or at least mine) is just a php redirect file that redirects to the stock ccbill link. So no delay in stats or anything like that occurs with my setup. They work perfectly.

i do it for seo reasons for me and my affiliates

as well as flexibility in case you ever need to change or add alternate billers,

and in the very remote chance something catastrophic happens with ccbill you wont have a bunch of useless links out there making no money

also you don't want to set the cookie on the gallery link, then ratios would be way off

not that ratios mean anything anyways

but a lot of people used to do this with ccbill a long time ago before they knew about php and passing variables

I also think that a metric such as "$ per 1,000 gallery loads" is of more value, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon... the de facto standard is first page clicks (or even second/join with some shifty programs)

I track outbound gallery clicks so with a bit of work I can calculate the abovementioned metric but there's no real easy way to do it without support from the biller and/or program.