Comments on: An Affiliate Wake-Up Call: The Case Against URL Shortening Services http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:02:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Gabe Ortiz http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-835 Gabe Ortiz Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:00:41 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-835 Cool, look forward to seeing it in action. Cool, look forward to seeing it in action.

]]> By: Daniel M. Clark http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-834 Daniel M. Clark Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:04:50 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-834 Thanks, Gabe! I'll post after I whip up a plugin, maybe I'll make it public if other people might have a use for it. Thanks, Gabe! I'll post after I whip up a plugin, maybe I'll make it public if other people might have a use for it.

]]> By: Gabe Ortiz http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-747 Gabe Ortiz Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:00:41 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-747 Cool, look forward to seeing it in action. Cool, look forward to seeing it in action.

]]> By: Daniel M. Clark http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-746 Daniel M. Clark Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:04:50 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-746 Thanks, Gabe! I'll post after I whip up a plugin, maybe I'll make it public if other people might have a use for it. Thanks, Gabe! I'll post after I whip up a plugin, maybe I'll make it public if other people might have a use for it.

]]> By: Gabe Ortiz http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-745 Gabe Ortiz Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:46:53 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-745 A WP plugin could do the rewrites for title attributes pretty easily. I think it would be acceptable so long as you can manage linkrot and your .htaccess solution seems to do that pretty well. A WP plugin could do the rewrites for title attributes pretty easily. I think it would be acceptable so long as you can manage linkrot and your .htaccess solution seems to do that pretty well.

]]> By: Daniel M. Clark http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-744 Daniel M. Clark Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:43:55 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-744 I think that's a fantastic idea. The only problem, and one that is probably easily overcome once I actually hammer it out, is that the title/alt attributes would have to be assigned dynamically, depending on what merchant I'm going to at any given time. Like I said, I cloak because it's easier to manage links - if a merchant goes offline or discontinues an item, I can just update the .htaccess file with a new destination, and I'm good to go. If I can come up with a way to update the title or alt attributes whenever I update that file... that would solve the problem very neatly. Maybe I can write a Wordpress plugin to handle it...<br><br>That said - and I'll definitely work on that this week because it's a great idea - would that solve the blind linking/UE aspect of cloaking in your mind? With that in place, would cloaking - in general, as it would then be implemented - be acceptable? I think that's a fantastic idea. The only problem, and one that is probably easily overcome once I actually hammer it out, is that the title/alt attributes would have to be assigned dynamically, depending on what merchant I'm going to at any given time. Like I said, I cloak because it's easier to manage links – if a merchant goes offline or discontinues an item, I can just update the .htaccess file with a new destination, and I'm good to go. If I can come up with a way to update the title or alt attributes whenever I update that file… that would solve the problem very neatly. Maybe I can write a Wordpress plugin to handle it…

That said – and I'll definitely work on that this week because it's a great idea – would that solve the blind linking/UE aspect of cloaking in your mind? With that in place, would cloaking – in general, as it would then be implemented – be acceptable?

]]> By: Gabe Ortiz http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-743 Gabe Ortiz Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:12:18 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-743 I think the biggest issue here is that blind linking is a bad user experience, regardless of intent. Why not use a title attribute in your anchor tags to inform your visitors where they're going when they click on a link? I think the biggest issue here is that blind linking is a bad user experience, regardless of intent. Why not use a title attribute in your anchor tags to inform your visitors where they're going when they click on a link?

]]> By: Daniel M. Clark http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-742 Daniel M. Clark Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:23:35 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-742 That's a good question, Gabe, and one that I've considered from many different angles. I've read arguments for and against it, and the arguments against are almost always given from a moral perspective - that it's dishonest to cloak. Done a certain way, I'm inclined to agree.<br><br>When it comes to cloaking, the central issues seem to be: 1.) that visitors can't see their "true" destination and 2.) that it's not obvious that cloaked links are affiliate links, and there's a disclosure issue.<br><br>At the top of the site, in the main navigation, I've got a page called Linking Practices that basically says that I'm an affiliate and some links on the site may be affiliate links. I also periodically mention that some links may be affiliate links in an individual post or section, as in the Thesis promo box above. So, to me, that covers disclosure - well enough for my definition of fair disclosure, anyway. Others may say I haven't gone far enough, or that I don't need to disclose as much as I do. Opinions abound :)<br><br>That leaves the issue of the "true" destination. But what is the real, true destination? If I have a visible link to <a href="http://www.dpbolvw.net/4o101qgpmgo3799B7BA35498CBCC" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpbolvw.net/4o101qgpmgo3799B7BA35498...</a> - does that tell my visitor anything? It's a standard CJ link, but it doesn't tell the visitor that their final, true destination is a page at Better World Books. The very nature of affiliate linking is "cloaked", in a way. Whether I do it myself or I show the visitor the CJ link, they're not going to know the ultimate destination.<br><br>So, I think the inherent nature of affiliate links coupled with my disclosure makes my .htaccess redirects fair. Not everyone will agree with me, but I hope that I've expressed myself well enough that folks understand I'm not being underhanded about my linking practices. I cloak because it's far easier to manage links that way, not because I want to be dishonest with my visitors :) That's a good question, Gabe, and one that I've considered from many different angles. I've read arguments for and against it, and the arguments against are almost always given from a moral perspective – that it's dishonest to cloak. Done a certain way, I'm inclined to agree.

When it comes to cloaking, the central issues seem to be: 1.) that visitors can't see their “true” destination and 2.) that it's not obvious that cloaked links are affiliate links, and there's a disclosure issue.

At the top of the site, in the main navigation, I've got a page called Linking Practices that basically says that I'm an affiliate and some links on the site may be affiliate links. I also periodically mention that some links may be affiliate links in an individual post or section, as in the Thesis promo box above. So, to me, that covers disclosure – well enough for my definition of fair disclosure, anyway. Others may say I haven't gone far enough, or that I don't need to disclose as much as I do. Opinions abound :)

That leaves the issue of the “true” destination. But what is the real, true destination? If I have a visible link to http://www.dpbolvw.net/4o101qgpmgo3799B7BA35498... – does that tell my visitor anything? It's a standard CJ link, but it doesn't tell the visitor that their final, true destination is a page at Better World Books. The very nature of affiliate linking is “cloaked”, in a way. Whether I do it myself or I show the visitor the CJ link, they're not going to know the ultimate destination.

So, I think the inherent nature of affiliate links coupled with my disclosure makes my .htaccess redirects fair. Not everyone will agree with me, but I hope that I've expressed myself well enough that folks understand I'm not being underhanded about my linking practices. I cloak because it's far easier to manage links that way, not because I want to be dishonest with my visitors :)

]]> By: Gabe Ortiz http://www.danielmclark.com/affiliate-marketing/an-affiliate-wake-up-call-the-case-against-url-shortening-services.html/comment-page-1#comment-741 Gabe Ortiz Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:34:09 +0000 http://www.danielmclark.com/?p=747#comment-741 Should you really be cloaking your affiliate links in the first place? Isn't that pretty dishonest? Should you really be cloaking your affiliate links in the first place? Isn't that pretty dishonest?

]]>