| 3:03 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it is being blocked by many ad blockers. That's why they have a feature like "encrypted URLs". They don't get caught by the filters (for now). Linkshare's and Performics' URLs are often included in the blocker's list.
Many users will automatically or periodically remove the cookies from those three affiliate programs through ad blockers including myself.
| 6:40 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When you say 'many users', who are they?
| 7:48 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Those who have toolbars with adblockers installed.
Those who have Norton Antivirus Internet installed.
Those who run adblockers/popup blockers/cookies removers(AdAware/Yahoo's Anti-Spy, etc) regularly.
| 9:08 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So by removing the cookies are they removing the block thus allowing the link?
| 6:49 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Users deleting cookies are costing us commissions on future sales.
| 7:31 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was a little confused by itisgene post and need clarification.
So on the first download of a site with a qksrv link, would that be blocked or just on repeat visits? ...depending on whether the cookies had been removed.
| 4:18 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lots of missinformation and confusion in this thread. Let me attempt to clear it up. I started the whole "Norton Blocks Affiliate Links" movement and have written numerous articles about it.
1) Norton Anti Virus does not do anything, it's Norton Internet Security and Firewall products
2) Norton finally listened and new versions are shipping with ad blocking OFF by default instead of ON. Although tons of surfers still have old versions with ad blocking on and dont realize why parts of pages are missing.
3) "That's why they have a feature like "encrypted URLs".
No the URL incryption still won't help get past the blockers if qksrv links are being used. CJ has a bunch of new domains to bypass the blocking issues. I think most merchants have updated to the new domains, so if you still have qsrv links on your site you need to pull new links that are the new URLS.
4) "So by removing the cookies are they removing the block thus allowing the link?"
Let's separate the 2 problems - both of which can separately cause lost commissions.
BLOCKERS - When Norton blocks CJ links the entire banner or text link is totally missing so the user does not even see it and has no where to click. (I have examples in my article shoing this.)
COOKIES - When users delete cookies or ad blockers and antispyware deletes or blocks CJ cookies then the surfer can still click links and can still buy however you will not get commission because the cookie with the info does not get to CJ.
Hope this helps to clarify and I know it sucks. There are some solutions that help and many ideas that are being discussed. I truly wish there was a way we could pay every affiliate every dime they earn. But if the link does not work or the cookie gets eaten there is no way for us to track it.
| 7:25 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well said, Catalyst.
I almost missed this post and just saw the request for clarification. Most of what Catalyst said is correct.
I want to add a few things:
1. There are ad blocking software that do not show ads from companies in the list(blacklist). I skip through the list and saw linksynergy.com & cc-dt.com & qksrv.net in the list. I didn't find www.dpbolvw.net code or similar (Cj's variation) blocked by any of the software yet. ==> This is what I meant by encrypted URLs.
==> Yes. That's true.
|it's Norton Internet Security |
==> Ad Blockers not only means Popup blockers but also ad removers based on the blacklist. Any codes from those listed sites will not show up on the browser.
|BLOCKERS - When Norton blocks CJ links the entire banner or text link is totally missing so the user does not even see it and has no where to click. (I have examples in my article shoing this.) |
I hope that helps.
| 7:30 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh, so for the original post, replace the qksrv links with new gibberish URLs from cj.com. Many ad blockers have qksrv in the black list. You will lose lots of commission from the traffic you drove.
| 9:30 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Let's keep in mind that promoting popups and ActiveX downloads with embedded spyware are short sighted. You may earn some money in the near term, but with near certainty you are making it harder to earn money in the future. These annoying / unethical marketing methods only encourage more PC users to use ad blocking software. This results in less money in your pocket, my pocket and other affiliates over the long term.
| 11:28 am on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Then the likes of CJ should stop providing the option for pop up/unders etc.
Will this mean that even straight forward banners with the new url get banned in the fulness of time?
| 1:43 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The discussion is not about popups. It is about CJ's (or other affiliate programs) links(any links - banners or text links) and adblocking software.
For now those extented URLs from CJ get passed by those software. In the future, those adblocking software may get smarter.
| 3:24 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also keep in mind that STANDARD sized banners are blocked even with the new CJ URLS. Norton looks for the banner sizes in the source code. If it sees 468X60 or any other common banner size it will strip it from your site regardless of what affiliate network the banner is being served from. In fact even if you have a LOGO or other image on your site that is a common banner size, it will be blocked. So either be sure your banner size is not listed in your source code or reduce banner size by one pixel in each dimension.
| 3:33 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Excellent point Catalyst, is this theory or fact?
If it is fact, it will help a lot.
| 4:56 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Excellent point Catalyst, is this theory or fact? |
I believe this is fact. People have done testing to prove it.
| 7:34 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's interesting. I'll give it a go.
| 4:58 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes its fact, Notron looks for banner sizes in your source code and thats an easy fix.
In one of my articles I have a link to a partial list of the 200 or so of the *bad* words and banner sizes Norton blocks.
This list does not have the banners sizes in it, sorry I cant find the list that does.
Here is a list of many of the words that are blocked and deleted by Norton. (Mods, note this is not my site)
The other thing, not related to CJ but mainly Indie affiliate programs is - be sure they dont have the words ad or banner in the URL structure. Both Sharesale and DirectTrack used to have their banners in a banner sub directory and their URLS looked something like: xyz.com/ads/1234. I discovered all their links were being blocked due to that link structure and had both companies re-name their directories, then they were no longer blocked.
So double check your Indies too.
| 7:42 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Catalyst. you're a star!
I'll look at that list now.
Are these blocked for any other reason than pop up/under annoyance or because they are focussing on affiliate schemes in general.?
| 3:53 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually Norton is not even very good at blocking pops and this isnt about pops. The goal is to block all ads. So it's not even targeted just at affiliate network ads but traditional ad networks too like Fastclick and others.
Since you seem to be hungry for more info about this, one of the in-depth articles I have written about Norton was for About.com and is titled: Is Norton Blocking Your Internet Marketing Efforts? Hopefully most people will upgrade to the new version that has ad blocking off by default and this problem may gradually go away over the next year or so.
Fingers crossed and putting on my rose colored glasses!
| 7:12 am on Apr 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is another example of a corporate body policing our online shopping. If we venture into a 'virtual mall', we expect to see ads, we're out to buy, we want ads. Its a vast distance from researching information about widgets and being forced to duck and dive betwixt an assault of pop up/unders.
I fully appreciate taking on the latter but stop this 'nanny state in Cyberspace'.