Forum Moderators: skibum
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=YOURASSOCIATESID-30&o=1&p=40&l=ur1&category=home&banner=1X2AGSSAVB75EDSQR302&f=ifr" width="120" height="60" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
The Javascript above is provided by Amazon for a typical banner ad. The code when executed actually produces a slightly incorrect URL embedded in the IFrame source code. An extract:
HREF=http://www.amazon.com/?&tag=YOURASSOCIATESID-30&camp=15345&creative=331677&linkCode=ur1&adid=1J6A75M2BYGAR3QF7V43& target="_top"
If you examine the code above that is produced by Amazon's servers you can see there is a leading & (ampersand) before the "tag", or first, parameter. Also there is a trailing & (ampersand) after the last parameter.
I know there are those who actually test Amazon code to see if it produces true sales. Amazon appears to tolerate this as it is mentioned in the TOS notes.
I now have a lot of testing and follow up to do to see if these banners are actually working. It'll will take a few days. I do know that "product links" do work correctly and because they do, it makes it more difficult for me to check banner link functionality.
Below a sample of the "product link" code:
[amazon.com...]
Note there is no & (ampersand) before the tag parameter, this is how the link should be formatted. Also note there is a trailing & (ampersand), which seems to me to also be incorrect, but, I suspect the trailing ampersand is harmless.1. Does anyone know for sure whether the miss formed URL above does produce a complete affiliate transaction?
2. Is there a thorough way, and hopefully quick way, to check whether this miss formed link is working?
3. Has anyone even noticed this quirk?
I will probably follow up with Amazon and the discussion boards. But Webmaster world is always a source of tremendous expertise. (Thanks!)
The link checker URL. You must be signed in to use it.
[affiliate-program.amazon.com...]
The Checker also says the corrected link, the link without the ?&, tracks correctly.
I'm still following up with some other tests.
