Forum Moderators: open
Just had a bunch of CHANGES to my existing descriptions denied for the above reason.
Has anyone else had this sort of problem? I'm not sure what the editor is talking about. An affiliate is an affiliate, right?
I've seen affiliate sites doing that, so I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that that could be the issue, since it relates to trademark and copyright issues on the content actually being displayed.
Could that be it? Could they be saying to integrate content like that into pages on your site?
In your header part of that file you need JavaScript code to do the following:
1) Check browser and version number
2) If Netscape browser and version 4 or less, redirect to index.html (Overture don't check with NS4, so this is OK)
3) Read parameters sent from the location.search variable
4) Use document.writeln lines to write out your frameset and frames commands dynamically including putting the target parameter (that you've read from step 3) into the frame tag.
This has the effect of throwing your visitors into the correct frameset initially without disabling their back button (another Overture rule). The only exception is with NS4 and less.
One last thing - users with non-javascript enabled browsers will see a blank page, so include a link in the body section of your overtureindex.html within <noscript> tags.
This keeps Overture happy(ish).
Perhaps someone who's a better techie than I am could comment.
Sorry, I thought you were framing one of your own pages - you mean you are framing someone else's site?
Framed sites ARE allowed on Overture (when framing your own pages). BUT: They must take you straight to the page relevant to the search term AND you cannot disable or interfere with the back button. (This means the JavaScript command document.location=... is effectively banned).
You simply use a url such as:
www.---.com/overtureindex.html?source=Overture&target=ThePageIWantToShow.html
I'm not sure how they will view this if you are framing an affiliate site, the comment you begin with appears that they do not like the idea. I can understand why, if the affiliate is paying for visitors and not for purchases.
It works fine if you are framing your own content and they are happy to accept such submissions.
Here's what I don't understand:
The site in question is a hotel reservation affiliate site. When a visitor clicks on an OV listing, they are taken to the hotel reservation main page that contains info on the search-term hotel.
When they click on the individual hotel listings on this page, they are presented with the affiliate company's standard affiliate hotel info/booking page for that hotel. It's the standard page that the [large travel booking agent] wants their affiliates to use. The ONLY one they can use. There are NO OTHER pages to use.
IOW, this is a standard hotel reservation booking affiliate site. Their are millions of them on OV. 90% of the sites I compete with are exactly the same set-up.
Last week I got 13 listings changed. This week another group were turned down for the SAME EXACT description.
I'm at a loss as to the editor's comment about "even though you mention [affiliate company] in your description, this still constitutes a site ownership issue. "