Make more money by making sure your links are valid html

[cd34]

The issue at that time was whether the link was coded in html (which does work) or done through a redirect script (which of course doesn't work)

If you code the html in the links, most browsers will de-entify prior to sending the request to ccbill, in which case you get credited. There were some strange browser versions that didn't de-entify properly which caused some issue. I would bet that less than 1% of the browsers don't properly handle entities in urls now.

However, if you are coding the link and sending it through a php redirect script,

<?php
header("Location: http://www.ccbill.com?asdf&amp;pa=1234");
?>

will not get translated properly on ccbill's side. Granted, the link is not in proper form, but, its so prevalent that I think ccbill (and any other affiliate program depending on an & or ? in the url) should properly try to de-entify the url before processing. Almost every traffic trading script will entify the url when it is placed in a database and redirect the surfer via an entified link.

I don't recall the exact syntax, but, you could always wrap the stuff that doesn't validate in CDATA blocks which would allow those urls with & to validate.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by cd34

Almost every traffic trading script will entify the url when it is placed in a database and redirect the surfer via an entified link.

That's one more reason for sponsors not to use the standard CCBill link structure (or any structure that uses the '&' character in their links).

It's much better* to be able to link to a paysite using something like:

http://www.PaysiteName.com/?r=123456

There's no need to encode anything in that link address. The sponsor just needs some php code on the index page of 'PaysiteName.com' to grab the '123456' and stick it in an UNencoded "refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/..." address and send that along to CCBill to get the cookie set. CCBill sends the surfer back to the paysite immediately and it's like nothing special happened at all to the surfer.

The same thing applies on links to HFS and FHG. On those I like the idea of embedding the code somewhere inside the url instead of sticking it on the end, but either way, I think that getting rid of the '&' character in any and all links given to affiliates is something that all sponsors should do.


--
* When I say 'better' I mean from the standpoint of the affiliate webmaster. Obviously it might be financially attractive to a sponsor if some/many of the incoming signups didn't require any commissions to be paid out.

[msanchez]

Originally Posted by cd34

However, if you are coding the link and sending it through a php redirect script,

<?php
header("Location: http://www.ccbill.com?asdf&amp;pa=1234");
?>

will not get translated properly on ccbill's side.

I send alot of my ccbill links right through a php redirect as your example shows and I have never done anything but use the exact ccbill code and I get plenty of sales like that.

Im keen to explore adding the "&" but hesitant because I dont want to break whats working.

Is it possible that some sales would still register with the default code but not as many as would register is using "&" when using a php redirect?

Good thread here, but kinda confusing to a non technophile like myself.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by msanchez

Is it possible that some sales would still register with the default code but not as many as would register is using "&" when using a php redirect?

With the php redirect, the web browser doesn't have the opportunity to de-entify the URL. It's like copying and pasting a URL right into the address bar. If you are using that linking method, there's no reason to worry about validation of the php redirect. There's no page to validate.

[msanchez]

With the php redirect, the web browser doesn't have the opportunity to de-entify the URL. It's like copying and pasting a URL right into the address bar. If you are using that linking method, there's no reason to worry about validation of the php redirect. There's no page to validate.

Thanks for the clarification UW.

[Wanderer]

Interesting discussion -- how can we validate our code? Should we use the w3.org?

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

With the php redirect, the web browser doesn't have the opportunity to de-entify the URL. It's like copying and pasting a URL right into the address bar. If you are using that linking method, there's no reason to worry about validation of the php redirect. There's no page to validate.

You have to be careful with a few of the ad scripts though. They have a tendancy to insert the &amp sometimes. When setting things up, it's best to also go look at the source code to check the actual link. I found a PPC advertiser that works OK unless I go do maintenance on the link. The script then pops it to a &amp and I was wondering why the hits weren't counting at ccBill..

[virgohippy]

Thanks for the tip Simon. I think I'm going to make a few adjustments to the way I do things now.