So this code:
http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...0000&PA=501671
is tracked by the new system?

No. That code will continue to work with the old features and old reports but if you want to use the new reports and new features of the WMS you will have to use the new linking code.

Are any sponsors using it yet? We're on the list to add it (understanding the old way will run concurrently for affiliates who want to keep using the old way) but I would love to sign up as an affiliate to any sponsors who're using it right now to see.

I have no expectations that everything will be perfect, but I'm still really excited to be able to customize delivery of promos and stuff to affiliates and as an affiliate myself, I hope that smaller sponsors like myself will be able to market themselves more effectively to me and other affiliates and have the playing field leveled a bit so we can get more exposure and offer more options.

BROWN NOSE!

Is there a reason that the old codes do not work with the new admin? Honestly, I'd think that would have been on the top of the list when CCBill wrote up what they'd want the new admin to do.

Meaning, why would you PURPOSELY design an admin that completely left out every existing link code from the last 12+ YEARS?

I'd like to see that too. Hopefully this new system will be better than what Epoch promised and failed to deliver on.

Currently no one has been moved over to the new system. We will begin the migration process very soon and it should not be long before you can start using the system.

We feel that you will be very pleased with all of the new features and reports.

Trust me, keeping the old style linking codes was certainly a top priority for us however due to the complexity and amount of new features coupled with the introduction of the unique ID's there was just no way we could pull it off.

That's a lie. I refuse to believe that the programmers could not include the paysite's & affiliates code into the new system.

Hell, here's the solution: if my new "unique" account number is 1234567, then have a database that has ALL my old codes in it. Each time it sees one, like 581222 for Amateur facials, replace it with 1234567.

Problem solved.

I feel you might want to have a, how shall we say it, open beta for a while first before you go and throw real world traffic at it?

From a programmer: problem solved in about 2 days worth of coding, testing, and a few dry conversion runs.

One way or the other you still need a userid, and a siteid that is being linked to. This means that the hash algorithm is reversible, or you have the hash stored as a key with userid/siteid stored alongside of it.

So... you're basically using the same values internally, just that on the outside it looks different.

I utterly fail to see how redirecting the old codes to the new ones becomes impossible -- you already know how the hash is generated, so go ahead and do it.

So far, all I've seen compares to:

"We're releasing a new shiny system, unfortunately our architects and programmers are fucking idiots who can't figure out how to get the old links redirecting to the new links, but we're going to go ahead with it anyway because well, it's new and shiny".

Good luck with that.

Greenie, I understand that you don't like change, but I really think you're being a little unreasonable about this.

Adding that additional data for every existing affiliate and the corresponding data lookup for every affiliate link processed isn't as simple as you make it sound. There are substantial side effects and consequences. Hence my mentioning "large high volume database remaining online and stable" in my earlier post.

Unreasonable? Change? I'm actually fucking estatic that CCBill has finally decidedd to upgrade their stats/admin. I can't want to see what they've added - I'm a stats junkie!

But I do not think it's unreasonable to ask that the millions of old link codes out there work with the new system, especially since it's taking 2 sets of numbers & converting/adding them to the new URL's.

Why are you so high on CCBill anyway? You really plan to change ALL your old codes? Or will you be happy logging into 2 admins to get your stats, some basic, some full of bells & whistles?

Hell, Paul said that this was a high priority - that statement alone lets me know that I'm not off my rocker with these questions.

Also to grab this in from your earlier post:

There's a reason that in the software development best practices there is such a thing as a "testing environment" -- a set of systems that mimics the production environment that can be used for testing.

Also, the procedure to switch from one db to another db is this:

1: Get new hardware
2: Set up new DB (dbnew)
3: Poke up the new system and point it at dbnew
4: The new system should in fact be able to update both the dbnew and the old db (dbold).
5: Run both db's simultaneously
6: check db's daily for differences
7: fix whatever is causing differences
8: switch over fully

Presto.

There's a ton of methods to do a live transfer between different db's -- high volume or not. If they are doing anywhere near the amount of db transactions I think they're doing they will have a high availability cluster anyway, and the money to get a 2nd cluster set up for the new system.

All it requires is people that know what they're doing.

First question: Are there any sponsors using the beta where a webmaster can sign up?

Second question: Are there screenshots or the ability for one of the members of this board to sign up for that sponsor program and look around, or, can some additional screenshots of the webmaster interface be posted?

As for your referral id tracking:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?581222

is a current link. That follows through in a hosted gallery to a link that looks like

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=924000-0000&PA=581222

The new link code appears to look like:

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-rftTOPWQUWhWHQG_TIAXtbGjdaiewnciLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-KAJSFDNJASDFAKFQG_TIAXasdcvcxsoSLvJPZb2tsWMs*

I don't believe it would be any different to send a link like:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?Lt-KAJSFDNJASDFAKFQG_TIAXasdcvcxsoSLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and have it counted on the new site. This is a non-ccbill issue. The coding on the hosted content would need to change slightly, and wouldn't be backwards compatible, so, if a sponsor started using the new system, all of the hosted content would then need to be tagged as 'new format.' Webmasters could then use the new links from this day going forward leaving the legacy links out there. Its possible that the sponsor could mirror the existing content, make the changes for the new link format so that new webmasters could utilize the 'newly' coded 'older' hosted content.

However, the only real issue is the old-traffic versus new-traffic link format.

Based on the example for Sponsor A and Sponsor B and the url's given above, There's obviously some encoding that has been done. Since you are able to generate the encoded values above for the url, you can take:

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=924000-0000&PA=581222

parse out the CA (sponsor) -???? (site) and the partner account number, and generate the encoded value that the new system uses and redirect the traffic from refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi over to the http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/ script. Since all of the values you need for the new system should be contained within the old urls, it would be easy to write that redirect. It wouldn't require any re-integration of the existing redirect script to try and insert data into the new system. A surfer would get a double redirect, but, if you can rewrite that url on the fly based on the data in the old link url, you wouldn't have any need to access a database to move old-style link traffic to the new referral link. No integration nightmares of old to new.

I'd like to apologize for that comment. I don't think Paul is a liar, I just think he's being lied to by the programmers.

Agreed. Naughty America changed their codes around a few times. When they moved from their #-based ID system to NATS, they developed a way to translate the old ID to the new encrypted NATS one. Their old linkcodes still track and translate to the new NATS system, to this day.

Another "NATS encoding" crap?
The worse thing I ever seen is encoded affiliate links.

Paul, do you discussed your new features with valued webmasters before official pressrelease?

I would have to agree with Kit on that.

The only real valid reason I can think for encoding the links is that a toolbar or proxy server doing a 'man in the middle' replacement, wouldn't be able to quickly determine the sponsor/site in order to do their replacement. A toolbar currently only needs to look for the CA code to know whether they have an account with that sponsor, and then can do a replacement on the PA part of the url.

With an encoded url, that sponsor/site/affiliate data is somewhat hidden from a quick automated replacement script making it much harder for a toolbar/proxy to replace that info on the fly.

Whether that toolbar is still as prevalent as it used to be is the issue, but, it does prevent the type of variable replacement attack that was being done with that toolbar.

NATS code is pretty easy for decoding on toolbar side.
If CCBill provide hard encoded link, adware toolbars will cheat us anyway.

Paul it would be cool to see a full working demo somewhere?

translating to the new system would be possible but that would most likely mean the system has way more overhead. as it now has to do this

refer.ccbill.com |new system installed OR old system still intact|...
if new system -> CA & PA & HTML -> encrypt -> redirect to wms.restofurl/encrypted(values)*

the additional OR check in SQL might very well be the programming issue alone.

not that its hard to do it.... would be the cost of new servers i could imagine... might be wrong.

We can give you a demo but right now the best we can do is an online meeting style demonstration in which you can ask questions and go over most of, if not all of the new functionality. Please shoot me your name and account number if you are interested in more information.


paulk @ ccbill.com

Paul - you can ignore every other post in this thread if you find the answers to this one, since cd34 is the smartest man any of us have ever met.

You get a reply from the programmers on this & we'll all be happy |shake|

There is not at the moment but there will be soon. If you want to hit me up I can probably help here shortly.


Again I don't have any at the moment but I can gather this data for you here very soon.


Correct.

So yes, you can do the above but no, you cannot create your own hashes by encoding it yourself.

Hope that helps.

There's an interesting thread over on GFY about this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=16718253

Make sure you read Trixie's post:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...3#post16718253

Unbelievable that 8 months later, these same issues we brought up are still unresolved.

Just got this email from CCBill - Trixie knows how to get shit done!

LOL -- I know they would've fixed it sooner or later without me going ballistic on GFY.

One of the other things I think is "funny" about this particular situation, though, is that no other sponsors apparently have the balls to complain about any of this or acknowledge noticing what was going on and I *know* I was not the only client to have this problem.

I got the exact same email so its obviously a form letter which means I probably do not have any surprise money coming :(

What I would like to know is where the hell is the WMS section in the admin of ccbill. It was there for a short time (with links that were broken) and then it disappeared.

So what's this WMS thing all about, could someone please explain that to me? :)

I had a look around yesterday trying to work out what was going on with the underpayments. But it's only with the WMS system, yes?

I should add... I'm only just back from too much time on the beach... my brain is still on holiday.

I got the same e-mail. I assume it's addressed to those missing credit for sales. But who knows. I haven't gotten a follow up e-mail yet.

I got a follow-up e-mail. Thanks Trixie and everyone else who caught this.

I also got a follow up email and I was underpaid. I am now hoping that I will be able to figure out which sponsors once the money is received.

Thanks to Trixie for being persistent :)

Who knows, maybe one of those sales belongs to her program.

A couple of weeks ago I received a check that included what I was underpaid so I figured this issue was fixed.

Just went thru the last couple of ccbill checks and they are both short from what looks like 1 sponsor (escort cash) that I believe switched over to WMS, not that I am sure because I cannot find the WMS section at all in ccbill's admin.

You may want to check your ccbill checks as well, if you were shorted before, for periods 1/3 to 1/9 and 1/10 to 1/16

Are you using this admin?
https://admin.ccbill.com/login3.cgi

Thank You Cleo
I was still using https://affiliateadmin.ccbill.com/
Be forewarned, once you sign into the new admin you cannot sign into the old one.

Spoke with online help, here was initial answer:
Received email from account specialist:

Error, Error, Does Not Compute! |crazy|

Are they saying they overpaid the sponsor, so there is not enough available funds to pay the affiliates.

What dialect is this? "which is cause them" |scared|

Sounds like the problem is CCBill accidentally overpaid the client (sponsor) and underpaid the affiliates. Now they want to make good on the amounts they underpaid to the affiliates *only* out of dollars generated by each individual affected sponsor program.

CCBill's better option, in my opinion, would be to make good on *their* mistake by paying all affiliates immediately on all funds owed to them due to the mistake made by CCBill which caused this problem. CCBill could then make adjustments in the amounts paid to their clients (sponsors) on an ongoing basis until they'd balanced the numbers to what they should actually be.

Having the affiliates wait to get paid on something that was the billing company's problem is too reminiscent of what other billing companies no longer around (or recently resurrected) did to many of us in the past.

Come on, CCBill, you're the *one* billing company most of us trust and recommend to everyone who asks. Don't act like those other guys. Give us something to believe in.


.

Thats my feeling as well Simon.

Over pay the client and under pay the affiliate. How do you fix it? By continuing to underpay the affiliate, how nice.