Are These New Piece Of Shit Options Now Standard In NATS?

[Simon]

because from day1 of their NATS install they moved to a 1 hour cookie life

I think it may be time to start a new thread about cookie lifetimes used by various sponsors. Maybe we can come up with a big list of sponsor names and how long their cookies live before expiring. That's something that could be valuable to a webmaster deciding on which sponsor programs to start promoting. It could also be valuable to webmasters who are already affiliates of particular sponsors, but have no idea how the sponsors handle their cookies. Might even be worth adding as a column to the current sponsor info available in the sponsors list on this board.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a message that differs between sponsors who use 255-day cookies (the max CCBill allows) and those who use things like 1-hour cookies. Seriously, is there any reason to use short cookies besides depriving a webmaster of an earned commission as early as possible?

If a webmaster sends someone to a tour and he gets interrupted by something before he can join but goes back later, or tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or whenever, I think the original webmaster who sent that surfer deserves a commission if he was the last affiliate who sent that surfer to the sponsor's tour.

All traffic has some cost and therefore some value, even if only the time and work that went into building the pages or writing the posts which originally convinced the surfer to visit the tour page. Short cookies seem to say that the sponsor doesn't believe our traffic has much value to them. Which makes me think it may not be a very good idea to send our traffic to them either.

Anyone else feel it's time we called out the sponsors who use shorties?



.

[nibbler]

So what I'm hearing is that during a default install of NATS, you get a 1 hour cookie expiration. I started promoting MeatCash post NATS and was doing great until they got bought out. My sales went to shit, but I'd like to believe it was due to them not updating their tour during the transition.

[dunc]

Anyone else feel it's time we called out the sponsors who use shorties?

Yes me

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by nibbler

So what I'm hearing is that during a default install of NATS, you get a 1 hour cookie expiration. I started promoting MeatCash post NATS and was doing great until they got bought out. My sales went to shit, but I'd like to believe it was due to them not updating their tour during the transition.

No, I believe that the default is 10 days because that is what most of my sponsors have. Another sponsor I have is set to only 3 days, but them and Meatcash were the only 2 I had below the standard 10 days.

[Allfetish]

Originally Posted by Simon

I think it may be time to start a new thread about cookie lifetimes used by various sponsors. Maybe we can come up with a big list of sponsor names and how long their cookies live before expiring. That's something that could be valuable to a webmaster deciding on which sponsor programs to start promoting. It could also be valuable to webmasters who are already affiliates of particular sponsors, but have no idea how the sponsors handle their cookies. Might even be worth adding as a column to the current sponsor info available in the sponsors list on this board.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a message that differs between sponsors who use 255-day cookies (the max CCBill allows) and those who use things like 1-hour cookies. Seriously, is there any reason to use short cookies besides depriving a webmaster of an earned commission as early as possible?

If a webmaster sends someone to a tour and he gets interrupted by something before he can join but goes back later, or tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or whenever, I think the original webmaster who sent that surfer deserves a commission if he was the last affiliate who sent that surfer to the sponsor's tour.

All traffic has some cost and therefore some value, even if only the time and work that went into building the pages or writing the posts which originally convinced the surfer to visit the tour page. Short cookies seem to say that the sponsor doesn't believe our traffic has much value to them. Which makes me think it may not be a very good idea to send our traffic to them either.

Anyone else feel it's time we called out the sponsors who use shorties?



.

I think it is a great idea as well.

I like to use http://web-sniffer.net/ to check cookies but there are other ways as well.

Your point about the reason for using a smaller cookie is well taken. One thing I have learned over the years is to look for little signs from sponsors to see if they respect me as an affiliate and to check if they seem to be doing everything possible to take my money. Little things like this indicate their philosophy when it comes to affiliates. These little things often say quite a bit.

[Licker4U]

Well, I was going to ask how you can tell what the duration of a cookie is but I guess that's been answered...

[LeRoy]

Originally Posted by Allfetish

I think it is a great idea as well.

I like to use http://web-sniffer.net/ to check cookies but there are other ways as well.

Your point about the reason for using a smaller cookie is well taken. One thing I have learned over the years is to look for little signs from sponsors to see if they respect me as an affiliate and to check if they seem to be doing everything possible to take my money. Little things like this indicate their philosophy when it comes to affiliates. These little things often say quite a bit.

That websniffer is scaring the hell out of me.

I just put in some recent affiliate links. OUCH.

[Allfetish]

Originally Posted by D2222

That websniffer is scaring the hell out of me.

I just put in some recent affiliate links. OUCH.

I know, tell me about it.

A few days ago here Ccbill Paul said they will consider adding display of the cookie length setting in the ccbill lounge on a per-program basis:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...56&postcount=5

I hope they do. It would make it much easier to monitor.

[Star Man]

Forgive my total newbie question but Twisty's just switched over to NATS recently.Does that mean I have to pull all my pre-NATS hosted galleries and change all my free site link codes etc. or should I be ok?|confused|

[Twistys Kevin]

Originally Posted by Star Man

Forgive my total newbie question but Twisty's just switched over to NATS recently.Does that mean I have to pull all my pre-NATS hosted galleries and change all my free site link codes etc. or should I be ok?|confused|

Hey Star Man. Not a stupid question. You don't need to change them we have taken care of everything so it will redirect and still track but we always recommend switching over to the new codes. Hit me up if you have any questions. ICQ: 215-457-848 or Kevin at Twistys dot com.

[NY Jester]

Originally Posted by Simon

I think it may be time to start a new thread about cookie lifetimes used by various sponsors. Maybe we can come up with a big list of sponsor names and how long their cookies live before expiring. That's something that could be valuable to a webmaster deciding on which sponsor programs to start promoting. It could also be valuable to webmasters who are already affiliates of particular sponsors, but have no idea how the sponsors handle their cookies. Might even be worth adding as a column to the current sponsor info available in the sponsors list on this board.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a message that differs between sponsors who use 255-day cookies (the max CCBill allows) and those who use things like 1-hour cookies. Seriously, is there any reason to use short cookies besides depriving a webmaster of an earned commission as early as possible?

If a webmaster sends someone to a tour and he gets interrupted by something before he can join but goes back later, or tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or whenever, I think the original webmaster who sent that surfer deserves a commission if he was the last affiliate who sent that surfer to the sponsor's tour.

All traffic has some cost and therefore some value, even if only the time and work that went into building the pages or writing the posts which originally convinced the surfer to visit the tour page. Short cookies seem to say that the sponsor doesn't believe our traffic has much value to them. Which makes me think it may not be a very good idea to send our traffic to them either.

Anyone else feel it's time we called out the sponsors who use shorties?



.

Simon, I actually was thinking the same thing along these lines. I'd like to know what programs use in regards to cookie life. As I myself feel that it reflects greatly with the number of sales, and probably has a lot more to do with low numbers than some much more easy to point the finger at scenarios. And even though the scenarios are surely to blame for some lack of sales, Im sure cookie life is a key part as well.

Do programs usually keep that info in their terms & conditions section? If not, there should be an open invite for program owners/reps to provide that information.