Driving Revenue: back in the affiliate saddle?

[foxfirefey]

There's a comment in the current news post pointing out a new Driving Revenue script. You may remember the previous, flawed implementation.

The script is: http://l-stat.livejournal.com/js/pagestats/DR_v4u.jsThe script is now: Read more... )

Comments

[matgb]

Just making a post with links to somewhere it's likely to affect:

http://amazon.com
http://ebay.com
http://ebay.co.uk
http://sittingonthedockofthebay.com (double test)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Brigades-John-Scalzi/dp/0330457101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271407539&sr=8-1

[matgb]

Doesn't seem to do anything, and I'm not running any script or ad blockers. Is it live?

[foxfirefey]

It's definitely live and loaded--look at the bottom of the page source. It doesn't appear to do anything to me, either, but I know that it's going to try and be as unnoticeable as possible, and I'm not the world's best Javascript debugger.

[franzi1981]

I don't see the script or references to it when I look at the source code...

[eruthros]

dnewhall" just answered a question about this over in news. Basically he seems to be saying that it's "transparent" and anyway it's not stripping other users' affiliate IDs. So.

[foxfirefey]

Thanks, I've put that response into the post, and asked for clarification for the policy of whether paid users and/or their content will be subject to this script in the future.

[zvi_likes_tv]

The line of script in this entry will turn the script on, is that what you meant to write?

[foxfirefey]

You mean the console opt-out? No, setting it to 0 should turn it off!

[elusis]

What I've read elsewhere suggests you have to set it to 1. Mine is set to 1 and I'm not seeing the redirect scripts operate.

[foxfirefey]

Oh yeah, you're right. I'm an idiot and get confused by things, ha! FIXED.

[azurelunatic]

Thanks for the information. I'm in the slow-computer-from-2004 camp, and even though I know I probably should say something like "slow computer from 2004 is slow", blocking is probably the option that will make the most immediate difference in my daily life.

Though I probably will say something.

Edit: I did file a support request, mentioning the age of my computer and that its performance was being affected -- not to demand change, but to let them know what it was doing so they would have that information available when thinking about stuff.

[fiddlingfrog]

To be honest, I'm okay with LJ adding an affiliate code to my unaffiliated link, if only they were doing so transparently, openly, and without involving Javascript. I'd really prefer it if thye just appended their affiliate code when loading up the entry from the database, instead of obscuring the new destination with a tricky script.

[foxfirefey]

I'm much the same way. If this was part of the HTML cleaner code for free users, I don't think I'd find much of a problem with it. I also don't know if it's exactly fair to force on paid users without an opt out; I feel like if they're paying for the service, they should have the privilege of making the links they want to without having them messed with like that.

But, not a lot of users really seem all that upset about it, so I guess in the long run it doesn't matter much.

[raven_moon]

But, not a lot of users really seem all that upset about it, so I guess in the long run it doesn't matter much.

I am. I'm quite pissed, actually. I really don't need any more draconian LJ crap these days.... And it wreaks f-ing havoc on tabbed LJ browsing, I can tell you that much!

[trixieleitz]

Yes, this. It's the privacy and security implications of this third-party implementation that I particularly object to.

They've also worked against their interests by implementing it in this way, as it means that clicks by anyone with suitable blocking software won't earn them any revenue.