The driving revenue script is designed to add our affiliate ID to any outbound link that doesn't have one. This should not affect anyone, and is a transparent process. The last time we tried this the process did not have enough testing. We believe it's been thoroughly tested and works correctly now. If it's causing some sort of a problem, please open a support ticket so we can notify our engineers.
They are, yes. What dnewhall meant by that is that it doesn't affect anyone who shouldn't be affected, and that the URL you get redirected to would have the same content as the URL that was originally there.
(of course, I believe nobody should be affected by this in the first place, but I wanted to at least make it clear what was meant)
It was a Bill Clinton reference but I see I screwed it up: the correct version is, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
I was actually poking fun at LJ for their obvious lack of transparency and their unwillingness to speak openly and honestly even once they're called on this issue by their users - not parsing what you said in a negative way.
NoScript won't work because it's being done through LJ's servers. So, unless you're blocking LJ (which turns off plenty of functions for paid users), it's not gonna do anything.
Except, if you block this script via NoScript you can't get links to work without right clicking to open a new window. Disabling it via the admin console works better in this case.
We believe it's been thoroughly tested and works correctly will make us money now, even on paid accounts like anti-aol's.
There, I fixed that for ya. But I won't always be around to do so, so try to be more honest in the future. The level of bullshit on LJ is reaching such dizzying proportions we're going to need shovels to dig through it soon.
I suppose my question would be, why tamper with user content (links included) at all? And considering how this didn't work the last time -- and how little communication from LJ users got on the issue -- why should we trust this "transparent process" now?
This sort of interaction from LJ doesn't exactly make me want to re-establish my paid account.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
How so, if it was never mentioned anywhere?
Our definitions of "transparent" are obviously very different.
Reply
(of course, I believe nobody should be affected by this in the first place, but I wanted to at least make it clear what was meant)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I was actually poking fun at LJ for their obvious lack of transparency and their unwillingness to speak openly and honestly even once they're called on this issue by their users - not parsing what you said in a negative way.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
There, I fixed that for ya. But I won't always be around to do so, so try to be more honest in the future. The level of bullshit on LJ is reaching such dizzying proportions we're going to need shovels to dig through it soon.
Reply
This sort of interaction from LJ doesn't exactly make me want to re-establish my paid account.
Reply
Leave a comment