Clearing cookies set by other sites

[kaus]

Originally Posted by PPP

The issue about clearing cookies is stealing players, and most specifically making it so someone can qualify for bonus or promotion they are otherwise not entitled to.

Than what would be the difference between asking a player to clear thier cookies and telling them to use a bonus code?

The bonus code obv overrides the cookies so with what you have just said wouldn't this be one and the same?

[edmc]

http://blog.affiliatetip.com/archive...stuff-cookies/

[kaus]

Nice article Ed!

[RakeAway]

@PPP, I understand your feelings against incentivized marketing. But are we really screwing the sites? They have to pay out the same CPA either way. It's the affiliates who are giving up a part of their CPA to attract players. I do realize that the majority of these players are low quality players for a site, but the requirements for the extra bonus at least gets them to stay and play for a while.
One of the player-directed goals of my site is to help them build a bankroll quickly. When they have built up a sufficient bankroll, my advice is to take a good rakeback/cashback/unlimited bonus deal. This is when they start producing profits for sites, albeit different sites than the ones who provided the initial incentives. For the Poker economy on the whole, incentivized marketing actually moves players up in stakes quicker, getting them to the point of profitability quicker.
Last point: If sites didn't want incentivized marketing to exist, they wouldn't allow it.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by offyourface

Actually its hardly a wash. If everyone got comparable traffic then sure it would be a wash. But the big affiliates that get 30X the traffic than I do have a hell of a lot more surfers out there with these cookies, so clearly they stand to benefit much more than the average affiliate.

How do you figure that? Sorry this makes no sense. Your visitors are more likely to visit a big affiliate site, then a cardroom, then decline the cardroom, then visit your site and want to join... but not the other way around in a similar percentage? There isn't any logic in that, unless you think bigger affiliates are shittier marketers than you. But still this is a very very trivial point compared to the main issue clearing cookies to steal players.

Originally Posted by RakeAway

@PPP, I understand your feelings against incentivized marketing. But are we really screwing the sites? They have to pay out the same CPA either way. It's the affiliates who are giving up a part of their CPA to attract players. I do realize that the majority of these players are low quality players for a site, but the requirements for the extra bonus at least gets them to stay and play for a while.
One of the player-directed goals of my site is to help them build a bankroll quickly. When they have built up a sufficient bankroll, my advice is to take a good rakeback/cashback/unlimited bonus deal. This is when they start producing profits for sites, albeit different sites than the ones who provided the initial incentives. For the Poker economy on the whole, incentivized marketing actually moves players up in stakes quicker, getting them to the point of profitability quicker.
Last point: If sites didn't want incentivized marketing to exist, they wouldn't allow it.

I didn't write anything about incentivized marketing. All incentivized marketing isn't stealing players!

"They have to pay out the same CPA either way."

How do you figure a cardroom paying a CPA for the same player two, three or four times is "the same"????

If you want to start a thread on the value of incentivized marketing, go ahead, but that really has nothing to do with your original question.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by kaus

Than what would be the difference between asking a player to clear thier cookies and telling them to use a bonus code?

The bonus code obv overrides the cookies so with what you have just said wouldn't this be one and the same?

Obviously not, just like moving ahead of somebody in a line isn't the same as burying them underground. Existing players can't use bonus codes.

[edmc]

Thats right PPP, you are correct as usual.

No one should ever recommend deleting cookies before signing up. It is best to leave the previous cookies from your porn surfing.

From the BS you are spouting, I take it you are cookie stuffing?

[kaus]

I wasnt referring to stealing players/existing players by any means. I do like the whole one account per network per household to prevent people from moving over to get a second bonus.

But you are saying that even in honest intentions of making sure a player is tracked, asking to delete cookies is wrong.

Than how does it differ if I tell them to use my code over anyone elses?

I am doing this specifically to make sure they are tracked to me, whether they have been to another site and could be somone's player but didnt get that far is not my problem.

[RakeAway]

Originally Posted by PPP

Obviously not, just like moving ahead of somebody in a line isn't the same as burying them underground. Existing players can't use bonus codes.

PPP: I think we've found the problem/your problem here. This is not at all about existing players. Existing Real Money players never qualify for incentives, and existing play money players who haven't deposited are obviously not going to play on the site without an incentive (once they know about incentives). In no way do I encourage cheating the system by completing the same deal several times. I do encourage playing on different sites on the same network, but that's a different matter entirely, since the sites themselves want to steal players from other sites on the same network

It isn't the idea that sites pay CPA several times, they pay it once. If you'd have said "but more sites have to pay out CPA than before", then you'd be right. But isn't it only fair that players can easily try out several sites?

It's like a supermarket giving you free shopping for a week, hoping that you'll come back next time, but only if you have never bought anything there before, and only if you have a special card. Is it unethical to give these cards to people who have been inside the supermarket, but never bought anything?

[Catfish]

There isn't any logic in that, unless you think bigger affiliates are shittier marketers than you.

well that could actually be the case in this scenario, since the fact that the smaller affiliate B converted the player seems to indicate that he offers some kind of service that big affilate B doesn't, therefore B deserves to get credited for the player.
And I am not talking about "illegal" incentives, maybe the player just likes the content or site structure better, maybe the smaller affiliates deals with his clients on a more personal basis...
Extreme example : I meet a guy socially, talk to him about Poker, point him in the right direction so he signs up through my site, then yes I'd like to make damn sure that someone else doesnt get the credit for the player just because he happened to click a link a week earlier ...