Clearing cookies set by other sites

[PPP]

Originally Posted by corpfan1

Is PPP an affiliate?

We all just want to be successful and any tools that can help us succeed should be welcomed and not put down.

See, there's the difference. We don't "all" want the same thing.

You can succeed by cheating, breaking the rules, spamming, sending fraud players and stealing content. That's the "any tools" way.

The other path is to be a responsible, honest, dependable person who doesn't steal or cheat other affiliates. That's the way I suggest.

They aren't same, and there always will be conflcit on affiliate boards between those who cheat and those who don't. Those who will use "any tools" are in a very different business from the honest affiliates (and the cardrooms too).

[RakeAway]

You know what, I can't be arsed to express my disbelief of your (PPP's) lack of logic and lack of understanding of incentivized marketing and the vital importance of cookies and tracking.
Also, your ethics need sorting out. "What PPP does is fair, what PPP doesn't do is cheating", is not the most accurate way of viewing the world.
I'm going to create a new topic addressing specifically the question if setting cookies on leave is possible.

[GregK]

Kinda timely coincidence here, since I've been researching exactly this problem & solution lately.
Tracking in this industry is seriously flawed!

I don't see anything wrong with an opt-in cookie douche!

If the visitor decides my site/link is the one they want to signup under, or "finally signup under" in a case of needing to clear cookies.
Mysite/link = My player...period!

Its a shame we have to even think about clearing cookies etc. to correct a flawed system to get credit. It should be default protocol & the methods in place at the cardroom level to insure the above!

I'm w/Kaus also, bonus code or an "opt-in" cookie routine are no different IMHO.

my 2 pesos

[kaus]

Good luck with your plan of trying to have a good relationship with cardrooms by deleting something the cardrooms use.

Than why is it that LTD Poker is still running the same marketing plan for at least the last two years that I know of. He clearly states all over his site that you must clear all your cookies? I am quite sure his AM's love him if can still provide the same offers along with new ones on a fairly regular basis. Why do I get told by AM's when running an offer to make sure my players are signed up under me ask them to clear their cookies to be properly credited as well as the use of a bonus code

[PPP]

Frankly it is hard to believe some folks don't think of the greater ramifications of things. For example, saying the last affiliate before a conversion should get the credit is has nothing to do with this scheme. What is suggested in this thread inlcudes stealing position from other affiliates.

Now the situation commonly is:
visitor goes to pokernews.com, visits fulltilt, gets cookie, visitor leaves
visitor goes to somepokersite.com, visits fulltilt, leaves
visitor goes to cardplayer.com, visits fulltilt, signs up

Here pokernews would normally get the referal, even if many people say cardplayer should.

What is being proposed would lead to:
visitor goes to pokernews.com, visits fulltilt, gets cookie, visitor leaves
visitor goes to somepokersite.com, visits fulltilt, gets NEW cookie, leaves
visitor goes to cardplayer.com, visits fulltilt, signs up

In the second scenario, the referal would go to somepokersite... for no logical reason! Why should the second site get the player, just because it created a false player history? Maybe the industry should be set up for cadplayer to get the referal in the second scenario, but somepokersite.com getting the referal instead of EITHER pokernews (the first referal) or cardplayer (the last referal) is a poor way to do things, and not fair to anyone.

Of course some people don't give a shit what is fair or works best for a multibillion dollar industry. They just want to make money anyway they can, breaking any rules they have to. That's one way to go, but cardrooms don't put up with non-genuine acts very long.

So obviously "my site/my player" is an overly simplistic statement that doesn't consider how things really work. If the new cookies installed by the deleing site only lasted for a 15 minutes or the browser session, then fine, but what would be going on here is a new cookie would be installed that would be there for weeks/months. It's as if some people think 100% of the players they refer to a site immediately download and deposit, like their site is "special" and that no one would ever click to the cardroom from their site and not download the software.

If you spend a minute to think about it, it is slam dunk obvious that in the second scenario above the site that should get the referal is NOT the second affiliate, and cardrooms are not going to be on the edge of their seat to reward affiliates like that who "delete other people's cookies the best." They want to reward who "actually sends us players."

[xpertadvice4u]

Originally Posted by PPP

You really need to look at this without tunnel vision, and see how cookies protect small affiliates and benefit them more. Still though, the ratios are probably close enough to just not matter.

Originally Posted by PPP

it's a wash... not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of the effect.

Let's go back to Day one after creation of Poker Lust.

There are 100,000 potential players, looking for information.

Because of more power and money and SEO, PokerNewsTypeAffiliate (PNTA) gets 10,000 hits per day.

SmallStuffAffiliate (SSA) gets 300 hits per day.

On Day 2, what is the probability that a player coming to PokerNewsTypeAffiliate has actually already visited SmallStuff?

Umm, like maybe 300/100,000 or a very miniscule .003.
Only 3 out of every 1000 players interested in Poker will have already visited the Small Site.

So, on Day 2, out of the 10,000 visitors PNTA gets, the absolute highest ratio that could be coming from the small site would be 300/10,000
(and that would only occur if every single visitor to SSA came to PNTA).

So, for purposes of argument, lets say that PNTA has a huge 30% conversion rate.

So, 30% of those 300 visitors are converted by PNTA, which means about 90 new signups.

*Except* those 90 sign-ups have SSA cookies, and will be going to the credit of the SmallStuff site.

Wow, that is a big loss to PNTA (sarcasm)...especially since they converted 2,910 other players, at TWICE the CPA that SmallStuff gets:

2,910 X $200 = $582,000

Awww....poor PNTA.

BUT, in reality, the odds of a player having visited SmallStuff first are only 300/100,000 which is .003...

and that means, that out of 10,000 visitors, we would only expect:

10,000 x .003 which = 30 visitors per 10,000 came from SmallStuff.

So, it is more likely that PNTA will convert 30% of 30 visitors from SmallStuff whom they will NOT get paid for: a whole 9 (nine) referral fees they will lose.

They will convert 2991 other visitors, for 2991 x $200 = $598,200

Hmm...they made $598,200 and got screwed for 9 x $200 = $1800 ....
and that just happens to amount to a whole .003 of their profits (.3%, which is less than 1% of their revenue)

No wonder they do not make a big deal about this stuff, and tell everyone it will all even out with the wash anyways.
They are doing just fine the way things are.

Now, on Day 2, about 300 visitors will come to SmallStuff site.

What is the probability that those 300 visitors will already have visited PNTA?

OK....10,000/100,000 or 10%.

Now, let's say that SmallStuff has the same huge conversion rate of 30% that the bigger, more powerful competitor has.....(unlikely)

300 x 30% = 90 Real Money Players.
Out of those 90 RMPs, we can expect that 10% of them will have visited the PNTA site first, and they will have their PNTA cookies.

So, SmallStuff will be screwed out of commissions for 9 RMPs.

Hmmm...that is the same number that the big site lost out on.
So, SmallStuff earns 81 CPAs at $100 each for the huge payday of $8100.

But they lost 9 CPAs worth $900 to them.

$900/$8100 = .11 (which is 11% of their revenue.

So much for everything "washing out" and being of "equal effect".

Oh, but wait a minute!

What about the RMPs that the big site converted on behalf of the SmallStuff site??? Right???

OK...well, there were 9 players which PNTA got screwed out of.
That would be 9 extra CPAs that SmallStuff gets, for a total of $900.

So, now SmallStuff gets $8100 plus $900, or the $9,000 they would have gotten originally if they did not lose the 10% of their conversions who visited the Big site (PNTA) first.

And the big site, PNTA, will also get 9 RMPS converted by the small site, for a nice $200 CPA each, for another $1800, so they will not lose anything either.


So, maybe PPP is right? Nobody loses? It all evens out in the wash?

Well, that requires a lot of assumptions.
First, big sites and small sites do not have the same conversion ratios.
Pokernews can offer all these fabulous Free Rolls, for example, and the free deposit money, for example, at Titan....and they just have more credibility and "stickiness."

So, let's assume that SmallStuff is only able to convert at a 20% rate.
Out of their 300 visitors, 60 will convert, and 6 of those will be credited to the big PNTA cookies.

So, 60 - 6 = 54 RMPs for $5400. They lost $600.

But, they are gaining 9 conversions from the big site, for $900, so they are gaining more than they lost!

PPP is telling the truth, small sites can gain more.


But, the only way they can gain more than they lost is if their conversions by the big PNTA site truly are tracked to them.

And, we know that the big site PNTA is more likely to have special bonus codes, which they require the players to use in order to get those Prized World Series freerolls, etc.

And those bonus codes will override any cookies.

And therefore any talk of big sites converting players for small sites is really hypothetical, unless it is a level playing field and nobody has special bonus codes.

To the extent that the SmallStuff site does not have their own bonus codes, they will lose out in the end.

If the big sites did *not* have special bonus codes, it would surely be in small sites' best interests to urge their visitors to go visit the big sites as quickly as possible, because the conversion rates would be higher there*!!!!!!

What a crazy business.

It is only natural for smaller sites to feel that they need every dime tracked to them that they have earned...

and, it is not such a bad idea....to just have everybody being rewarded for the sales that they truly closed upon....and give up sales commissions which they did not truly earn by closing the deal.

It is expecting a lot to say to small sites: trust in the chaos of the process that the big sites will convert for you at a higher rate to balance out the 11% of your income that you could lose if you do not have your own bonus codes or cookie-clearing instructions.

11% is a lot to risk for a SmallStuff site.
The big sites are only risking .3% of their income....they can afford it.
That is quite a disparity to trust to a chaotic, and unpredictable process.

Thus, In my opinion, PPP has managed to be right and wrong at the same time

Regarding the acrimonious tone to the posts, PPP was insulted by edmc, and his retort was relatively restrained...

But he has a lot of nerve calling Dave "rude and obnoxious" for just stating his opinion about the low blow, especially when PPP started the whole thing by accusing the OP of stealing from other affiliates.

That is kind of rude and obnoxious behavior in and of itself.
Especially when the OP stated he was just trying to find a way to make sure that referring affiliates get the credit they deserve.

To state that the screwed up system will end up with them also getting credit which they do *not* deserve, so they should therefore just forget about it does not make it easier to accept.

Let's find a system truly based on "merit"....bonus codes for everybody sounds fair. Why won't the rooms allow this kind of level playing field?

[corpfan1]

Originally Posted by PPP

Of course some people don't give a shit what is fair or works best for a multibillion dollar industry. They just want to make money anyway they can, breaking any rules they have to.

Where do we find these "rules"?

These are not RULES.

You should set yourself up, for the best "advantage" you can in this industry using the "tools" you have available.

Posting your BONUS CODE on a flyer and sticking it up somewhere would seem to be breaking RULES by your standards cause you would be stealing the player from both Poker News and Card Player in both scenarios if the player decides to go to Full Tilt and use the code they saw on the flyer after visiting either site.

[GregK]

Now we're on the same page PPP, I think? lol
I agree 100% that cardplayer should get it in scenario #2

Not sure WTF the cookie on leaving BS was about? I didn't even comment on it.

The only thing that makes any sense whatsoever to me is...
Link gets clicked, new cookie gets set, finish transaction, the owner of the link that actually initiated the transaction that results in a reg gets rewarded.

I'm going to be sure to notify all rooms I'm promoting & get an approval on whatever I come up with. No more tracking soup for me, have had my fill
Cheers

[edmc]

PPP, I apologize for calling you a twat although I meant it. You pretend to know everything but offer complete false statements.

To answer why a smaller site may deserve total credit & I will break it down so you can understand.



Scenario 1 :

Pokernews/Pokerlistings does a description of texas holdem to sell the site.
Potential player takes a look but is not really interested in texas holdem so clicks away again.

he googles "where to play omaha"

he finds the small site

Reads the omaha description, great. He clicks and sign-ups. Small site loses the sale.

Scenario 2 :

Player surfs the net and lands on PPPoker. unwittingly PPPoker has slapped on about 30 cookies to different poker sites. he is not even promoting poker. He has a high traffic torrent site.

He goes on to a small blog and finds an interesting story about fullTilt. he has never even heard of FT but the story was captivating & he signsup

PPPoker steals the sale without even showing it on his site.

Scenario 3 :

PPP is just lying in this thread because he doesnt want players to delete cookies already stuffed on their PC. He doesnt care that it is a standard security measure for people. He doesnt care that it can increase the speed of a computer, ensuring less disconnections at the poker sites (a method that sites will recommend). He doesnt know what a sale is but sends a lot of traffic to sites. He is looking out for No1 even if it pisses off the smaller affiliates & ensures the signed up player has more security issues and disconnects at the sites. He contributes nothing to the site, player or the smaller affiliates. He is the problem.

[Jeremy]

Wow, I only have half my battery left on this laptop until tomorrow and I just burned through most of it on this thread. I am so tired I can't really think straight to give a good response right now.

One thing I will say however is to EDMC, Stop accusing PPP of cookie stuffing. That is complete bullshit. I can say this because I know PPP and I know his sites. He is probably THE most white hat internet marketer I know and easily the most white hat in this industy. Furthermore his opinion is respected on forums hundreds of times bigger than this where all the big affiliates and SEO's post.

That's fine if you want to disagree about cookies and such. But because I can tell you with 100% certainty that PPP is not "stuffing cookies on people's PC's", I think you should stop making stupid accusations and making yourself look dumb.

Furthermore can we get this train wreck of a thread back on topic and discuss issues regarding cookies instead of members accusing and fighting with eachother.