Tech Support ForumNeed tech support? Discussions include computers, operating systems, web browsers, broadband, hardware, virus, trojan, and spyware help, etc.
Shawn was kind enough to share the "cookie stuffing" tip with me years ago, and although I never did it because I thought it seemed a bit iffy, I don't think that he perceived it to be unethical or wrong. I don't think Shawn would have done it if he saw it as unethical.
Criminals frequently convince thenselves that what they are doing is justified aka "not unethical or wrong". Criminologists call this "techniques of neutralization" (cf. Sykes & Matza). It doesn't change the crime. It just permits the criminal to act out the crime without having to feel remorse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre
Ok, so those guys tricked people's browsers to pick up a cookie in order to get provision on future deals the owners of those browsers made on Ebay by tricking Ebay into believing they (the browser's owners) came from an Ebay ad on one of those guys' websites.
Hehhe, intentions to do that not unethical? Yeah right.
I agree. How is this any different from click fraud? It's just a lot sneakier.
Some people think SEO is unethical. Some don't. To each his own. If what he did was wrong, I'm confident he'll pay back the money.
If he did what he is charged with doing, and your statements would imply that he did, I doubt that simply making restitution is going to cut it. He's charged with fraud and/or deceptive practices and I highly doubt that eBay is going to be satisfied with just an apology and repayment.
There was strong suspicion that he was cut off as an AdSense publisher a year or so back but he managed to regain his publisher status then. Most wouldn't have been given that second chance. Apparently, he didn't learn from that experience.
If he's actually guilty of this, he could be going to prison for up to 20 years per count.
If eBay is successful with this, I would imagine the authorities are going to have a little chat with him. They may anyway.
I obviously have no idea what Shawn was thinking, but from that article it sure sounds like he did something wrong. Of course that's exactly how Ebay wants it to sound...
I imagine he'll want to settle - going to court against Ebay would be pricey.
I obviously have no idea what Shawn was thinking, but from that article it sure sounds like he did something wrong. Of course that's exactly how Ebay wants it to sound...
I imagine he'll want to settle - going to court against Ebay would be pricey.
Do you think EBay would get into forum business now? Just crossed my mind, after all DP is a very popular forum
I've read that link you provided minstrel and apparently it's possible for members at forums to stuff cookies into posts with the use of BB code. I guess this means that technically it is possible that the owner of a forum where this has been done is not aware of this. I know I hadn't heard of this before en own a forum too and don't look at the source of every post that's made on my boards either to see if there's something between in BB code. (I guess a one pixel image could do the trick already)
It should. What's to stop Ebay from going after you if it sees cookie dropping coming from your forum? Sure a few things could stop them (like doing the right thing by going after the people profiting from the cookie drops) but people don't always do things for the right reasons.
It should. What's to stop Ebay from going after you if it sees cookie dropping coming from your forum? Sure a few things could stop them (like doing the right thing by going after the people profiting from the cookie drops) but people don't always do things for the right reasons.
Well, in this case I think they (Ebay) does go after the people who profit from the cookies. When Shawn has been giving tips to other forum owners "years ago" (as John Scott told us) on how to do this I'm also inclined to think that Shawn Hogan was very much aware of this practise and that he was the one who profited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
Some people think SEO is unethical. Some don't. To each his own.
With the difference that SEO is not a sneaky way to steal money from companies with affiliate programs. I fail to see the resemblance between common theft and search engine optimization.
minstrel, Thanks for linking to that cookie stuffing article at my blog. I think it's really important that forum owners understand this trick and know how to catch people doing it so they can ban them and get the cookie stuffing code off their forums. Even though you can't see anything to alert you there is cookie stuffing in a post, there are some behavioral things that can tip you off.
There are also a couple solutions forum owners can implement to stop it from happening, but it's a trade-off that many forum owners won't want to make because it affects certain features.
Ferre - it's not just BB code. It can be done with HTML too.
I get numerous requests per week from forum owners who have read that article and want to know how to catch it. I'm happy to help anyone that asks. You just have to email me from your forum email address or somehow verify you own a forum. Had one guy with a yahoo email that said "hey dude can you send that cookie stuffing info?" I don't send it to just anyone obviously.
Anyway back to the topic at hand and the situation with Shawn... I've blogged about the case in detail and based on some of the details in the legal doc I'm pretty sure they've been using that same cookie stuffing method up in the blog post minstrel linked to. I'm not saying they are guilty, just that the methods described are the ones I'm talking about.
Kills me all the idiotic posts over at DP from people who have no clue. Cookie stuffing is out and out stealing, so anyone that says go for it does not understand. Hopefully no matter the outcome of this case it will send a warning message to the black hatters and cut back on some of the cookie stuffing that's going on.
From what I've understood it goes beyond that John. It's a way to make an affiliate program pay affiliate fees which the one who profits is not entitled to.
Technically it works by stuffing a cookie on people's browsers which tricks the affiliate program into believing that a sale is made directly via the stuffer's website affiliate link while in reality no affiliate link was touched by the person who got the cookie stuffed on his computer.
It's stealing from the affiliate program owner.
Say I visit a site and get stuffed with a cookie, two weeks later I go to Ebay and buy something for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with the stuffer's website I visited two weeks earlier, all I did was reading one article on that site and I did not click any affiliate links. Still Ebay automatically sends a percentage of the sale to the stuffer because Ebay is TRICKED into believing that I came directly from the stuffer's website and clicked an affiliate link.
That's theft in my book John, and it doesn't require to be a rocket scientist to figure out that it's unethical to do.
Just imagine if it was your affiliate program which got conned that way, I don't think you would appreciate it any more than Ebay does.
With the difference that SEO is not a sneaky way to steal money from companies with affiliate programs. I fail to see the resemblance between common theft and search engine optimization.
I agree with you Ferre. Very good points...
Isn't it stealing, a crime? Why would Shawn do that anyway? For money? Having one of the most successful forum around isn't enough?
so basically they have to know about the cookie created by Ebay when somebody clicks on a affiliate link. without knowing that this trick would not really work.
Actually Ferre's explanation is incorrect or partly at least.
"It's stealing from the affiliate program owner."
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS IT's STEALING from OTHER AFFILIATES, that should have gotten the commission, not so much from the merchant - although that happens too, see below.
I'm an affiliate advocate. If it was only stealing from the merchant I would think it was wrong but I wouldn't be this hopping mad and passionate about it!
And I'm sure people are doing it here too John. So let me give an example of how it works without giving away any technical details.
Let's say you John or a member here does PPC for eBay or some other popular affiliate program. You PAID to get that visitor to read your ad, you spent time building the landing page and you sent that PPC visitor to the merchant. It's YOUR sale!
Then the visitor leaves. Reads a forum about something totally unrelated, never clicks a link or does anything. But a cookie stuffer is mass loading his cookies onto everyone at the forum. YOUR customer goes back to eBay to buy and the cookie stuffer who did NO legitimate work at all - steals your sale because he over-wrote your cookie. You PAID for that visitor, don't you feel cheated? You should!
With legitimate affiliates sales I need to create content or a site or a link or do some type of advertising to get you to click my link and go to the merchant, right? If they buy I deserve credit because I did the work that drove the sale.
HOWEVER if I was doing black hat affiliate marketing, I could stuff an invisible cookie right in this thread. You guys would not see anything, there is no link to click and you'd never go to my site or read my ad and you don't get to eBay through me at all, in any way. I did nothing to get you to go to eBay and I don't deserve credit for the sale. BUT every time anyone reads this thread - I would be stuffing my cookie on all your computers. Now if you buy and previously clicked an affiliate ad and they should get credit, they won't because I just STOLE their commission even though I didn't do any work.
SO THE THING THAT TICKS ME OFF AT DP is people who are clueless say it's cool and praise him and they don't even realize cookie stuffers are stealing their commissions too.
It can however steal money from the merchant too. If there was no 1st affiliate for the 2nd affiliate (cookie stuffer) to steal from - maybe the visitor was a direct type in to eBay or came through PPC. Then the merchant should not owe anyone commission. They got that customer directly. However if the person doesn't buy the 1st visit, goes somewhere and gets cookie stuffed then comes back to buy - the fraudster generates a commish for work he never did. The customer never visited his site, read his copy, clicked his link NOTHING.
It's a little hard to understand. Did that help or did I make it more confusing?
Linear Mode
