91–100 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, if one were informed of that, one probably wouldn't click on the links. This would earn the publisher less money in the form of kickbacks. As this is undesirable, they simply don't do it.
What weird planet are we on where people would avoid clicking a link they'd otherwise be inclined to click because someone might make 3 cents from the click? You guys spend way too much time thinking about this stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, if one were informed of that, one probably wouldn't click on the links. This would earn the publisher less money in the form of kickbacks. As this is undesirable, they simply don't do it.
What weird planet are we on where people would avoid clicking a link they'd otherwise be inclined to click because someone might make 3 cents from the click? You guys spend way too much time thinking about this stuff.
I don't think it's weird in any way to value one's privacy. This is shady stuff because 1. it leaks personal information and 2. most people don't know it happens and 3. they would have to actively take countermeasures to stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What weird planet are we on where people would avoid clicking a link they'd otherwise be inclined to click because someone might make 3 cents from the click? You guys spend way too much time thinking about this stuff.
I may or may not avoid clicking, but if it happens enough, I might be motivated to install a browser plugin that strips out tracking tokens, much like I run an ad blocker full time. And yes, I know that the vendor's web site can still look at the referrer logs, but those can be stripped as well. I don't think it's weird in any way to value one's privacy. This is shady stuff because 1. it leaks personal information an…
That's not a bad idea. I'll make a note to check into that. Cheers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice catch. I used to think Quartz had some quality standards.
I never understood the outrage behind referral links. If somebody is linking to Amazon and users start shopping, why is it so bad that they get a slice of the pie?
What's funny about this article is: 1. It's obvious clickbait - "secret" brands - how salacious! Yeah, as though a company wants to keep things it sells secret. 2. Each time you click on a link from the Quartz article, you are given a url with a link tracker tag. For example, for the Arabella brand, you get: 16352060011?tag=quartz07-20 So basically someone sat there behind a computer, authoring an article while using…
Sorry, not everything is a conspiracy to get you.
What's funny about this article is: 1. It's obvious clickbait - "secret" brands - how salacious! Yeah, as though a company wants to keep things it sells secret. 2. Each time you click on a link from the Quartz article, you are given a url with a link tracker tag. For example, for the Arabella brand, you get: 16352060011?tag=quartz07-20 So basically someone sat there behind a computer, authoring an article while using…
Nice catch. I used to think Quartz had some quality standards.
They are almost assuredly added automatically so the author had no clue it was happening. I used to author a Wordpress plugin that did this for bloggers so they wouldn't need to worry about generating links through the Amazon website then going back to their Wordpress dashboard.
What's funny about this article is: 1. It's obvious clickbait - "secret" brands - how salacious! Yeah, as though a company wants to keep things it sells secret. 2. Each time you click on a link from the Quartz article, you are given a url with a link tracker tag. For example, for the Arabella brand, you get: 16352060011?tag=quartz07-20 So basically someone sat there behind a computer, authoring an article while using…
Hello: author here! I honestly have no idea what that tracking tag is, but 07/20 was the date I started writing this story! Guessing it's just Amazon tracking to see where traffic is coming from. But if you have any other questions about the story or my journalistic integrity, I'm here to answer them!
Quartz probably has a page somewhere disclaiming their affiliate linking policy (which is likely: "we have affiliate links. They are separate and do not change the content of a story.") You can see an example of Wired's policy here: https://www.wired.com/2015/11/affiliate-link-policy/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would Amazon change the URLs on your article ? More likely, if you didn't do it on purpose, is that Quartz's CMS automagically appends that tag into any Amazon.com links.
Likely the writer is just that - a writer. He has demonstrated (harmless) ignorance of how tracking tags work. The other posters betting on the website he writes for automatically adding affiliate tags to amazon links is the most likely guess here.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like something to fault the writer for.
What's funny about this article is: 1. It's obvious clickbait - "secret" brands - how salacious! Yeah, as though a company wants to keep things it sells secret. 2. Each time you click on a link from the Quartz article, you are given a url with a link tracker tag. For example, for the Arabella brand, you get: 16352060011?tag=quartz07-20 So basically someone sat there behind a computer, authoring an article while using…
to add to your post, that affiliate link stays active on amazon accounts that clicked it for 24hours and pays out to the owner for every product purchased in that time frame