Skimlinks trial on MSE forums

MrsBartolozzi

I don't see any pink box - is it still there?
All I can see is black text on a white background with a blue link, no border, no piccy no nothing:

We are currently trialling
'Skimlinks' software. Click for
full info on how this affects
the forum

I went looking for it after reading about it in this thread but was a bit confused as it's by no means noticable on my screen.
(I'm on the less bright viewing option if that's applicable)

JimmyTheWig

The box you can see is the one being talked about, MrsBartolozzi.
I guess it's just not pink in the "less bright viewing option".

ailuro2

This site costs me nothing to use, yet has saved me thousands over the past few years.

I know the travel money maximiser is there when I need it, as is the utilities indicator for when I should switch, and the weekly e-mail keeps me up to date on any other bargains I might benefit from.

However, I spend most of my time on this site using the forums. It is free to use, there is no rule stating I HAVE to use a link someone has posted, and in general it is kept spam free (I always report spam, and it is always removed rapidly) making it my favourite forum...

Forums do cost money to run, I used to be a mod on a fish-keeping forum and even with a bit of money from advertising it didn't cover the website owner's bandwidth costs. The difference with that one was we has thousands of members, not millions.

So, simple solution really for those worried about Quidco and referrals. Take it or leave it... it's free, so it's not like you're getting ripped off, is it?:p

Personally I use Opera for browsing and swop to Internet Explorer for Quidco use, which means I never get my cookies mixed up.;)

poppy10_2

walter_wobblebottom wrote: »

what pink box?:o

MrsBartolozzi wrote: »

I don't see any pink box - is it still there?

It's over on the right...

MrsBartolozzi

Ok mine is nothing like that, even in "normal" viewing mode. I have a pic but am not sure about how to upload.
I'll have a scooch about and see if I can find out how.





There ye go - no pink box at all!

furndire

The ref. links are not showing when right clicking in the posting, but they do when you click on properties. Is this still meant to happen????

jamesd

MSE_Dan wrote: »

When a user clicks a link posted by another user, if skimlinks has a relationship with that retailer, the link will go via a redirect (but land on the same page). You can see this process happen if you watch the text line at the very bottom of a browser like Firefox. No edits happen to users posts.

Dan, I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to get the idea that changing a link to one that goes to a different site is editing the content of the post. It should be obvious that it's editing the content and that it will have a material effect on both the editorial in the post and the search engine rankings of the sites formerly linked to.

That in theory you end up then going to the originally linked site, after going to the different one, doesn't remove the obvious fact that the link has been edited to add an intermediate site and now isn't the one that was originally present.

That's a clear change of the editorial content in three ways, one ethical/community issue, two security issues and also a commercial issue:

1. It's not the same content, the link has been changed to go to a different site first.
2. It's replacing the original editorial decision about which site should get improved search engine ranking with a decision that it will be the Skimlinks site that gets the improved ranking. And ranking also correlates with money making potential, decreasing the potential of the originally linked site by decreasing its likely rank in search engine results pages. For those who don't know it, the rank of the site the link is coming from matters to the rank of the site linked to, so MSE -> site will be more valuable to the site than Skimlinks -> site. Even the words in the link matter, so "MSE headphones" will give a higher ranking in headphones search results than "generic Skimlinks redirect link text".
3. It's taking an editorial decision on whether to use a monetised link or not.
4. Web community: the non-Skimlinks search engine rankings boost means that even consumers who don't come via MSE are more likely to have the sites high in their search engine results pages and hence are more likely to go to sites that offer good deals to consumers. That's good for all consumers and is a way to reach and help even those who don't come here. Eliminating the general benefit by going via Skimlinks instead isn't a good thing.
5. As a browsing security matter, I habitually avoid following redirects and deliberately seek to block redirecting sites. That's because when using them I can be less sure that I'll end up at the site I think I'll end up at and also because I'm less aware of what additional undisclosed content I might get via the redirect intermediate stage - content could be anything from background ads to cookies or more unpleasant browser-based exploits that may be hard to notice because you don't land at the intermediate site.
6. As a browsing security measure, I habitually avoid following links from sites that use deceptive links. Notably those that say in the browser status bar that they are going to one site but then take you to (including via) a different, undisclosed, site, which is the way the Skimlinks links behave. It'll make me unlikely to click on any links in the forums, because I can no longer trust them to take me only to where they say they will take me. One way to mitigate this a bit would be to have the status bar show a (via Skimlinks) addition. But I still would habitually avoid following links from the forums even with this mitigation in place.
7. There's no negotiated commercial agreement on how the additional revenue generated by the editorial is to be split between the author and the publisher. Rather, it's publisher fiat and the authors either get to lump it or not provide content to that publisher. Now, I rather like this particular publisher and am generally content to donate content, but still, I do like to be the one having the editorial control over what I'm writing, including which sites I'm linking to and via.

It would be nice to have a choice, say in the link insertion tool, to use a monetised link, a non-monetised link or one of each. One of each can reduce and might well eliminate any search ranking and general consumer detriment issue.

However, I haven't looked much yet at just when the link replacement happens. It might be invisible to some search engines if the original link is present prior to javascript execution. I'm not tracking which search engines try to follow javascript generated or modified links.

It might help if you considered what would happen if the Skimlinks tool was run on the main site and replaced the non-starred links with links that go via Skimlinks. I hope that you can see that this would have a material editorial effect on the content of the page and that it may be objectionable to whoever is providing that editorial content.

I'm surprised that you're having difficulty with the concept that this is editing posts, and in a significant way.

oakhouse13

It's also disappointing that feedback seems to be being used to find out how to completely hide these links when people I am sure want to know what external files are being loaded onto their computer before they click.

There are some affiliated links in the forum that clicking them opens your computer to numerous companies operating inbetween this site and the retailer you click through to.

MSE has no control over this since it is Skimlinks controlling the link.

furndire

Totally agree with the above.

I feel that MSE is now going to turn into the proverbial gardner tending mushrooms, keep them in the dark, and feed them you know what.
Isn't this what Martin was fighting against and trying to make people aware of what was happening in the business world. So now he's joining them, what a shame.
All built on apathy - nobody/one or two complaints - conclusion no-ones bothered so we'll do as we see fit to line our pockets, under the disguise of more for charity, or more needed for expenses to run the company.

This is probably why my post on 130# was not answered ???

Is this because the skimlink is hidden & so if I don't c&p, they still know where we are coming from ??????????
Again using the priniciple - don't lie, but ignore - so that you are perceived as being honest.

I can understand why MSE would do this, money, money, money, but I really thought Martin was above this - or is the site now out of his control?

jamesd

oakhouse13, that might not be so bad, except for one substantial problem: scammers are known to place non-misleading ads at the start of campaigns, then replace them part way through with virus or other nasty content, after the security of the original benign content has been checked. The longer the redirect chain is, the greater the risk that someone along it is going to end up supplying a compromised link. It's very unlikely that Skimlinks can adequately police this sort of thing, even more so because such things can be generated on the fly and shown only to particular regions or filtered for certain viewers to foil security checks.