Skimlinks trial on MSE forums

edgex

jamesd wrote: »

edgex, different people may be getting different page versions as part of the testing, so don't count on it always coming from the Skimlinks server.

having looked at the source code on 3 different affected links, from 3 different sections of the forums, they all download the js file from the same server

http://moneysavingexpertcom.skimlinks.com/api/vb.mse.js

edgex

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2642127

Originally Posted by cit_k
not looked at the code properly, head is not working for code today, I take it in that case, its just used when a link is clicked?

Skimlinks keep the users IP addressess for about 7 years to, which is quite a long time to keep stuff like that. Increasing the risk of data loss..

it only seems to 'activate' when there is an actual action performed on the link:

onMouseOver (1st time)
nothing happens, link displays as 'normal' in status bar

onClick
changes the link address in properties, to the redirect/skimlink

onMouseOver (2nd time)
status bar displays redirect/skimlink

onclick="mugicPopWin(this); return false;" oncontextmenu="mugicRight(this)"

if you refresh the page, it resets



http://moneysavingexpertcom.skimlinks.com/api/vb.mse.js

// JavaScript Document
eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=function(c){return(c< a?'':e(parseInt(c/a)))+((c=c%a)>35?String.fromCharCode(c+29):c.toStr ing(36))};if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--)r[e(c)]=k[c]||e(c);k=[function(e){return r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('C 1f(){o I}C 1w(c){7{2 k=V;2 l=\'&T=\'+k}6(9){2 k=\'e\';2 l=\'\'}7{2 u=1o}6(9){2 u=\'e\'}7{2 p=17}6(9){2 p=\'e\'}7{2 a=Y}6(9){2 a=\'y.v\'}7{2 m=X;2 n=\'&Z=\'+m}6(9){2 m=\'e\';2 n=\'\'}2 E=a.H;2 G=E+8;a="t://"+a;7{2 b=c.j;d(b.h(0,G)==a){b=1d(c.j);2 w=b.1b(\'&J=\');w=w+5;2 U=b.H;b=b.h(w,U);c.j=b}d(p!=\'e\'){d(p==\'1n\'){2 B=\'1q\'}A{2 B=p}7{1x.1D(\'/\'+B+\'/\'+b)}6(9){7{15(\'/\'+B+\'/\'+b)}6(9){}}}2 r=a+\'?12=\'+13+n+l+\'&J=\'+S(b);d(u!=\'e\'){2 q=x.O(r,u);q.14()}A{2 Q=c.R(\'P\');7{L=c.16}6(9){L=0}7{K=c.18}6(9){K=0}d (L||K){2 q=x.O(r,c.R(\'P\'))}A{d(Q!=19&&Q!=\'\'){2 q=x.O(r,c.R(\'P\'));q.14()}A{x.1a=r}o z}}o z}6(9){o I}}C 1c(g){7{2 k=V;2 l=\'&T=\'+k}6(9){2 k=\'e\';2 l=\'\'}7{2 a=Y}6(9){2 a=\'y.v\'}7{2 m=X;2 n=\'&Z=\'+m}6(9){2 m=\'e\';2 n=\'\'}7{2 M=1e}6(9){2 M=z}2 E=a.H;2 G=E+8;a="t://"+a;2 D=g.j;d(D.h(0,G)!=a&&D.h(0,1g)!="t://1h.y.v"&&D.h(0,1i)!="t://y.v"&&M==z){d(1j.1k.1l(/1m/i)!=-1){d(g.F.h(0,4)==\'t\'||g.F.h(0,3)==\'1p\'){g.F=\' <11 1r="1s: 1t;">&1u;</11>\'+g.F}}g.j=a+"?12="+13+n+l+"&J="+S(g.j)+""}o I}C 1v(W){2 10=1y 1z(\'^(?:f|1A)1B(?:s)?\\://([^/]+)\',\'1C\');7{N=W.1E(10)[1].1F()}6(9){N=\'\'}o N}',62,104,'||var||||catch|try||err|mugic_go_domai n|mugic_thisurl|mugic_obj|if|off||mugic_e|substrin g||href|mugic_check_test|mugic_add_test|mugic_site name|mugic_add_sitename|return|mugic_check_google| newwin|newurl||http|mugic_check_target|com|mugic_p os|window|redirectingat|false|else|mugic_skimout|f unction|mugic_url|mugic_go_domain_length|innerHTML |mugic_gd_length|length|true|url|cmdPressed|ctrlPr essed|mugic_noright|mugic_return|open|target|mugic _this_target|getAttribute|encodeURIComponent|test| mugic_end|mugic_test|mugic_str|skimlinks_sitename| skimlinks_domain|site|mugic_reg|span|id|skimlinks_ pub_id|focus|urchinTracker|ctrlKey|skimlinks_googl e|metaKey|null|location|indexOf|mugicRight|unescap e|skimlinks_noright|skimlinks|27|lb|24|navigator|u serAgent|search|msie|on|skimlinks_target|www|skimo ut|style|display|none|nbsp|mugicGetHostname|mugicP opWin|pageTracker|new|RegExp|ht|tp|im|_trackPagevi ew|match|toString'.split('|'),0,{}))

:exclamati THEREFORE:

it does not display as a redirect in the status bar, unless & until some action has been performed on the link on your computer

it is hiding the fact that there is a redirect/skimlink

Mobeer

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

...
If I (whether before the Skimlinks change or afterwards) type www.bbc.co.uk, MSE turns it into a link. I have not told it to be a link. I have not typed "http://". All I have done is typed a website address. So MSE is _already_ changing my content. I don't see that changing what I typed into a Skimlinks link is any more of a change to what I typed than they've always done.

Did you untick the "additional option" called "Automatically parse links in text" before submitting your reply? I would expect what you describe happening is correct if this option is ticked (and it is by default).

Mobeer

At a screen resolution of 1920x1200, the (pink?) box about this trial is now off the edge of the page as this thread loads; it only appears when I scroll down, but I would only be scrolling down the thread to read the thread. Why can't the pink box appear above the free weekly email advert, where it would be visible without scrolling?

poppy10_2

Mobeer wrote: »

Why can't the pink box appear above the free weekly email advert, where it would be visible without scrolling?

But then some people might actually see it! :shhh:

meher

I haven't had issues with any of the links posted above but on some websites it does take an extra few seconds for the redirection. If you take amazon, it redirects you in different ways and the web addresses on the bar is also different but none affects shopping experience so it looks like it's either a case of whether there's a glitch issue with the redirection or we take issue with skimlinking.

I have a little thought though - will people take issue if mse has their own mechanisms like that of skimlinks? Alright it isn't important. I'm trying to study the psychodynamics of protesting, flaming, objecting, etc..

btw, I read something clever on dt today, you can parse and unparse using bb code tags if you've any reservations about links

poppy10 wrote: »

But then some people might actually see it! :shhh:

It is posted where it's, imo, expected to be: right above shopping zone - the discounts and deals. Although yes it can be either within the email box or on the header itself where it gives the important signbox but then it would appear as if skimlinks is associated with mse. It could be me, but I've never seen one such thing highlighted or actually being made such a song and dance about on a single site's opening page. Essentially it could be about keeping it simple and not confusing lesser savvy folks. I think.

furndire

Are these links supposed to be on the Benefits boards as well. Me & my daughter were looking clicked on a link - something to do with NHS, and it also had an MSE referal when we clicked on properties. I started to post what it was, but when I went back to it, the link had disappeared - no I haven't had a drink, my daughter saw it as well.
Why should there be links on there?

jamesd

jamesd wrote: »

edgex, different people may be getting different page versions as part of the testing, so don't count on it always coming from the Skimlinks server.

edgex wrote: »

having looked at the source code on 3 different affected links, from 3 different sections of the forums, they all download the js file from the same server

Have a read of what I wrote again. Focus on the words "different people". The forum software has settings that can be used to serve different versions of pages to different people and the MSE team uses that capability when testing features. If you just test with accounts set to use the same version, you aren't going to see the difference. So in the same way that I trust that you're accurately reporting what you see, I suggest that you trust that I'm getting it from somewhere else.

If you agree not to disclose the information or cause it to be disclosed (say by someone else), I'll privately tell you where I'm getting it from. I'm choosing not to say in public where it is at the moment.

Old_Wrinkly

meher wrote: »

It is posted where it's, imo, expected to be: right above shopping zone - the discounts and deals.

furndire wrote: »

Are these links supposed to be on the Benefits boards as well.

According to MSE Dan, the Skimlinks trial is being applied to all boards in the forum, except for the Pure Money boards and the referers board.

Horlock

jamesd wrote: »

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.

I did find this post extremely helpful - a lot of factors I hadn't thought of. I particularly thought the last but one para made a good point - and would add perhaps if they ran it Skimlinks on the starred links they might notice an even bigger editorial impact!

On an unrelated to the above quotation - I would like to add that if MSE is so desperate for cash I think they would be better running google adds down the right hand side of the page (where the invisible pink box is now) because
1. We are used to having (and possibly ignoring) these - everytime we do a search, check and email, visit other sites etc
2. We don't have to follow them - nor will anyone accidentally follow them
3. When we follow them we understand that the site owner gets paid
4. It is completely transparent - unlike the cloak and dagger method of skimlinks
5. It avoids changing peoples posts
6. Noone gets falsely accused
7. MSE would get all the revenue not only a percentage (although in many instances all may be less than the percentage!)