Skimlinks

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Hi Folks,

From today, we are turning Skimlinks on for some users in a few of the non-pure money boards.

Skimlinks adds tracking to links to some retailers and service providers, then if that click generates revenue from that, this site is paid. The links don’t change the content, or what you see nor track individual data – but they do help fund this free forum.

* Site visitors: Skimlinks will be turned on as a default
* Logged in registered members: Skimlinks will be turned off as a default, but there is an option in the user control panel to turn it on - which we hope you will do.

Skimlinks is a commonly used piece of software in many forums. We did a trial of this software over a year ago, and have made many bespoke improvements on the back of suggestions. If you have skimlinks turned on and are in a board where it is active, you'll see a 'Skimlinks is on' in the top right hand side.

Full Skimlinks Briefing:

For full details and FAQ about Skimlinks - or to contact us about it - see our Skimlinks factsheet

jamesd

Will Skimlinks links be added to any posts made before this announcement was made? That is, will it retroactively change what people have linked to by rewriting the link so it goes to Skimlinks instead of the destination first?

Does the Skimlinks tool or any referrals it links to offer the option to MSE of associating a particular computer, IP address, browser or account from which a click is coming with any form of unique identifier assigned by MSE, say a forum account number?

I'm asking because in the past I've been aware of referral schemes that would allow assigning a unique identifier. That could then be used by the source site to reveal every purchase made using the computer from which the click originated on the site that was linked to.

So while still paying lip service to not identifying any specific individual, MSE might be able to become aware of every purchase made by forum user jamesd after a single use of a changed link to go to a destination site.

Regrettably the wording of the Skimlinks Briefing does not unambiguously bar this sort of tracking with the degree of clarity that satisfies me that it is prohibited for both Martin's business and any subsequent owner of the site.

It's sad that MSE has chosen an implementation that conceals whether a link will be modified to become a referrer link, by not providing any indication that the link will be modified if it's clicked on. This breaks the existing expectation that all revenue-generating links will be clearly indicated with a *.

The effect for me clicking on links will be somewhat limited. Skimlinks is blocked by both my security and privacy protection tools so any modified link just won't work.

The reason the security setup blocks skimlinks is that advertising campaigns via repeated redirection have been used to install malware. A campaign would typically start with uncompromised content then after a few days to lull suspicion the attack software would be enabled on one of the intermediate hosts in the link chain. This is why I systematically avoid all indirect links, whatever their nature - I simply can't know in advance which sites I'll be going to in the link chain so I can't have any opinion about how secure or insecure they are. Nor can MSE or Skimlinks, because the controller of any site in the chain can change the content at any time. Such attacks have in the past also modified their behaviour based on the origin of the click to try to hide their activity from site owners who are trying to verify the integrity of links.

I'm unwilling to compromise the security of my computers or potentially my privacy to direct money to the site. However, if the content that I provide free of charge isn't adding sufficient revenue, please do feel free to provide a link where I can donate money and I'll certainly consider donating in that way if some estimate of the cost per year that's not covered by added value is provided.

Skimlinks proivides a partial opt-out capability at htt p://skim=+links.com/opt-out URL="http://skimlinks.com/opt-out"]*[/URL(remove =+ to use link). This will not prevent affiliates from dropping their own identifying cookies.

Those who haven't already blocked them for security or privacy reasons may want to visit the AppNexus tracking site that Skimlinks uses and opt out. It's at http: / /appnexus. com/platform-policy#choices URL="http://appnexus.com/platform-policy#choices"]*[/URL

Former_MSE_Dan

Hi jamesd,

Thanks for the feedback

Does the Skimlinks tool or any referrals it links to offer the option to MSE of associating a particular computer, IP address, browser or account from which a click is coming with any form of unique identifier assigned by MSE, say a forum account number?

I'm asking because in the past I've been aware of referral schemes that would allow assigning a unique identifier. That could then be used by the source site to reveal every purchase made using the computer from which the click originated on the site that was linked to.

So while still paying lip service to not identifying any specific individual, MSE might be able to become aware of every purchase made by forum user jamesd after a single use of a changed link to go to a destination site.

All the conversations we have had in the run up to this launch have heavily featured us checking no personally identifiable information will be tracked. I will specifically ask the question you pose here.

We appreciate concerns like the other ones you have raised, and they are the reason we have worked on some fairly major technical modifications this time around to allow any signed-in member the opportunity to not click any Skimlinked links. We also felt it was important this was an opt-in, not opt-out, following feedback from the trial, so that's the way we have built it.

Thanks

Dan

thelawnet

Jamesd makes a good point.

I have previously been compromised by malware on a couple of occasions, and it on both occasions it has arisen through advertising.

I don't know that the events are connected, but I lost about $1500 from my neteller account as a result of hacking.

Basically what happens with these advertising based attacks is that malware is inserted by one of the many advertisers, possibly not 100% of the time, which makes it harder to track down.

I'm not particularly concerned about privacy per se, that someone knows I bought x, y and z, but the malware implications are extremely serious, not just the cost to clean it up, but the financial implications too. For companies, these implications could be even worse, if on company computers.

Blocking all advertising is the only rational approach.

meher

This is the best outcome for both - fund forum demands, by the same token offer people the choice to opt in or out; but it is quite unlikely that people would actually opt in unless this feature and it's use to maintain forum standards is highlighted because we rarely go to the edit options part of the cp, I don't know I'm just guessing based on my own forum habits. I tend to keep default settings and also took a very long time to familiarise myself with editing options. But we do edit options when we feel the need to, not the other way round, by choosing recommended settings.

fermi

If you are not logged in, then skimlinks will automatically be active on the boards it's set for.

I don't know what the stats are on logged in vs logged out clicks, but I would think the latter would be substantial if not greater.

So perhaps the greater part of the intended skimlinks use will still happen? While preserving the "opt-in" principle for registered logged in users.

meher

treu, because the vast majority come to the forum through site articles and emails anyway

jamesd

MSE_Dan wrote: »

We also felt it was important this was an opt-in, not opt-out

Thanks.

Though this isn't an opt in scheme, in general. It's an opt out scheme with a limited set of users able to opt out.

To be an opt in scheme there would need to be a choice for those who have not logged in that would set a cookie that would then turn on Skimlinks for them.

For the limited set of users who normally are logged in I agree that it is an opt in scheme and am glad that that choice was made.

While it's not particularly hard to sign up and opt out, it requires an exchange of personally identifiable information - at least an email address - to get that option and it is likely that there will be people who will not consider providing personally identifiable information an acceptable way to get an opt out option. Viewing when logged in may also enable more tracking of user activities and may be considered undesirable for that reason.

The opt in argument when logged out people are opted in was one that was largely laughed at when it was discussed in relation to Wikipedia. It's simply not accepted as a true claim, for the pretty obvious reason that it's not true in that case.

This doesn't mean that I consider the way those who are or aren't logged in are handled differently to be a bad choice - it's a good revenue-maximising one that is less likely to annoy content providers and that makes it a good compromise for revenue generation. But to be truly describable accurately as an opt in system there would need to be a way for those not logged in to opt in and not have Skimlinks content if they didn't opt in. I don't think that will happen because it would inevitably substantially reduce the revenue obtained via Skimlinks. Whether it's appropriate to provide an opt out cookie for those not logged in is a more interesting question. It still wouldn't be opt in but it would provide a way to opt out without requiring personally identifiable information in exchange.

As a commercial decision on a commercial site what's been done here is already good, I'm just discussing some of the related aspects that might be considered if they haven't been already. I don't think it would be commercially desirable to further delay implementation. It might be interesting to poll just those who aren't logged in, though.

fermi wrote: »

If you are not logged in, then skimlinks will automatically be active on the boards it's set for.

Yes. The principle is somewhat different IMO:

1. If logged in you have an account and are likely to be posting. Posting is adding content at no charge that increases the value of the site. You're also more likely to be adding costs, so it's not a 100% gain for the site - far from it, I expect that most of the staff time is expended on logged in users.
2. If not logged in you probably aren't adding content value so it's more appropriate to seek revenue in alternative ways.

This makes the way the options are split a pretty good one, particularly where there's a commercial desire to maximise revenue from the typically vast majority who view while not logged in.

VoucherMan

Well I can't see any harm in it. I've used it on other sites and my laptop's still running okay.

So Skimlinks is now turned on for me. If I can help this site earn even a small fraction of what it's saved me then they're welcome to it, which having recently discovered the MFW forum is likely to go from saving over £1000 to now saving over £10,000

That said I've not yet come across a single link this morning so no chance of any money from my browsing yet.

meher

If people are so conscious or paranoid about their websurfing experience they would look out for and set preferences and they are only a minority - it is, imo, ok for the default to be opt in with an option to opt out; actually that would be the astute thing to do. Whilst most of the forum users are unregistered, there are several registered users clicking on links from the forum, specially if you look at the number of responses during sale.

making info available and transparent itself would suffice, imo only ofcourse

WhiteHorse

Relying on an opt out option is fundamentally dishonest. That's the sort of trick one would expect from the government.

I would suggest that the use of skimlink has compromised the integrity of MSE by virtue of the fact that MSE is now linked financially to particular retailers.

Does this also explain the recent changes to the site, and the technical problems that many are experiencing?