LJ erroneously hijacks affiliate links?

[charmian]

It appears that LJ added in some code which redirected links to certain e-commerce domains to other domains (although this script seems to have stopped?) (This company seems to be the one involved. Possibly this program? Also mentioned here. And explained by a user of the program here. )

http://community.livejournal.com/no_lj_ads/87066.html
http://atara.livejournal.com/631445.html
http://vichan.livejournal.com/392527.html

Not being a coder or familiar with affiliate marketing, I don't really understand the technical aspects of it, but it's not really clear what LJ really meant to do. Does anyone know what the actual intention of this code probably was? And if so, how could they muck it up so much?

It seems that, whatever the intention of this code was, that it may have caused LJ users to lose money.

Comments

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[charmian]

Well, it seems even to a non-professional like myself that it would be common sense that the link wouldn't claim things that were claimed. 0_o And also, this stuff about entirely unrelated sites getting redirected is also really strange. Why would it do that, instead of checking for the exact domain?

Not only communication with the users, but with the staff, it seems. I can see how they thought it wouldn't matter and then implement it, but haven't they seen that users tend to find out about these things and then raise a fit? I actually don't think as much of a controversy would have occurred had the original intent been followed, but people naturally were very upset by what actually happened. On the other hand, the goodwill of the users is pretty low anyway, so maybe at this point there is little to lose.

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[samvara]

*g* Developers don't think like users. Developers make exactly what you ask for, even if you ask for something stupid. This is partly because it's not their job to write requirements, partly because they trust you and partly because they are busy developing! Good developers come back and ask a lot of questions if your documentation sucks is unclear but even good, busy developers will sometimes build you exactly what you asked for with its associated ghastly logic flaws. This game is even more fun if you're playing it with linguistic barriers.

When you ask for a sandwich, you better specify you want bread, what kind of bread, how thickly you want the bread sliced, that it had better not contain nuts, that you want butter, how much butter, when it needs to be applied (after the bread is baked is good but in developer-world not assumed) and so on an so forth. I umh, have been known to deliver extensive talks on the subject of communication and documentation :p

Communication - I am desperately trying to find a quote I remember seeing on the Watergate scandal to the effect that no-one even discussed whether there'd be a cover up - it was just obvious. Darn, maybe it was a Bloom County comic and I dreamed it.

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[charmian]

Well, I guess that might not be the responsibility of the developers, but then it must be someone's job to see that what's going on IS a good idea and that the code doesn't have crappy side effects. I'm not sure if this does even have anything to do with the Russian side, so perhaps it isn't being implemented there.

Ahahaha, yeah. From what I've googled, forum users where this program has been implemented have accepted it if it is explained. Metafilter IIRC has a similar script, and no one really has a problem with it.

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[samvara]

Testing! It's not a silver bullet but a when a suitably paranoid test manager who is held accountable when things turn to cactus is allowed to do their job you get good results.

I don't have a problem with the concept, just the implementation and communication. Do you know if IIRC allows its users to claim links or does it reserve 100%?

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[charmian]

I really don't know anything, I'm afraid. I simply found some references on google to the usage of the code, but in most cases, it seems like the forum admins ban all usage of user affiliate codes on their site. There was a forum admin apologizing to the users for not informing them of this enough, but then also saying that the rules on the forum were no outside affiliate links.

Re: Oops, accidentally deleted my comment :p

[samvara]

*g* sounds like this pings the delicate balance between thew rights of users (provided content) and sites (provided infrastructure).

I wonder if there's an obvious appropriate point to draw the line and say 'no outside affiliate links' and whether LJ is about to do so.

Not really that hard, I think

[charmian]

Actually, I don't think it's that unreasonable for a site owner to say "no outside affiliate links," when we're dealing with non-paying users. I think the main 'right of the user' is not to be deceived or have things done behind their back/have their content altered w/o their knowledge. So I see that as the main problem, rather than the policy in and of itself.

Once the policy is publicly out there, users can decide whether they wish to use the site or not, and I think that's a fair deal.

Re: Not really that hard, I think

[samvara]

Site owners + non-paying users = I agree