19 replies to this topic

[Miroslav]

Hi everyone

I am sure this has been asked before, but I couldn't find what I was looking for with the search function...

I am currently building an affiliate site and want to make sure that the affiliate links (leading to the merchant sites) don't put off my visitors, or the search engines. Basically, I am considering two options of including affiliate links on my site:

Direct affiliate link
Example: [http://www.merchant-...93sadfa230w999]

Using .htaccess redirect
Example: [http://www.my-site.com/merchant]

Anybody has tested the impact the above linking has on (i) visitors, and the (ii) search engines? I am really curious to hear particularly from someone who has actually tested both approaches. Or, is there a better way of coding affiliate links?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Best wishes,
Miroslav

[Jill]

Shorter is always better for people.

The search engines don't care either way.

[Haystack]

I don't think your average user would notice a difference. For people who notice the affiliate tracking code, you may be able to manipulate them by hiding the tracking code first on the link (in the status by using javascript to display the merchant URL without tracking code) and later on the landing page. It's up to you to decide it that's a good move or not. I'm not convinced that it influences sales, but haven't formally tested it.

[Miroslav]

Thank you for your replies, Jill and Haystack!

Regarding...

Impact on visitors - Yes, shorter links are clearly better when used in off-site promotions (ezine, ads, etc.). However, as Haystack pointed out, when on-site, many people do not pay attention to the status bar or may not be in position to recognize an affiliate link from a "normal" link. Still, did anybody actually test this? Is there any significant difference in either click-through or conversion rates?

Impact on search engines - I agree that it shouldn't make a difference to the SEs, but I have heard reports to the contrary (both Google and the new MSN reportedly assign less value to sites where most out-going links are affiliate links). Can anybody confirm this from their own experience (btw, in my case, we are still talking about a content-heavy site)? Also, purely from SE optimization point of view, there is the question of passing "votes" through outgoing links (for Google, it's PageRank). I would suspect that the search engines have learned to recognize (if not all then most) affiliate links and discount their value in "voting". How do the engines react to .htaccess redirect?

Please accept my apologies if this has been asked many times before (unfortunately, I couldn't find a clear answer with the search function).

Best wishes,
Miroslav

P.S.: Moderators, thanks for editing the link examples in my original post. However, I was surprised to find this post moved to the Internet Marketing forum. For me, it's strictly a web design question.

[Randy]

You may gain some enlightenment from this thread that is asking the same basic question Miroslav.

Here's the deal re: affiliate links.

• You need the affiliate tracking code to properly credit traffic/sales.
• But the search engines see links like www.domain.com/index.php?AffID=1234 and www.domain.com/index.php as two completely different pages. So while link pop is still passed, it's being split.
• The question becomes how to let the search engines know that they are in fact the same page and merge the link popularity.

As explained in the other thread, the way to do that is to detect the affliate id string on your site, record the traffic to your affiliate database, set a cookie on the users computer to track their movement through your site, then redirect them --via a 301 permanent redirect-- to the page you want them to start on with the affiliate id removed from the URL.

This somewhat convoluted approach will effectively cover all of the bases you need to cover, for both your affiliates and also for the search engines.

[jspope]

Hi!

Another factor to consider is human psychology.

For some reason, many people don't want you to get a referral commission. As soon as they see the affiliate id, they chop it off and simply enter [http://www.merchant-site/com].

Also not to be overlooked: By joining the merchant's affiliate program first (without going through your link), they can often get the commission (in other words, a discount) on their purchase. This is, of course, at your expense.

For these reasons (as well as those already mentioned here), it is better to not use direct affiliate links.

Regards,

Stephen :-)

[Miroslav]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your reply. If I understand it correctly, the approach you are suggesting is a solution for merchants operating affiliate programs.

In my case, however, I am the AFFILIATE sending traffic to the merchant's site.

One of my concerns (besides maximizing click-through and conversion rates) is that a perfectly legitimate, content-full website might rank lower in the search engines, ONLY because it's full of affiliate links ("full" meaning that most content pages contain at least one affilaliate link to a merchant's site). Especially, since the affiliate links are used only where they add value and are needed to satisfy the visitor's search for information.

Since I heard that Google and MSN may be discounting sites containing affiliate links, I am trying to see if there is any way to make the search engines see that my site is not what someone might call "affiliate spam". I realize that, to succeed, it's not only the question of coding the affiliate links, but, perhaps, it is one of the factors that could help.

Any thoughts on this?

Best wishes,
Miroslav

[Randy]

IMO it's an old wives tail that affiliate sites in an of themselves are being discounted in the SERPs.

What is being discounted are affiliates where the content is copied directly from the source/manufacturer over and over and over again across many sites.

In other words, no unique content and no rankings. However if you have totally unique content that just happens to connect to the source site via an affiliate link you're good to go.

[Miroslav]

OK, so we established that, as far as affiliate links to merchant sites from affiliate sites...

From visitor's point of view it's better to use shorter links (using .htaccess redirect). (Thanks Jill, Haystack, and Stephen.)

And, we think that from search engines' point of view it makes no difference. (Thanks Jill and Randy.)

Do we actually have any proof/testing results to confirm this last assumption?

Best wishes,
Miroslav

[Shane]

Actually, I've seen plenty of reports from web site owners who have been penalized by Yahoo for running sites that were "full of affiliate links."

The good news is that an editor actually has to stumble across your site in order to review it -- the odds of that being fairly slim unless you're a major site. The bad news is that once they deem your site "not valuable for their users," the decision is final and largely unable to be appealed. (There are scarce reports of people getting appeals, and even fewer where the appeal was actually successful.)

[Shane]

For some reason, many people don't want you to get a referral commission. As soon as they see the affiliate id, they chop it off and simply enter [http://www.merchant-site/com].

Also not to be overlooked: By joining the merchant's affiliate program first (without going through your link), they can often get the commission (in other words, a discount) on their purchase. This is, of course, at your expense.

It obviously varies depending on the topic of the site, of course, but I would be very surprised if this is practiced with any real frequency. What percentage of your visitors are A) smart enough to know how to do this and B) motivated enough to do it? Remember, a vast number of people still type the website's URL into a search engine to get to a site. Those people obviously fail test A.

[jspope]

Hi Shane!

You do make a good point.

However, in selling business and Internet related products you are dealing with (at least some) fairly knowledgable and technically skilled people.

As well, even if only one in a ten users shortened or changed the URL, that still represents a fair loss of income.

Some Internet marketers claim that the number of people who do this is considerably more. Although I believe this, I must also admit some of the ones making this claim also sell products for masking or encrypting your affiliate link. So, you are welcome to take this claim with a grain of salt.

As for redirects, encryption, and masking: Against a truly determined person, there is probably nothing you can do to protect your commission!

Motivation: $100.00 product cost less $50.00 commission earned equals $50.00 in savings.

Regards,

Stephen :-)

Edited by jspope, 27 January 2005 - 12:56 PM.

[Miroslav]

Thank you, Shane, for your input!

Actually, I've seen plenty of reports from web site owners who have been penalized by Yahoo for running sites that were "full of affiliate links.

That's what I heard, too (about Google and MSN), but nothing conclusive. Do you have any specific examples/research/reports we could look at?

As far as the way affiliate links are coded, if the above can be confirmed (including the part where editor has to come and inspect your site before it's penalized), even from search engine point of view it seems better to use 301 redirects, rather than leaving the links unchanged and screaming, "I am an affiliate link!".

Any takes on this, or have we exhausted this topic?

Best wishes,
Miroslav

[MichaelM]

I don't have any research/backing on this; just my personal opinion about what I tend to do. I like it when a site is completely open with me. If their link is an affiliate link, I like to know (I always look at the status bar before clicking a link). I have no problem with them making their money, and if I find that a certain website convinces me to sign up for xyz, then come the time that I want to sign up, I'll go out of my way to go back to the original site, and make sure they get their affiliate credit. (Eg. I've read Jill's thread about Freshbooks since she added them to HR. I don't need the service now, but if I did in the future, I'd be finding their website through the advert here).

I don't like the redirects because it just feels like you have something to hide (Well, I suppose you do have something to hide if you're doing this. It's not just a feeling. :? ). If you can't trust the site enough to link directly to it, then why should I trust them either? (My thoughts at least. )

What percentage of your visitors are A) smart enough to know how to do this and motivated enough to do it? Remember, a vast number of people still type the website's URL into a search engine to get to a site. Those people obviously fail test A.

What does that have to do with intelligence?

I do that as well, and it's nothing to do with intelligence. It's convenience. I can't remember the last time I needed to remember a domain suffix. I just fire the site's name into my Google Toolbar, hit "I'm feeling lucky," et voila, site loaded. (It's also good on principle I think, because it means that a domain being .com isn't important to me, so the evil domain squatters can get lost. )

[Jill]

Dug up an old thread here, Michael!

FWIW, the Freshbooks ad isn't an affiliate link.