&amp, in URL's

[T.J.]

I have recently started using affiliate links on some of
my pages and find that virtually everyone who provides
these links use & in the links rather than &
I'm not sure whether it effects the tracking if I
correct these so haven't bothered to date.
What problems can it actually cause by just leaving the
links with & in them (apart from the fact it stops the
pages validating) and how can I be sure it doesn't
effect the links if I adjust them?
TIA.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I have recently started using affiliate links on some of
my pages and find that virtually everyone who provides
these links use & in the links rather than &

If "affiliate links" are a form of trying to fool search engines, then I
would not be surprised at technical incompetence in doing that.

What problems can it actually cause by just leaving the
links with & in them (apart from the fact it stops the
pages validating)

So you apparently know what's correct, and you're asking whether doing
things wrong will hurt. Well, the links stop working some day, on some
browsers. Other things could happen too, of course. A browser may refuse to
render a malformed document. But that will probably only happen after a few
years, unless you move to XHTML.

and how can I be sure it doesn't
effect the links if I adjust them?

I don't know the game you're playing, so I can't tell whether you could
avoid losing.

 

[Richard]

I have recently started using affiliate links on some of
my pages and find that virtually everyone who provides
these links use & in the links rather than &
I'm not sure whether it effects the tracking if I
correct these so haven't bothered to date.
What problems can it actually cause by just leaving the
links with & in them (apart from the fact it stops the
pages validating) and how can I be sure it doesn't
effect the links if I adjust them?
TIA.

www.validator.w3.org/

Run your links through the validator and see what happens.

"Error: & is not acceptable in the url. Instead, use &amp".

There should be no reason for any browser not to accept the &amp.
After all, it is one of the 255 defined ascii character codes.

 

[T.J.]

If "affiliate links" are a form of trying to fool search engines, then I
would not be surprised at technical incompetence in doing that.


So you apparently know what's correct, and you're asking whether doing
things wrong will hurt. Well, the links stop working some day, on some
browsers. Other things could happen too, of course. A browser may refuse
to
render a malformed document. But that will probably only happen after a
few
years, unless you move to XHTML.


I don't know the game you're playing, so I can't tell whether you could
avoid losing.

The links have nothing to do with fooling search engines, it is just
a way of tracking the leads I am sending to the merchants.
If the tracking isn't working I don't earn my commission and may as
well not have the links there at all.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

If "affiliate links" are a form of trying to fool search engines, then I
would not be surprised at technical incompetence in doing that.

Why is it that many replies assume that someone is doing something
'vilain' by asking a certain question?
It surprises me, that a lot of the replying 'pros' think, that a lot of
the OPs are most certainly planning or doing something which is not
allowed. Why is this? Is it because we made the experience that there is
a *bad* world outside, and we have to fight abuse at all costs and any
time, or is it just because we assume there must be something wrong
because of the slightly weird nature of the question?
If the later is the case, then we should consider the fact, that we were
once asking the same questions to someone we considered being a
professional as well, hence we were (and hopefully still are) learning
by asking weird questions.
Is my observation just plain wrong, or do others have this feeling here
as well?

cheers
bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

If "affiliate links" are a form of trying to fool search engines, then I
would not be surprised at technical incompetence in doing that.

Why is it that many replies assume that someone is doing something
'vilain' by asking a certain question?
It surprises me, that a lot of the replying 'pros' think, that a lot of
the OPs are most certainly planning or doing something which is not
allowed. Why is this? Is it because we made the experience that there is
a *bad* world outside, and we have to fight abuse at all costs and any
time, or is it just because we assume there must be something wrong
because of the slightly weird nature of the question?
If the later is the case, then we should consider the fact, that we were
once asking the same questions to someone we considered being a
professional as well, hence we were (and hopefully still are) learning
by asking weird questions.
Is my observation just plain wrong, or do others have this feeling here
as well?

cheers
bernhard

 

[T.J.]

www.validator.w3.org/

Run your links through the validator and see what happens.

"Error: & is not acceptable in the url. Instead, use &amp".

There should be no reason for any browser not to accept the &amp.
After all, it is one of the 255 defined ascii character codes.

I'm not asking whether browsers accept the &
I'm asking whether altering the links supplied by the affiliate
networks can have any effect on how the links are tracked?
I'm also asking what effect using & instead of & actually has?
I've seen thousands of pages which simply use & and have tried
them in a range of different browsers, with no problems occurring.
Until I am 100% sure that adjusting the links wont effect the tracking,
I am more inclined to leave them as they are.

 

[T.J.]

Why is it that many replies assume that someone is doing something
'vilain' by asking a certain question?
It surprises me, that a lot of the replying 'pros' think, that a lot of
the OPs are most certainly planning or doing something which is not
allowed. Why is this? Is it because we made the experience that there is
a *bad* world outside, and we have to fight abuse at all costs and any
time, or is it just because we assume there must be something wrong
because of the slightly weird nature of the question?
If the later is the case, then we should consider the fact, that we were
once asking the same questions to someone we considered being a
professional as well, hence we were (and hopefully still are) learning
by asking weird questions.
Is my observation just plain wrong, or do others have this feeling here
as well?

cheers
bernhard

Hi Bernhard,
I agree with you, but just don't let these things bother me anymore.
The amount of times a simple question is asked, but the person
is jumped on, or someone tries to read something else in to the
question amazes me.
Like I said, it just doesn't bother me any more.
Thanks for the comment though.

 

[Oli Filth]

I'm not asking whether browsers accept the &
I'm asking whether altering the links supplied by the affiliate
networks can have any effect on how the links are tracked?
I'm also asking what effect using & instead of & actually has?
I've seen thousands of pages which simply use & and have tried
them in a range of different browsers, with no problems occurring.
Until I am 100% sure that adjusting the links wont effect the tracking,
I am more inclined to leave them as they are.

The answer is that using & instead of & is invalid HTML that the
majority of browsers happen to accept. In the same way that
<B>word<I>word</B>word</I> is inavlid, but will generally be parsed
without complaint either.

In the future, with the emergence of (X)HTML Strict, such things may no
longer be tolerated by browsers.

So yes, if you want valid HTML (which is a sensible aim to have), then
change the links.

 

[Si]

I have recently started using affiliate links on some of
my pages and find that virtually everyone who provides
these links use & in the links rather than &amp;

From my experience with commission junction, (I cannot comment on other
ad systems) if you are using their html links within your page, then you
can change them without issues to &amp; as they are only seeing the
referrer ID, ad ID and checking their cookie, (unless the cookie is
blocked of course!) I couldn't comment on the dynamic JS ad sets though
as they use document.write and you have no access to change the served
source.

&amp; in the html link will still render as & in the browser location
URI so difference would be detected in the referer logs, although it is
the aff ID that is tracked anyway.

HTH
Si

 

[Si]

From my experience with commission junction, (I cannot comment on other
ad systems) if you are using their html links within your page, then you
can change them without issues to &amp; as they are only seeing the
referrer ID, ad ID and checking their cookie, (unless the cookie is
blocked of course!) I couldn't comment on the dynamic JS ad sets though
as they use document.write and you have no access to change the served
source.

&amp; in the html link will still render as & in the browser location
URI so difference would be detected in the referer logs, although it is

^---------------|
Oops, insert 'no' here |

 

[Si]

^---------------|
Oops, insert 'no' here |

ARSE ... Screwed that up, word wrap not on, Oh well...
Sorry guys

Si

 

[T.J.]

From my experience with commission junction, (I cannot comment on other ad
systems) if you are using their html links within your page, then you can
change them without issues to &amp; as they are only seeing the referrer
ID, ad ID and checking their cookie, (unless the cookie is blocked of
course!) I couldn't comment on the dynamic JS ad sets though as they use
document.write and you have no access to change the served source.

&amp; in the html link will still render as & in the browser location URI
so difference would be detected in the referer logs, although it is the
aff ID that is tracked anyway.

HTH
Si

Thank you Si,
I don't actually use CJ but use 3 or 4 other networks and they all
seem to just use &, it's a bit of a pain having to alter them all and
assume others find it annoying too.
Maybe if enough of us complained, they would do something about it

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Hi Bernhard,
I agree with you, but just don't let these things bother me anymore.
The amount of times a simple question is asked, but the person
is jumped on, or someone tries to read something else in to the
question amazes me.

I am just afraid that a lot of newbies will never dare to ask their
questions, because of the fact that they get jumped on.

bernhard

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I am just afraid that a lot of newbies will never dare to ask their
questions, because of the fact that they get jumped on.

Seeing how many newbies show up in here, I'd say your fear is unfounded.
And remember, it's a newsgroup, not a cuddling group.


Matthias

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Seeing how many newbies show up in here, I'd say your fear is unfounded.
And remember, it's a newsgroup, not a cuddling group.

I absolutely have no problems with being bluntly open, and I think it's
absolutely neccessary to have straight foreward discussions. I've been
in NGs for quite some time now (almost 10 years now), and I can tell,
that I have some experience with the tone of certain NGs (it's very
different depending on the language, and the subjects ;-)
But I observed here a tone which is influenced by second guessings and
sometimes coupled with prejudices about other posters. It's just an
observation I made in the short time I've been at alt.html, and for sure
it's not a very founded one

just my two cents
bernhard

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, Bernhard Sturm ([email protected]) feverishly
typed...
[...]

Is it because we made the experience that there
is a *bad* world outside

[...]

There's a world outside??? What happens there??? ;-)

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

It surprises me, that a lot of the replying 'pros' think, that a lot of
the OPs are most certainly planning or doing something which is not
allowed. Why is this?

Because unwillingness to tell what you are really doing
is so often caused by its being morally or practically questionable.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

The answer is that using & instead of &amp; is invalid HTML

It depends. In URLs, it is almost always incorrect, but &foo is not
invalid, just incorrect and undefined.

that the
majority of browsers happen to accept.

No, this depends on the context and on the browser. There's an old story
about this: http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/reasons.html

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

[...]

There's a world outside??? What happens there??? ;-)

I don't know.. haven't checked it for quite some time now