Why did you put the script up for once? And how do you think to answer to those users who lost their fees? The month before you changed the code I gained 36 dollars in referrals fees from Amazon, the month before that 35 dollars. This last month? with you "code" active? 6 dollars... If the count is good, you gained more or less 30 dollars that were rightly mine. Elisa Rolle
And BTW, can you also tell me why, when I opened a support request, one of your tech told me I had a spyware problem? I was very clear in my request, there was all the issue on the outboundlink explained, it was impossible to think that it was a spyware problem... did you have something to hide? or did you want to have time to gain more of my referrals fees? Elisa Rolle
I saw your request last night, and saw the "spyware problem" answer. Almost fell over. It took *balls* to try to blame you for LJ's own devious bullshit.
What it's really bothering me is that my support request, apparently the first to rise the issue, is still unanswered from LJ's side if not for that stupid answer on the spyware... Elisa
I wouldn't be surprised if Support simply had no idea that the code was running or maybe just not exactly what it entailed - the full information was probably never passed down to them. If you look at Marta's response here you can see how there were abilities promised that were never given. I imagine the info passed out was equally spotty, if there was info at all
( ... )
Actually now I'm more focused on some other department than Support, that is probably the same Department Support is waiting for an answer to give me. Yes, I know they probably didn't know at the time, even if, maybe, just as Amazon did, they could have tested the link I gave them instead of suggesting the spyware problem. BUT after I gave them more comments to understand? why 1 month later I'm still waiting for a good answer? Again, I'm not blaming Support, I'm blaming the people Support is waiting.
I mean, sure, ideally they (Support) should've tested it themselves by posting an Amazon link of their own, that's what test journals are for,
There is an opt-out described here which makes these munged links behave as expected again (i.e. directing to the correct site, with the user's referral code intact). I was surprised to discover it enabled on my own account, but after some reflection, I remembered that it had been provided several years ago (I'm not sure exactly when, might have been in the Six Apart days) as part of some other code release (some sort of tracking thing, maybe, I really can't remember the details).
If anyone investigating the initial reports had set that opt-out, they would probably also have not remembered that they had done so. And then when they investigated, they would not have reproduced the behaviour that elisa-rolle described in her report, and there's a good chance that they would have then concluded that the problem was not with LJ.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
There is an opt-out described here which makes these munged links behave as expected again (i.e. directing to the correct site, with the user's referral code intact). I was surprised to discover it enabled on my own account, but after some reflection, I remembered that it had been provided several years ago (I'm not sure exactly when, might have been in the Six Apart days) as part of some other code release (some sort of tracking thing, maybe, I really can't remember the details).
If anyone investigating the initial reports had set that opt-out, they would probably also have not remembered that they had done so. And then when they investigated, they would not have reproduced the behaviour that elisa-rolle described in her report, and there's a good chance that they would have then concluded that the problem was not with LJ.
(edited to correct link)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment