Talk:Cookie stuffing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that you could be sentenced to serve time in prison for stuffing cookies? Source: Edelman, Benjamin G.; Brandi, Wesley (2013). "Risk, Information and Incentives in Online Affiliate Marketing". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2358110. ISSN 1556-5068.

Improved to Good Article status by Sohom Datta (talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • New GA, well cited (AGF some paywalled) and written, no copyvio apparent. @Sohom Datta: Consider not naming the account manager per WP:LPNAME. QPQ present, all hooks work except ALT1 (not sure what "sweet" or "treat" refers to...). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. "Sweet treats" was refering to the more traditional cookie stuffing (like oreo etc) :) Sohom (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

@Sohom Datta: As requested, I took a quick look at this article. Here are a couple of things I think need to be addressed before considering a trip to FAC. I tried to keep it to broad strokes, but there are a few times I couldn't resist a specific comment.

  • "dubious techniques" seems like a neutrality issue.
  • popups ads → pop-up ads
  • "Legitimate affiliates might lose potential customers as a result of this practice." reads like a non sequitur and is borderline speculative in the context it's in.
  • I see a few contractions like "didn't" in the lead.
  • "draw in a more targeted audience and drive sales" seems like business management jargon. Is there a way to clarify this or be more specific about the goals of affiliate marketing? Same comment for the lead.
  • The text in the image is illegible at normal sizes and serves next to no function on its own. Like we discussed on Cross-site leaks, try to keep the images as free of text as possible, which can instead go in the captions. The visual elements themselves, rather than a mockup view of the user's browser, should be a diagrammatic representation of the concept.
  • "This can be done with an iframe or a pop-up ad." That doesn't really explain anything to a layperson.
  • § Fraud could have a better title. The entire article refers to fraud or fraud-adjacent behavior, so that label isn't an accurate representation of what a reader could find there.
  • The initialisms in parentheses CPS, FTC, and FBI can be removed as they're not used anywhere else.
  • In a similar vein, HTTP is used without first being set up.
  • "in the wild" ???
  • I'm not comfortable enough in this topic area to judge whether the sources represent a comprehensive view of the literature, but double-check that you've included every reasonable source and given it due weight.
  • Like I said earlier, I tried not to get in the weeds with a prose review, but the article definitely needs a good copyedit for clarity.

Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the article for a GOCE, I'll address the rest when the copyedit is done :) Sohom (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cookie_stuffing&oldid=1234166042"