Should we automatically add our affiliate code to outgoing links to Bundle Stars?
Yes! Ref links don't disturb the page layout, users could still use the link without referral if they want to and you gather something for further improvements of the SG.
Just being curious: why exactly BundleStars? Do the other "legal" and common bundle sites don't pay for referrals?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with any advertising. This site isn't free to run, so any revenue that helps can't be a bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very kind of you to run it by the community first.
I think it's OK. You provide a great service to us.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no problem with SteamGifts using what revenue streams it can so long as it doesn't negatively impact users. This has no negative impact..
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I'm okay with it, since you asked and it would benefit the site. I don't like ref-links, but I understand that sites need to make money and it's certainly better than, say, intrusive advertising.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, let's see a resume of the suggestions:
1) Just put more ads.
2) Have an option for people to enable or disable the site's ref links.
3) The site can have ref links and all users too, but the users must put their ref links only in their own giveaways, in order to avoid spam.
Keep notes, cg. :B Pretty decent suggestions so far, right? >_>
Comment has been collapsed.
I think #2 is a great option for the roughly 23% that don't like the idea (that have seen this post & voted) ... allow the auto-referral to be disabled by users in their profile so it won't be inserted when that user clicks applicable links. Technically, however, it may be a great deal more complicated to implement something like this as opposed to a site-wide all-or-none option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Credits go to Caerbannog for the 2nd suggestion.
Yeah, it's kinda rude to enforce ref links into people's own comments, so it's a great idea to have an option to disable that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hell yeah! If anyone should get the money it should go to the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would suggest an option for an opt-out (not an opt-in). Either for "When I post, don't add referal links." or "When I view a post, don't add a referal link."
As long as the revenue goes to keeping this site up and running, I'm perfectly fine with the links, but I understand how it can be a touchy subject for some.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wish you had put an "Ambivalent" option. Do whatever's best for the site. We all benefit so much as it is, go ahead and ignore the wankers who bitch and moan about it being unfair. They might want to do it to line their pockets, whereas any revenues for the site go to operational upkeep. Totally different things.
I'm just not sure about Bundle Stars. I see their bundles getting publicity in the forums, but not so much their standard game sales. Humble would seem to be a better option for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also: if you do it, please, don't do a half-assed job. Humble has an affiliate program as well. So does GreenMan Gaming and GamersGate. (I am not sure if the GOG one is still a thing or not.) Maybe something could be arranged with DailyIndieGame as well. If you go this way, at least add some choices to where people can buy the games from to funnel some money into the site instead of looking like SG sold out to Bundle Stars.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 to this - would love to see exophyn (sorry if spelt wrong) and DIG included in this program, as that is a site where the user actively engages here and attempts to resolve this and make things better
Comment has been collapsed.
In addition to that, potential refs could be openly shared via announcement with e.g. the bundle thread creators, so that they'd be able to add them or simply ask Sighery to implement such things in his chart script, since they all seem to use it anyway... would be a much cleaner and more transparent way to do this IMO.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't like ads, even here, so sorry.
but i would click those links if i can (or i must buy to get you money?) anyway, i "approve"
Comment has been collapsed.
5% of purchases go to the affiliates, so you need to click the link and buy something in that session.
Comment has been collapsed.
i took a mid long sleep and i don't think that's a good idea and im pretty sure i will never click such a link because i never did before...^^
DONATION OPTION PLS and NO REFS !
Comment has been collapsed.
I have just seen this post, after I have posted mine.
But...
People aren't allowed to post links with referrals.
is going to become
People are allowed to post links with referrals. Though they will automatically be replaced with cg referrals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nikola's comment was spot on regarding your input.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would support this way of doing it, in that case : https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/kboZXN0
Comment has been collapsed.
Big difference between referrals for the benefit of the website (and consequently the community) vs personal referrals - which would open the website to referral flooding as people would try to take advantage of it for personal gain. I think the two are very dissimilar.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would vote yes, but then I want to see Groupees, Bundle Stars, Indiegala, Humble Bundle etc. Other bundle websites linked, so I can clearly see if the game is available also from another bundle at the moment, not just Bundle Stars. And if it's only Bundle Stars then, at least for me, post in the Discussions is enough. ^_^
Comment has been collapsed.
What if one of the popular UserScript creators injects a code to the source of, I don't know, SG++ that also adds its own referral to any link you post to a certain store, only to upkeep their own cost of developing the script. Would you also support that?
Comment has been collapsed.
there's one 3rd party tool that already does it. just ask cg for an exception and you are good to go. 👍
Comment has been collapsed.
First off, that's an entirely different matter (eg, in structure, scale of development, massive difference in upkeep considerations, etc), so it's irrelevant for direct comparison; second, it's a script- that is, a self-contained extension you have full control over. You can choose whether it is worth using or not using based off its own merits, same as you can SteamGifts.
Thus, if you feel the script is worth supporting in that manner, then yes, it's worth supporting. If not, you can simply avoid the script. So long as they make it clear what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with the approach. As such, your comparison is more "If another site were to do the same thing, would you support them in that?!"- and the answer is, intuitively, "Yes, if I felt they were worth that support; no, if I felt otherwise."
..of course, it is a script, so you can very easily and quickly just manually edit out that portion once and never have to worry about it again.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's cool you're even asking. Most people sure as hell wouldn't donate/subscribe to the site and I prefer this as the way for sites to make money rather than ads (especially ones that get through ad blockers).
Comment has been collapsed.
How much does SG cost you per month? And do you think that you can cover all costs with ref links?
Comment has been collapsed.
The website I am a Mod for (Canadian Deals Website) makes it optional. It auto adds the affiliate link for the website for all links posted that are compatible, but it does so as a secondary link it automatically adds after the main link the user posted. That way people have a choice, they can click the affiliate link and give the site the pennies or they can click the clean link and go about their business without the ref link,
Format looks like:
Clean URL to Deal {Affiliate Link)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for this suggestion.
I think this is a clean way to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why we need a middle term since there is absolutely no negative impact on user's experiences/purchases/etc., although, It might be something to consider since we can see that people don't want to be enforced to, even tho it's the same as before with the slight difference it would support this website too.
Comment has been collapsed.
While you see no impact on user's experience, some people do not like being enforced without other options. And this may have a negative impact.
Anyway, the user experience is probably not the first criteria since adding more ads does impact user experience.
Tbh, I still don't understand why donation options are not available yet, before even considering automatically adding referrals to everyone (not so numerous) external links.
Who likes to see his posts edited ?
There is like no development time for adding a donate link. Just make an announcement and it is done.
Maybe some psychological or other unknown barriers ?
I am glad original question has been posted so our opinions can be heard, but will they get used ?
If you don't provide optional opt-out (leaving original links unedited or option in user settings), then people will automatically remove referrals, the same way they are added. People eventually just counters things for the fun of it.
Don't you want to bet on users happily clicking on alternative shinny referral versions of links ?
Comment has been collapsed.
The only downside is users perceiving the situation like that, referring to "some people do not like being enforced without other options.".
I can agree with that on a general basis, but regarding your "Who likes to see his posts edited", the editing won't be visible until someone clicks the store link and discloses the referral in the url.
Tbh, I still don't understand why donation options are not available yet
There is also something planned which was already posted in a previous thread. Have no idea if it will take too long or not.
I am glad original question has been posted so our opinions can be heard, but will they get used ?
I don't know how cg is going to perceive that, maybe he'll try to find a middle term (giving the option to have referrals added, to be disabled) or some sort. Meanwhile this was just to see if the majority would agree to see if it would be worth to be implemented
Comment has been collapsed.
Format looks like:
Clean URL to Deal {Affiliate Link)
That's possibly the most typical manner in which I've seen it done on other deals/forum websites, including many of the ones I designed/managed in the past. Then again, those sites were a bit more broad in scope- for SG, it really doesn't make sense to clutter visuals with something that seems pretty straightforward to supporting the site without any issue to site users (especially since it's typically quite easy to remove a reflink after clicking a link).
On the other hand, maybe the 'opt-in' suggestion people have been making should be modified to a recommendation of an account setting that vanishes the non-affiliate link or not. Thus, the only two options are 'visual clutter + ability to easily choose not to support the site' and 'no visual clutter + automatically support the site'.
That gives a combination of complete freedom to ignore supporting the site, and also a perk (of less visual clutter) for people that choose to support the site by default.
It feels like a win-win setup for all perspectives involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only downside I could see is users might feel it's unfair that we ask everyone not to use referral links, and then we would be automatically attaching one of our own.
You said it. It makes it a hypocrisy no matter what your perceived intention or reputation may be. I say perceived because you can no more 'prove' what is done with the revenue generated from ads and the like than some random person posting their own referral links around the internet can. Sorry, but no. It's a shame that more people don't seem to care about double standards around here or are voting yes merely out of altruism without carefully thinking things through.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe users do see the double standards since it's clearly out on the open, however, I also believe that there are several types of double standards. This one particularly should be seen as a more complex one, instead of just "You asked us not do to it, but you're doing it".
Standard 1: When posting links or content, that content should not force users, encourage users through reward, or primarily exist as a traffic source for users to perform an action for a promotional, commercial, or monetary benefit. Such actions include but are not limited to clicking a referral link.
If we'd allow this, the forum would be flooded with referrals, people would make GA's just to farm their referrals on others, would flood the forum with such threads and would create a bloody mess. Nothing good comes from that standard.
Standard 2: We could automatically add our affiliate code to links that users are posting throughout SteamGifts to Bundle Stars. By doing so the site would earn a commission on sales, and likely generate a few extra dollars per day.
There won't be any distress or differences on user experience, and the website will be supported, even if by a little. Users already buy bundles, so I don't see anything wrong with a 5% cut to go towards hosting the website.
The only downside is users perceiving the situation as you are right now.
This is my opinion as user and not as a support member.
Comment has been collapsed.
If we'd allow this, the forum would be flooded with referrals, people would make GA's just to farm their referrals on others, would flood the forum with such threads and would create a bloody mess. Nothing good comes from that standard.
I would hope that my criticism wouldn't be taken as somehow advocating that such things be permitted unilaterally. Nay, I simply don't approve of the nature of what is a hypocrisy as I see it.
so I don't see anything wrong with a 5% cut to go towards hosting the website.
Says you. Why should your cause somehow be more worthy than someone else's? Merely because you say so? No offense, but I don't just take anyone's word for it in particular when money/revenue becomes involved. From Digital Homicide, to scumbag Sammy from Hookups, to stories in the news about accountants and attorneys that cheat little old ladies out of their savings, and beyond, if there is one thing to be cynical about it's the exploitation of others for personal gain. How would we really know what is being done with the money? And what about the advertising revenue being generated by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users? I'm sorry, but short of a finance audit by a professional independent third-party documenting all of the details of the site, I wouldn't necessarily trust anything. I would offer to pay for one but I can't afford it. As soon as I win the lottery.
This is my opinion as user and not as a support member.
Not sure what your point in mentioning this was, but if the implication is that you are somehow unbiased..... well for the purposes of this discussion the mere fact that you are on the staff puts you in a unique position inherently subject to bias. That's not to say that it should be precluded from having merit, but unbiased? I think not. I might sooner believe a citizen of North Korea to give an unbiased opinion about the Western world.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi, a quick question for the community. Bundle Stars has a fairly good reputation here, and their deals are frequently shared. We could automatically add our affiliate code to links that users are posting throughout SteamGifts to Bundle Stars. By doing so the site would earn a commission on sales, and likely generate a few extra dollars per day. The only downside I could see is users might feel it's unfair that we ask everyone not to use referral links, and then we would be automatically attaching one of our own. On the plus side, it would generate additional revenue with basically no impact on users.
Vote below. If the majority vote Yes in the poll, we'll run a test for a while. Thanks!
Edit: Closed. Please refer to Affiliate Links for further information.
Comment has been collapsed.