WSO with A Twist! Learn more here

by rahmat
46 replies
Hello there!

My name is Rahmat and I'm not a marketing guru. But anyway, I've got something that I think will be useful for you. I want to share it here, right now right away.

That "something" is actually a twist. The twist I am going to say is very useful, even if you are an expert on WSO. (keep reading)

Have you heard of website statistics software like Google Analytics, Statcounter, Awstat, Webalizer, etc ?

If you have a website or blog, most probably you have heard and using it. That's a good start. If you don't, I will explain to you here:

What these website statistics software do?

What they do is to collect data from your website's or blog's visitors.
Depending on which statistics software you used, some will give you more detailed/simpler data.
Example of the collected data are:
  • How many visitors per hour/day/month/year
  • How long is the visit length
  • What is the most popular page
  • Entry page and Exit page
  • Where your visitor come from
  • What keyword the visitor search
  • What search engine gives you more visitors
  • Whether the visitor is a new or repeat visitor
  • What browser your visitor use
These data are useful to understand your visitors profile.

Here is the twist... (keep reading...)

Do you know that you can use this technique for your own WSO at Warrior Forum?

Yes, you can track your WSO statistics similar with how you track your website's statistics. Nowadays if you create a WSO thread, you are allowed to put interactive media such as images, and youtube video. You can use this to your advantage, to put the statistics software code on it.

But Rahmat, isn't usually the code in javascript, while WSO does not allow javascript code?

Yes, that is true. Most statistics software generates code in javascript language. Unlike in your website, this kind of language is not supported in WSO thread.

So here is another twist:
Use statistics software that able to produce code in image format.

My personal pick is Statcounter. It has free version which is great for most of you.
The idea is to put the Statcounter code in your WSO thread. EDIT: Since mod is strongly against invisible image code, I would use visible image code.

Using image code provides basic stats (nothing fancy). Note that the image code has some limitations; it cannot record some elements such as keywords, referring page, etc. Despite the limitations, I feel that this technique still worth it. It enables more detailed stats of your WSO visitors.

That's great Rahmat, but why would you use this technique?

It is similar with why you would track your website's visitors. That is to understand your visitors profile. You can know whether certain WSO campaign is successful or not.

Without stats code, you can only see the rough number of view. It is hard to gain an insight out of it.



With stats code, you can have more data available:







If there are many interest in this topic, in the next part, I am going to show you step-by-step how to install Statcounter code in your WSO thread. Meanwhile, you can comment here if you have any questions.

EDIT: This is how the visible statcounter image looks like:
#learn #statcounter #statistics #twist #wso
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    Maybe I am wrong but I would have thought the inclusion of any images that are not indeed images would not be allowed on a forum like this. It can very easily start to get abused and misused with people cloaking affiliate links in images.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919662].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rahmat
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      Maybe I am wrong but I would have thought the inclusion of any images that are not indeed images would not be allowed on a forum like this. It can very easily start to get abused and misused with people cloaking affiliate links in images.
      Hi WillR,

      The inclusion of statistics code as an image is for good purpose. Currently if you post a new WSO, you won't get any statistics of your WSO thread except from the number of views of the thread.

      It would be nice if Allen can provide this feature "built-in" inside the WSO section. But since there is no such function right now, I think Statcounter image code is a good alternative.

      With regards to possible misuses with affiliate links, I believe we have solid banning system. Rules, mod, admin, and members can filter this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919770].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Barrs
    I think he might be talking about dropping in a small 1 px image (or similar) and the stat-counter service tracks that image's movements.

    Of course, it would be totally screwed when one of the slug sites that rip your WSO sales data and paste it into their own site without your buy links.

    (not that that ever happens!)

    Paul
    Signature
    **********
    It's Simple... I don't "sell" IM anymore, but still do lots of YouTube Videos
    **********
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919709].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rahmat
      Originally Posted by Paul Barrs View Post

      I think he might be talking about dropping in a small 1 px image (or similar) and the stat-counter service tracks that image's movements.

      Of course, it would be totally screwed when one of the slug sites that rip your WSO sales data and paste it into their own site without your buy links.

      (not that that ever happens!)

      Paul
      Hi Paul,

      Yes, invisible image code refers to small 1px image or similar. Depending on your needs, you can pick different code from Statcounter, for it to be visible icon or small 1px image.

      As for the slug sites, I did not know that they exist. Perhaps they are affiliates of your WSO?

      But, since you mentioned it, I think it would not cause a deviation in your stats data, since your code is only associated to one URI address.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919791].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
    I notice you have the 1-pixel image link in your OP in this thread. People in the past have used stuff like that here for affiliate cookie stuffing, and possibly more insidious purposes. So I don't know if we want to encourage people to start putting invisible images in their threads. In the past, when the mods find that sort of thing in someone's post, it's immediately deleted (and often the poster is deleted, too).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919884].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rahmat
      Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      I notice you have the 1-pixel image link in your OP in this thread. People in the past have used stuff like that here for affiliate cookie stuffing, and possibly more insidious purposes. So I don't know if we want to encourage people to start putting invisible images in their threads. In the past, when the mods find that sort of thing in someone's post, it's immediately deleted (and often the poster is deleted, too).
      Hi Ken Strong,

      I see. Since the invisible image code is not allowed, thus I proposed to use visible image stats code.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4923615].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Ken said:
    In the past, when the mods find that sort of thing in someone's post, it's immediately deleted (and often the poster is deleted, too).
    Amen.

    I doubt we're going to change that assumption any time soon, folks. I strongly recommend against using invisible images, unless you want a vacation from the forum.

    Using a visible image that's hosted on your server is fine. It's a useful way to tell the approximate number of unique visitors to your thread, which tells you a lot more than the forum's count alone does.

    Consider: You see two threads. One with 250 views listed and only 3 replies. The other has 1200 views listed, and 40 replies. Which has been seen by more people?

    Answer: You don't know. Based on only the stats that show in the forum, you haven't a clue.

    Hard to judge the effective conversion rate of an offer with that kind of vagueness in the stats, yes?


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920393].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matthew Shane Roe
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Ken said:Amen.

      I doubt we're going to change that assumption any time soon, folks. I strongly recommend against using invisible images, unless you want a vacation from the forum.

      Using a visible image that's hosted on your server is fine. It's a useful way to tell the approximate number of unique visitors to your thread, which tells you a lot more than the forum's count alone does.

      Consider: You see two threads. One with 250 views listed and only 3 replies. The other has 1200 views listed, and 40 replies. Which has been seen by more people?

      Answer: You don't know. Based on only the stats that show in the forum, you haven't a clue.

      Hard to judge the effective conversion rate of an offer with that kind of vagueness in the stats, yes?


      Paul

      So an image on our own server is fine,

      What about ones like in the OP that the service site hosts the image and will have to for the actual tracking of the views?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920520].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WillR
        Originally Posted by Skid_Roe View Post

        So an image on our own server is fine,

        What about ones like in the OP that the service site hosts the image and will have to for the actual tracking of the views?
        I think the problem is when you are using an 'invisible' image. If the image is visible then I am sure you can host that image wherever you like - some people might host their images on Amazon S3 or free image hosting sites.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920615].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi,

          RE - cookie-stuffing -

          There was a well known issue with a large auction site's affiliate program and a large IM forum, not so long back.

          I imagine there could also be problems with the WSO affiliate program too - I know that vendors aren't keen on seeing their conversion rates ruined by affiliates inflating their stats without making sales by sending bad traffic, so I imagine if anyone started cookie-stuffing in this manner, they would be found out quickly and find it hard to get accepted as a WSO affiliate.

          My point here -

          Of course, I'm not a mod, but I still think it's a bad idea for a poster to even suggest using tiny images for stat tracking purposes on the forum, because if it were allowed at all, the cookie-stuffing would surely follow.
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921088].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rahmat
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            Hi,

            RE - cookie-stuffing -

            There was a well known issue with a large auction site's affiliate program and a large IM forum, not so long back.

            I imagine there could also be problems with the WSO affiliate program too - I know that vendors aren't keen on seeing their conversion rates ruined by affiliates inflating their stats without making sales by sending bad traffic, so I imagine if anyone started cookie-stuffing in this manner, they would be found out quickly and find it hard to get accepted as a WSO affiliate.

            My point here -

            Of course, I'm not a mod, but I still think it's a bad idea for a poster to even suggest using tiny images for stat tracking purposes on the forum, because if it were allowed at all, the cookie-stuffing would surely follow.
            Hi ExRat,

            After I found out about potential misuse of invisible images, and mod strongly against invisible image, I changed my proposal to use visible images for stats purpose.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4923651].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rahmat
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Ken said:Amen.

      I doubt we're going to change that assumption any time soon, folks. I strongly recommend against using invisible images, unless you want a vacation from the forum.

      Using a visible image that's hosted on your server is fine. It's a useful way to tell the approximate number of unique visitors to your thread, which tells you a lot more than the forum's count alone does.

      Consider: You see two threads. One with 250 views listed and only 3 replies. The other has 1200 views listed, and 40 replies. Which has been seen by more people?

      Answer: You don't know. Based on only the stats that show in the forum, you haven't a clue.

      Hard to judge the effective conversion rate of an offer with that kind of vagueness in the stats, yes?


      Paul
      Wow... Paul Myers replied my thread.
      I'm so excited!

      Hi Paul,

      If the visible image that's hosted on our server is fine, then how about visible image that's hosted on 3rd party (such as Statcounter)?

      As WillR noted that the problem is when an 'invisible' image is used... So my guess is that hosting on 3rd party server is allowed as long as the image must be a visible image.

      Please clarify.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4923638].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Consider: You see two threads. One with 250 views listed and only 3 replies. The other has 1200 views listed, and 40 replies. Which has been seen by more people?

      Answer: You don't know. Based on only the stats that show in the forum, you haven't a clue.
      Paul,

      You lost me on that one...can you explain that a wee bit more for us dummies?

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4924108].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Matthew Shane Roe
        Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

        Paul,

        You lost me on that one...can you explain that a wee bit more for us dummies?

        ~Bill

        I'm not Paul but maybe I can explain how I took it?

        From what I'm gathering what he means is that you won't be able to fully find out how many TRUE views that thread has..

        For instance.. The thread with only three replies may very well be fully unique views.. While the thread with 40 replies you can almost be certain that many of those views are people coming back to see if they were responded to, or something of that nature.

        The forum only shows they amount of times a thread has been viewed. You have no true way of knowing how many of those views are unique and how many are people coming back into the thread.

        Paul, is that close to what you were saying?

        Regards,

        Matt
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4924147].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Matt,

          Thanks for that explaination. It makes sense.

          For some reason my brain wasn't putting Pauls' statements together.

          (Not the first time that has happened...:p)

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4924172].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Matthew Shane Roe
            Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

            Matt,

            Thanks for that explaination. It makes sense.

            For some reason my brain wasn't putting Pauls' statements together.

            (Not the first time that has happened...:p)

            ~Bill
            Won't be the last either

            I have trouble deciphering the language of Paul myself sometimes

            Matt
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4924177].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Rahmat,

              If you're excited because I replied in your thread, you need to get out more.

              Yes, it's fine if it's hosted on Statcounter or somewhere like that.

              Will,

              Those don't show the blue box in every browser. Actually, Safari is the only one I know of that shows them that way by default. I'm not sure it's even possible to have FF do that.

              If it is, and anyone knows how to make that happen, please post the details here.

              Bill,

              Expanding on this example:
              Consider: You see two threads. One with 250 views listed and only 3 replies. The other has 1200 views listed, and 40 replies. Which has been seen by more people?

              Answer: You don't know. Based on only the stats that show in the forum, you haven't a clue.
              Every time a thread is reloaded, the view count increments by one. If you have ten people discussing something and they each reload the page for every reply, you can quickly get to 500 or more views with only those 10 people ever reading the thread.

              If someone sits there and keeps hitting Refresh, they can pump up the view count all by themselves. Not to mention that there are people who will drive that count up for a fee, using proxies and automated systems.

              On the flip side, a free offer with a view count of 250 and only 3 replies might have been seen by as many as 247 people.

              The only thing you can be relatively sure of is that no more people can have viewed the thread than the total number in the Views column.

              That also means nothing if the seller hosts the actual sales/order page on their own server and has people driving traffic directly to that page. You can potentially have more orders for an offer than there are views on this forum. I've seen situations where I suspected that to be the case.

              Here's the perfect example of statistics without context: On the average, every human being has one testicle.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925313].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Amitywill
                Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                On the average, every human being has one testicle.


                Paul
                Lol, actually there are many men out there who do only have
                one testicle and because I doubt there are many who have 3
                I would say that the average person has something like 75%
                of a testicle.

                In seriousness does WSO Pro track unique view counts? I
                forget.

                And yes, invisible images are bad and will lead to people thinking
                it's o.k to stuff cookies. But I like the idea of having the stat counter in
                your thread as it would be much better to have some real data instead
                of the inflated numbers that you get from the forum views tracker now.

                Will
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925418].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                  Are these invisible images the things I keep seeing in certain posts that are only visible when you have a look in the "see all posts by" bit? There are normally three image links in those.

                  Or is that something completely different?
                  Signature

                  Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925437].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    Richard,
                    Are these invisible images the things I keep seeing in certain posts that are only visible when you have a look in the "see all posts by" bit? There are normally three image links in those.
                    Yep. Those are almost always setting cookies for affiliate programs for hosting companies. If there's only one, it's usually a Clickbank product.

                    CB is really good about nuking affiliates who do that when they're reported. The hosting companies... not always so clear about how they handle that kind of abuse. But sometimes.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925450].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Amitywill
                    Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                    Are these invisible images the things I keep seeing in certain posts that are only visible when you have a look in the "see all posts by" bit? There are normally three image links in those.

                    Or is that something completely different?
                    Invisible images are often used by cookie stuffers.

                    Often where they've placed the invisible image
                    you will see a small white box with a cross or question
                    mark in it.

                    Other times you wont see anything at all but you
                    may see an affiliate link url in the page load bar.

                    If you click page source then you may find that the
                    person has placed code that loads their affiliate
                    url in your browser without you knowing.

                    i.e stuffing their cookies.

                    This was happening a lot in the internet marketing reviews
                    section but isn't happening so much now. In fact I haven't
                    seen it for ages.

                    Will
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925452].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author rahmat
                Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


                Those don't show the blue box in every browser. Actually, Safari is the only one I know of that shows them that way by default. I'm not sure it's even possible to have FF do that.

                If it is, and anyone knows how to make that happen, please post the details here.
                Hi Paul,

                After searching giant twisted internet with Google, I found this script that will show the missing images in FF.

                In summary, what you need to do is to install Greasemonkey addon, then download and activate the script provided.

                Here is how you can spot a simple cookie stuffing. Check it out here: Greasemonkey Script: Show Missing Images | Smashing Blog
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926237].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Oneman
    Good thing about this: better traffic statistics.

    Bad thing about this: cookie stuffing could be started within the WSO forum - meaning masses of money would be stolen from right here in the ethical boards.

    (I'm sure admin is aware of this potential - I'm going to drop them a message anyway - thanks for spotting the flaw)

    Famous,
    Oneman ;]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921174].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    Originally Posted by Oneman View Post

    Good thing about this: better traffic statistics.

    Bad thing about this: cookie stuffing could be started within the WSO forum - meaning masses of money would be stolen from right here in the ethical boards.

    (I'm sure admin is aware of this potential - I'm going to drop them a message anyway - thanks for spotting the flaw)

    Famous,
    Oneman ;]
    They are easy to spot though. If someone is using an invisible image on this forum it will show up as a blue box with a question mark inside it. If you come across any posts that have the little blue box in it then you should report the post to the mods immediately.

    It will look like this...



    (FYI Mods: The fake image url I have linked to above is http://www.warriorforum.com/testimage.gif)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4923844].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Barrs
      Originally Posted by rahmat View Post

      Wow... Paul Myers replied my thread.
      I'm so excited!
      ROFL!

      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      They are easy to spot though. If someone is using an invisible image on this forum it will show up as a blue box with a question mark inside it. If you come across any posts that have the little blue box in it then you should report the post to the mods immediately.

      It will look like this...



      (FYI Mods: The fake image url I have linked to above is http://www.warriorforum.com/testimage.gif)
      Will... Can't see it?
      Signature
      **********
      It's Simple... I don't "sell" IM anymore, but still do lots of YouTube Videos
      **********
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4923887].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    Just use invisible code to load your invisible image that is hosted on your invisible server. Then you will know how many invisible friends you have!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4924024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Will,

    You missed the point. I said "human being." Not "male human being."

    See how easily stats can be misconscrewed?


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925455].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Amitywill
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Will,

      You missed the point. I said "human being." Not "male human being."

      See how easily stats can be misconscrewed?


      Paul
      Paul I think you've missed the point.

      If you include all the males and all the females there will
      still be a lot of males with only one testicle which brings the
      total number down to an average of less than 1 testicle. It was
      a bit of a joke but also very true.

      And yes I do understand how stats can be misconstrued.

      Will
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925488].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Will,
    This was happening a lot in the internet marketing reviews section but isn't happening so much now. In fact I haven't seen it for ages.
    Get a few profitable affiliate accounts nuked for spamming and they tend to take their games elsewhere.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925462].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    [sigh]

    If you want to get really picky, the fact that there are slightly more women born than men will bring the number below 1. I'd wager the difference is larger than the percentage of men born with only one testicle.

    Humor is often lost when the audience wants to be literal.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925499].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Amitywill
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      [sigh]

      If you want to get really picky, the fact that there are slightly more women born than men will bring the number below 1. I'd wager the difference is larger than the percentage of men born with only one testicle.

      Humor is often lost when the audience wants to be literal.


      Paul
      Sigh, yes I agree if you want to get really picky.. I read
      in a medical journal that roughly 12% of men only have
      1 testicle and also that the ratio of men/women is 1.01

      Therefore there are more men that only have 1 testicle than
      there are a surplus of women.

      This means that the average person still has less than 1
      testicle.

      Paul, I studied maths and statistics at higher education..

      I'm no dummy and I know what I'm talking about.

      Anyway my first reply was just a friendly joke, I don't see why
      it had to descend to this.

      Will
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925533].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
        Originally Posted by Amitywill View Post

        I read in a medical journal that roughly 12% of men only have 1 testicle and also that the ratio of men/women is 1.01.
        Let me guess...that was one of those $7 medical ebooks floating around.

        Therefore there are more men that only have 1 testicle than
        there are a surplus of women.

        This means that the average person still has less than 1
        testicle.
        I've met quite a few woman with more balls than the average man, and judging by some of the female Warriors on this forum I'm guessing the average person has more than 1 testicle.

        ~Bill
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4927280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RAMarketing
    This is what Paul was going for:

    This is what happened:

    That's all. No name calling, no attacks. A zippy one liner turned into a demographics class :-p
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925581].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Hmm. I just did some looking, and the claimed percentage of men with cryptorchidism seems to vary from 1% to 4%. Still much higher than I would have thought, but hardly approaching 1 in 8. And virtually all of them have two. One simply hasn't "made an appearance."
    Therefore there are more men that only have 1 testicle than there are a surplus of women.
    Not established. Learned something here, though. Not sure how useful it is, but I learned something.
    Anyway my first reply was just a friendly joke, I don't see why it had to descend to this.
    Okay. THAT was funny.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Amitywill
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Hmm. I just did some looking, and the claimed percentage of men with cryptorchidism seems to vary from 1% to 4%. Still much higher than I would have thought, but hardly approaching 1 in 8. And virtually all of them have two. One simply hasn't "made an appearance."Not established. Learned something here, though. Not sure how useful it is, but I learned something.Okay. THAT was funny.


      Paul
      Let's just forget our our little spaffle about testicles ever happened.



      Will
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925663].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Paul,

      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Learned something here, though. Not sure how useful it is, but I learned something.
      And now for something completely different - a man with three buttocks.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926105].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    lol ... this certainly is a WSO with a "twist". Yesterday I was reading about hidden images and today I drop in to see what's going on and we're talking about men with 1 testicle.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925664].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RAMarketing
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      lol ... this certainly is a WSO with a "twist". Yesterday I was reading about hidden images and today I drop in to see what's going on and we're talking about men with 1 testicle.
      See what happens when you're gone? The whole thread goes nuts
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4925672].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WillR
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      lol ... this certainly is a WSO with a "twist". Yesterday I was reading about hidden images and today I drop in to see what's going on and we're talking about men with 1 testicle.
      It's actually quite good. Anyone who skims through this thread about affiliate cookie stuffing will see it ending in talk about only having 1 testicle. Hopefully it's enough to scare most of them from doing it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926138].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paperchasing
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      lol ... this certainly is a WSO with a "twist". Yesterday I was reading about hidden images and today I drop in to see what's going on and we're talking about men with 1 testicle.
      Hopefully that testicle has no twists involved. Sounds painful.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4942103].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Rahmat,

    On behalf of every Warrior who hates cookie stuffers... Thank you!

    That will be very helpful.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926276].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rahmat
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Rahmat,

      On behalf of every Warrior who hates cookie stuffers... Thank you!

      That will be very helpful.


      Paul
      No problem, Paul.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926539].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    On average, dogs have .314161819 testicles! There is definitely something wrong with the world!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rahmat
    Enough about testicles..

    back to the topic..

    Folks, do you need me to show you the step-by-step
    on how to install Statcounter visible image code to your
    WSO thread?

    This method is not against mod, since it uses visible image.

    Let me know about it.

    Otherwise, if all of you are expert on the technical stuff of installing
    the code, then I do not need to post the tutorial.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4926587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
    Can you share how to do this?

    I can't seem to figure it out.. lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4941964].message }}

Trending Topics