New CCBill Admin - Discuss

[MadCat]

Originally Posted by Greenie

That's a lie. I refuse to believe that the programmers could not include the paysite's & affiliates code into the new system.

Hell, here's the solution: if my new "unique" account number is 1234567, then have a database that has ALL my old codes in it. Each time it sees one, like 581222 for Amateur facials, replace it with 1234567.

Problem solved.

From a programmer: problem solved in about 2 days worth of coding, testing, and a few dry conversion runs.

One way or the other you still need a userid, and a siteid that is being linked to. This means that the hash algorithm is reversible, or you have the hash stored as a key with userid/siteid stored alongside of it.

So... you're basically using the same values internally, just that on the outside it looks different.

I utterly fail to see how redirecting the old codes to the new ones becomes impossible -- you already know how the hash is generated, so go ahead and do it.

So far, all I've seen compares to:

"We're releasing a new shiny system, unfortunately our architects and programmers are fucking idiots who can't figure out how to get the old links redirecting to the new links, but we're going to go ahead with it anyway because well, it's new and shiny".

Good luck with that.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Greenie

That's a lie. I refuse to believe that the programmers could not include the paysite's & affiliates code into the new system.

Hell, here's the solution: if my new "unique" account number is 1234567, then have a database that has ALL my old codes in it. Each time it sees one, like 581222 for Amateur facials, replace it with 1234567.

Problem solved.

Greenie, I understand that you don't like change, but I really think you're being a little unreasonable about this.

Adding that additional data for every existing affiliate and the corresponding data lookup for every affiliate link processed isn't as simple as you make it sound. There are substantial side effects and consequences. Hence my mentioning "large high volume database remaining online and stable" in my earlier post.

[Greenguy]

Unreasonable? Change? I'm actually fucking estatic that CCBill has finally decidedd to upgrade their stats/admin. I can't want to see what they've added - I'm a stats junkie!

But I do not think it's unreasonable to ask that the millions of old link codes out there work with the new system, especially since it's taking 2 sets of numbers & converting/adding them to the new URL's.

Why are you so high on CCBill anyway? You really plan to change ALL your old codes? Or will you be happy logging into 2 admins to get your stats, some basic, some full of bells & whistles?

Hell, Paul said that this was a high priority - that statement alone lets me know that I'm not off my rocker with these questions.

[MadCat]

Originally Posted by Toby

Greenie, I understand that you don't like change, but I really think you're being a little unreasonable about this.

Adding that additional data for every existing affiliate and the corresponding data lookup for every affiliate link processed isn't as simple as you make it sound. There are substantial side effects and consequences. Hence my mentioning "large high volume database remaining online and stable" in my earlier post.

Also to grab this in from your earlier post:

Yes, that would have been an ideal solution, but when you're talking about implenting changes across such a large high volume database while it remains online and stable, there are simply some limitations to what can be done.

There's a reason that in the software development best practices there is such a thing as a "testing environment" -- a set of systems that mimics the production environment that can be used for testing.

Also, the procedure to switch from one db to another db is this:

1: Get new hardware
2: Set up new DB (dbnew)
3: Poke up the new system and point it at dbnew
4: The new system should in fact be able to update both the dbnew and the old db (dbold).
5: Run both db's simultaneously
6: check db's daily for differences
7: fix whatever is causing differences
8: switch over fully

Presto.

There's a ton of methods to do a live transfer between different db's -- high volume or not. If they are doing anywhere near the amount of db transactions I think they're doing they will have a high availability cluster anyway, and the money to get a 2nd cluster set up for the new system.

All it requires is people that know what they're doing.

[cd34]

First question: Are there any sponsors using the beta where a webmaster can sign up?

Second question: Are there screenshots or the ability for one of the members of this board to sign up for that sponsor program and look around, or, can some additional screenshots of the webmaster interface be posted?

As for your referral id tracking:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?581222

is a current link. That follows through in a hosted gallery to a link that looks like

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=924000-0000&PA=581222

The new link code appears to look like:

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-rftTOPWQUWhWHQG_TIAXtbGjdaiewnciLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-KAJSFDNJASDFAKFQG_TIAXasdcvcxsoSLvJPZb2tsWMs*

I don't believe it would be any different to send a link like:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?Lt-KAJSFDNJASDFAKFQG_TIAXasdcvcxsoSLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and have it counted on the new site. This is a non-ccbill issue. The coding on the hosted content would need to change slightly, and wouldn't be backwards compatible, so, if a sponsor started using the new system, all of the hosted content would then need to be tagged as 'new format.' Webmasters could then use the new links from this day going forward leaving the legacy links out there. Its possible that the sponsor could mirror the existing content, make the changes for the new link format so that new webmasters could utilize the 'newly' coded 'older' hosted content.

However, the only real issue is the old-traffic versus new-traffic link format.

Based on the example for Sponsor A and Sponsor B and the url's given above, There's obviously some encoding that has been done. Since you are able to generate the encoded values above for the url, you can take:

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=924000-0000&PA=581222

parse out the CA (sponsor) -???? (site) and the partner account number, and generate the encoded value that the new system uses and redirect the traffic from refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi over to the http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/ script. Since all of the values you need for the new system should be contained within the old urls, it would be easy to write that redirect. It wouldn't require any re-integration of the existing redirect script to try and insert data into the new system. A surfer would get a double redirect, but, if you can rewrite that url on the fly based on the data in the old link url, you wouldn't have any need to access a database to move old-style link traffic to the new referral link. No integration nightmares of old to new.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Greenie

That's a lie...

I'd like to apologize for that comment. I don't think Paul is a liar, I just think he's being lied to by the programmers.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Hell, here's the solution: if my new "unique" account number is 1234567, then have a database that has ALL my old codes in it. Each time it sees one, like 581222 for Amateur facials, replace it with 1234567.

Problem solved.

Agreed. Naughty America changed their codes around a few times. When they moved from their #-based ID system to NATS, they developed a way to translate the old ID to the new encrypted NATS one. Their old linkcodes still track and translate to the new NATS system, to this day.

[kit]

Originally Posted by CCBill_Paul

for example, sponsor A's links may look like this: http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-r...iLvJPZb2tsWMs*

While sponsor B's may look like this:

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-K...SLvJPZb2tsWMs*

So, while they will not be as easily identified as the old ones you will still be able to associate one link with one program.

I hope that helps.

Another "NATS encoding" crap?
The worse thing I ever seen is encoded affiliate links.

Paul, do you discussed your new features with valued webmasters before official pressrelease?

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by kit

The worse thing I ever seen is encoded affiliate links.

I would have to agree with Kit on that.

[cd34]

The only real valid reason I can think for encoding the links is that a toolbar or proxy server doing a 'man in the middle' replacement, wouldn't be able to quickly determine the sponsor/site in order to do their replacement. A toolbar currently only needs to look for the CA code to know whether they have an account with that sponsor, and then can do a replacement on the PA part of the url.

With an encoded url, that sponsor/site/affiliate data is somewhat hidden from a quick automated replacement script making it much harder for a toolbar/proxy to replace that info on the fly.

Whether that toolbar is still as prevalent as it used to be is the issue, but, it does prevent the type of variable replacement attack that was being done with that toolbar.

[kit]

NATS code is pretty easy for decoding on toolbar side.
If CCBill provide hard encoded link, adware toolbars will cheat us anyway.

[rooty]

Paul it would be cool to see a full working demo somewhere?

translating to the new system would be possible but that would most likely mean the system has way more overhead. as it now has to do this

refer.ccbill.com |new system installed OR old system still intact|...
if new system -> CA & PA & HTML -> encrypt -> redirect to wms.restofurl/encrypted(values)*

the additional OR check in SQL might very well be the programming issue alone.

not that its hard to do it.... would be the cost of new servers i could imagine... might be wrong.

[CCBill_Paul]

Originally Posted by rooty

Paul it would be cool to see a full working demo somewhere?

translating to the new system would be possible but that would most likely mean the system has way more overhead. as it now has to do this

refer.ccbill.com |new system installed OR old system still intact|...
if new system -> CA & PA & HTML -> encrypt -> redirect to wms.restofurl/encrypted(values)*

the additional OR check in SQL might very well be the programming issue alone.

not that its hard to do it.... would be the cost of new servers i could imagine... might be wrong.

We can give you a demo but right now the best we can do is an online meeting style demonstration in which you can ask questions and go over most of, if not all of the new functionality. Please shoot me your name and account number if you are interested in more information.


paulk @ ccbill.com

[Greenguy]

Paul - you can ignore every other post in this thread if you find the answers to this one, since cd34 is the smartest man any of us have ever met.

Originally Posted by cd34

First question: Are there any sponsors using the beta where a webmaster can sign up?

Second question: Are there screenshots or the ability for one of the members of this board to sign up for that sponsor program and look around, or, can some additional screenshots of the webmaster interface be posted?

As for your referral id tracking:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?581222

is a current link. That follows through in a hosted gallery to a link that looks like

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...0000&PA=581222

The new link code appears to look like:

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-r...iLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-K...SLvJPZb2tsWMs*

I don't believe it would be any different to send a link like:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?Lt-...SLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and have it counted on the new site. This is a non-ccbill issue. The coding on the hosted content would need to change slightly, and wouldn't be backwards compatible, so, if a sponsor started using the new system, all of the hosted content would then need to be tagged as 'new format.' Webmasters could then use the new links from this day going forward leaving the legacy links out there. Its possible that the sponsor could mirror the existing content, make the changes for the new link format so that new webmasters could utilize the 'newly' coded 'older' hosted content.

However, the only real issue is the old-traffic versus new-traffic link format.

Based on the example for Sponsor A and Sponsor B and the url's given above, There's obviously some encoding that has been done. Since you are able to generate the encoded values above for the url, you can take:

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...0000&PA=581222

parse out the CA (sponsor) -???? (site) and the partner account number, and generate the encoded value that the new system uses and redirect the traffic from refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi over to the http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/ script. Since all of the values you need for the new system should be contained within the old urls, it would be easy to write that redirect. It wouldn't require any re-integration of the existing redirect script to try and insert data into the new system. A surfer would get a double redirect, but, if you can rewrite that url on the fly based on the data in the old link url, you wouldn't have any need to access a database to move old-style link traffic to the new referral link. No integration nightmares of old to new.

You get a reply from the programmers on this & we'll all be happy

[CCBill_Paul]

Originally Posted by cd34

First question: Are there any sponsors using the beta where a webmaster can sign up?

There is not at the moment but there will be soon. If you want to hit me up I can probably help here shortly.

Originally Posted by cd34

Second question: Are there screenshots or the ability for one of the members of this board to sign up for that sponsor program and look around, or, can some additional screenshots of the webmaster interface be posted?

Again I don't have any at the moment but I can gather this data for you here very soon.

Originally Posted by cd34

As for your referral id tracking:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?581222

is a current link. That follows through in a hosted gallery to a link that looks like

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...0000&PA=581222

The new link code appears to look like:

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-r...iLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and

http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/Lt-K...SLvJPZb2tsWMs*

I don't believe it would be any different to send a link like:

http://www.domain.com/gallery01/?Lt-...SLvJPZb2tsWMs*

and have it counted on the new site. This is a non-ccbill issue. The coding on the hosted content would need to change slightly, and wouldn't be backwards compatible, so, if a sponsor started using the new system, all of the hosted content would then need to be tagged as 'new format.' Webmasters could then use the new links from this day going forward leaving the legacy links out there. Its possible that the sponsor could mirror the existing content, make the changes for the new link format so that new webmasters could utilize the 'newly' coded 'older' hosted content.

However, the only real issue is the old-traffic versus new-traffic link format.

Based on the example for Sponsor A and Sponsor B and the url's given above, There's obviously some encoding that has been done. Since you are able to generate the encoded values above for the url, you can take:

http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...0000&PA=581222

Correct.

Originally Posted by cd34

parse out the CA (sponsor) -???? (site) and the partner account number, and generate the encoded value that the new system uses and redirect the traffic from refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi over to the http://wms.ccbill.com/wmsi/w_id/ script.

So yes, you can do the above but no, you cannot create your own hashes by encoding it yourself.

Hope that helps.

[Greenguy]

There's an interesting thread over on GFY about this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=16718253

Make sure you read Trixie's post:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...3#post16718253

Unbelievable that 8 months later, these same issues we brought up are still unresolved.

[Greenguy]

Just got this email from CCBill - Trixie knows how to get shit done!

Dear CCBill WMS Affiliate:

We wanted to contact you regarding an issue we discovered with the CCBill WMS Affiliate sales payouts to your account. After careful review, we have determined that your WMS Affiliate Account was underpaid for your referred WMS Affiliate sales for the time period from November 29, 2009 to December 26, 2009.

To resolve this issue, we will return the identified funds to your account as soon as possible. These funds will be deposited back into your account in the CCBill sales period of 12/27/09 - 1/02/10; and paid out in the weekly sales check dated 1/11/10.

Please note: Because our payout system performs weekly reconciliations based on each CCBill sales period, we will send you a follow up email notification with the exact amount you are owed soon after the completion of that period's reconciliation process on 1/08/10.

Thank you for your patience in this matter, and please know that we truly value your affiliate business, and we have taken every step to identify and resolve this issue completely.

If you have any questions regarding the resolution of this issue, our Client Support Team is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to assist you. They can be reached toll-free at 800.510.2859, on LIVE CHAT in our Web Admin, or by email at clientsupport@ccbill.com,

Thank you and we wish you the happiest of New Years!

CCBill Management

[Trixie]

LOL -- I know they would've fixed it sooner or later without me going ballistic on GFY.

One of the other things I think is "funny" about this particular situation, though, is that no other sponsors apparently have the balls to complain about any of this or acknowledge noticing what was going on and I *know* I was not the only client to have this problem.

[JustRobert]

I got the exact same email so its obviously a form letter which means I probably do not have any surprise money coming

What I would like to know is where the hell is the WMS section in the admin of ccbill. It was there for a short time (with links that were broken) and then it disappeared.

[Fonz]

So what's this WMS thing all about, could someone please explain that to me?

[Ms Naughty]

I had a look around yesterday trying to work out what was going on with the underpayments. But it's only with the WMS system, yes?

I should add... I'm only just back from too much time on the beach... my brain is still on holiday.

[Agent]

I got the same e-mail. I assume it's addressed to those missing credit for sales. But who knows. I haven't gotten a follow up e-mail yet.

[Agent]

I got a follow-up e-mail. Thanks Trixie and everyone else who caught this.

[JustRobert]

I also got a follow up email and I was underpaid. I am now hoping that I will be able to figure out which sponsors once the money is received.

Thanks to Trixie for being persistent

Who knows, maybe one of those sales belongs to her program.

[JustRobert]

A couple of weeks ago I received a check that included what I was underpaid so I figured this issue was fixed.

Just went thru the last couple of ccbill checks and they are both short from what looks like 1 sponsor (escort cash) that I believe switched over to WMS, not that I am sure because I cannot find the WMS section at all in ccbill's admin.

You may want to check your ccbill checks as well, if you were shorted before, for periods 1/3 to 1/9 and 1/10 to 1/16