Talk:Cookie stuffing/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs) 01:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ~~Everything looks good except the lead and words to watch, as explained below.~~ All addressed. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig gives 1%. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

I think Regular users do not tend to encounter cookie stuffing regularly in the wild needs to be reworded. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technology via which affiliate marketing websites... visits the URL. I think this sentence is too long and a bit hard to understand. The sentence immediately following this is much easier to understand by comparison. Can we split this up into shorter sentences? Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
over 91% of websites would use redirects I think you mean "used" not "would use"? Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

an account manager at one of the affiliate management networks CJ Affiliates I think an account manager at affiliate management network CJ Affiliates makes more sense. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Optional: I think the "Mechanism" section would greatly be adding these details that I'm quoting here from the Edelman source: Under standard rules, an affiliate earns a commission only if 1) a user browses to an affiliate’s site, 2) the user clicks the affiliates specially-coded link to the merchant, and 3) the user makes a purchase from the merchant. Then you can say, in contrast to this, cookie stuffing is performed by ..... etc. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first part of the Mechanism section.

Take a look at my latest edit to get an idea of what I had meant. If you disagree, feel free to revert. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice

I think the "Background" section has a couple puffery words to watch that should be avoided, like substantial reduction of fraud, remarkably low. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Lead

I think the lead is too long, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 1 or 2 paragraphs for an article this size. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is two paragraphs and two sentences, I think it obeys the guideline in spirit and not the exact letter. Shortening it down further will risk not explaining the core concepts of the article.

I won't push it too far, but take a look at User:Mokadoshi/sandbox as an example. I believe this still captures the core concepts of the article, while being 72 words (28%) shorter. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible I missed something, but I didn't see any of the sources here call it cookie dropping. Maybe a citation in the lead would make sense here? Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I may also have suggestions on citations in the lead, but I'll wait for you to make these changes before reviewing that part. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally citations are not used in the lede since it is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. If there is any new information in the lede, let me know, it might be useful to move it to the body

Layout

Optional, but I'm confused as to the difference between the "Mechanism" and "Techniques" sections. You can consider combining them. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to introduce the basic mechanism of a attack/technique as a seperate section in CS articles. Combining both might be okay for you and me, but to a person who might learn about this for the first time, there is a chance they could get lost trying to grasp the basics of the attack.

References

operating on a cost-per-sale (CPS) structure Neither of the 2 sources here use the term "cost per sale" or "CPS." Can we just deleted the part I quoted? Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the exact wording is not mentioned, both sources heavily imply it (Endelmann even cites a article called "Pey per sale" when discussing this point)

the affiliate who set the cookie is credited with a percentage of the sale made The source says they may also be awarded a flat fee, or a combination of the two. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded it to not mention the exact funding structure.

In a 2015 study covering 11.7K domains I think it would be helpful to clarify that these were not random domains, but were domains that engaged in cookie stuffing. Optional: I think it would also be helpful to add that 84% of all the domains they found that engaged in cookie stuffing were typosquatted domains, because this adds more information about how abusers went about performing this technique. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First part done, I'm a bit iffy about implementing the optional part since I'm yet to see other sources cooroborate this finding of theirs.

That's fine, but I've looked through your recent edits and I'm not seeing the change you've made for the first part. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shhot, the edit should be made now, looks like I forgot to save :( Sohom (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most affiliate marketing programs widely prohibit cookie stuffing because it tends to undermine genuine product advertising efforts. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has laid out advertising guidelines mandating the clear disclosure of financial relationships between advertisers and retailers. Cookie stuffing deliberately operates in an opaque manner for users, conflicting with these guidelines that emphasize transparency to the user in such arrangements. This paragraph has 2 sources, but the Edelman source doesn't say anything about the FTC (the Chachra source does though). Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the sources around.

In certain cases, cookie stuffing has been considered a form of wire fraud. I'm not seeing any mention of wire fraud in the source. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ref seems misplaced

In 2010, when eBay collaborated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a sting operation targeting top affiliate marketers I think this date is incorrect, the article says eBay was cooperating with the FBI since 2006. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Additionally, cookie stuffing and other forms of affiliate marketing fraud disproportionately impact larger affiliate marketing networks that oversee numerous affiliate marketing programs, as opposed to smaller in-house programs. This is true, but the source says this is according to Chachra's research, which is indeed in the Chachra source, so lets just use that instead. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to use the primary source here, since then the sentence would need to be structured in "Chachra said XYZ" way

This is because smaller in-house affiliate programs are motivated by their parent companies to eradicate fraud, given its direct impact on their revenue. On the other hand, larger affiliate marketing networks, which earn a commission only when a transaction occurs between an affiliate and an online marketer, are incentivized not to actively police their programs and to avoid detecting fraudulent practices Optional: this is true, but the source also says the difference in incentives lie in the differences in compensation. In-house managers are paid a base salary by the merchant plus a flat rate, while networks are paid a percentage fee. Therefore, an in-house manager committing fraud would not significantly increase their revenue, so they are not incentivized to do so. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source also mentions that these are probably not relevant

Images

I was unable to find any images that could be added to this article, but I believe it may be possible for you to create a basic flowchart or diagram to illustrate how it may work. Take for example WebSocket. This is optional for the review but would greatly improve the article. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Cookie stuffing can be made as simplistic as Websockets, but I'll try and see what I can do.

Done (kinda)

@Mokadoshi I've left some comments under some of your comments and actioned some others, let me know if you have any further question, comments and we can discuss it further. Sohom (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is mostly done, just wanted to get your opinion on the discussion above re the lead. Let me know what you think, and either way, I'll approve the nomination. Good work! Mokadoshi (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me (though I would lose the citation in the lede) Thank you so much for taking the time to reword and fix issues that you saw :) Sohom (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think the citation in my draft would be necessary according to WP:LEADCITE. It's true that you generally don't need to cite references in the lead because it summarizes the content below, but the exception is any content that is likely to be challenged. Generally the rule of thumb I see other editors use is anything that mentions a specific date, or number, or person's name. So, the bit about "$28 million" and "five months in federal prison" would need to be cited if it's in the lead. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I would have assumed that citing it in the body would have been sufficient. However, it makes sense to cite specifically since we do mention a living person's crimes. Sohom (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.