Query for PN staff...

1) any idea when the web link content changed for new referrals?

2) will the old link type (eg new.html?w645oK3%2FCguHYxxxxxxxxx ) still work ?

3) is the string #63int in the following .../new.html&#63intReferrerID%3D0....
actually valid ? Just that it looks odd/wrong to me...

I'd expect new.html&Referr... instead

the #63int looks like it has 'crept in accidentally' and of course I cannot test it!

I should add... is there any timescale for replacing the currently out-of-date banner image?

I know lots use Facebook or Twitter, but I prefer to use banners/ links (for use with a leaflet campaign to reach 100,000 homes)

Hi there,

There's a fix for that due to roll (subject to final testing) early May, I believe the 7th - can't say the same for the banners though I'm afraid, we don't have a timescale for that one.

Thanks for the reply/. Is the bit I quoted going to be removed, so I can have a link which is viable now?

Not too bothered about when Plus.Net gets time to do the banner (shame you used to offer several, both landscape and portrait, and possibly even a square one of 125 x 125 unless I'm confusing you with one of the ad banners for some other site).

Screen capture, copy {edit} and paste will allow me to get by

If you won't confirm what's wrong with the HTML, can you at least give me a date when it will be fixed ?

Thanks.

Hi, I guess you're referring to the banner itself? I'm afraid I can't give a date for that, no. However if you try just removing the #63 and leaving the int in there (so it's &intReferrerID) does that work at all?

Errrrr, how would I know... The creation of a cookie (or whatever) for a non customer and the subsequent addition of that new customer is what is in question, something there is no way I can test.

What needs to be clarified is whether "intReferrerID" is the "keyword" being looked for, or whether it's actually "ReferrerID" that's important. Only someone in software development at Plus.Net is likely to be able to answer that one. Surely.


.
.
.
.

(Apologies for the bolding earlier, but it really should be clear that I cannot test it myself.)