# Talk:Cookie stuffing

@Sohom Datta: As requested, I took a quick look at this article. Here are a couple of things I think need to be addressed before considering a trip to FAC. I tried to keep it to broad strokes, but there are a few times I couldn't resist a specific comment.

"dubious techniques" seems like a neutrality issue.
popups ads → pop-up ads
"Legitimate affiliates might lose potential customers as a result of this practice." reads like a non sequitur and is borderline speculative in the context it's in.
I see a few contractions like "didn't" in the lead.
"draw in a more targeted audience and drive sales" seems like business management jargon. Is there a way to clarify this or be more specific about the goals of affiliate marketing? Same comment for the lead.
The text in the image is illegible at normal sizes and serves next to no function on its own. Like we discussed on Cross-site leaks, try to keep the images as free of text as possible, which can instead go in the captions. The visual elements themselves, rather than a mockup view of the user's browser, should be a diagrammatic representation of the concept.
"This can be done with an iframe or a pop-up ad." That doesn't really explain anything to a layperson.
§ Fraud could have a better title. The entire article refers to fraud or fraud-adjacent behavior, so that label isn't an accurate representation of what a reader could find there.
The initialisms in parentheses CPS, FTC, and FBI can be removed as they're not used anywhere else.
In a similar vein, HTTP is used without first being set up.
"in the wild" ???
I'm not comfortable enough in this topic area to judge whether the sources represent a comprehensive view of the literature, but double-check that you've included every reasonable source and given it due weight.
Like I said earlier, I tried not to get in the weeds with a prose review, but the article definitely needs a good copyedit for clarity.
Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've listed the article for a GOCE, I'll address the rest when the copyedit is done :) Sohom (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that "Despite several high-profile cases, only a small number of users encounter cookie stuffing on the web." is no longer true, as it has been found out that the very popular browser extension Honey, used by several million people, has cookie stuffing as its modus operandi and has cost content creators millions of dollars in what amounts to stolen revenue, which caused a huge scandal. I think this case deserves an entire section on the article due to its scale and importance. I'm not an experienced enough Wikipedia editor to know how to add the necessary sources in the correct format etc., so I urge other editors to do so. More information about the Honey scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tDOeQqnrYQ&t=921s— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericobnn (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Christopher Kennedy, Saucekit 37.205.104.216 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)