Blair Williams

Everything is an Experiment

Where Did Pretty Link Cloaking and the Pretty Bar Go?

Where Did Pretty Link Cloaking and the Pretty Bar Go?

by ·

This morning Pretty Link disappeared from the WordPress.org plugin repository because it didn't comply with a new, apparently undocumented policy that doesn't allow plugins to cloak links. Pretty Link wasn't the only plugin affected by this policy change, wordpress.org removed all plugins from the repository that allowed users to cloak links.

I've been working with the guys at wordpress.org this morning to get Pretty Link back on the repository. The only way to do this was to remove link cloaking, pretty bar and pixel tracking from the Pretty Link Lite versions 1.4.51 and beyond.

How will this change affect me?

Here are the facts you need to know about this significant change:

  1. Pretty Link Pro users will NOT be affected by this change. If you're a pro user your cloaked, prettybar, and pixel links will continue to function as they have in the past. Since Pretty Link Pro is actually a separate plugin not hosted on the wordpress.org plugin repository it is immune from this policy change.
  2. What good is the lite version of Pretty Link without cloaking? The lite version of Pretty Link that's on the wordpress repository will still be able to do temporary (307) and permanent (301) redirects … so if you don't use cloaking, the prettybar or pixel redirects then you won't be impacted by this change at all. All of the other Pretty Link features such as tracking, parameter forwarding, groups, nofollow/noindex, etc are all still there and still work great.
  3. What will happen to prettybar, cloaked and pixel links? If you are a Pretty Link Pro user or upgrade to Pretty Link Pro then your prettybar, cloaked and pixel links will continue to function normally. Otherwise, these links will start using Temporary Redirects … your links will still work but won't be cloaked.
  4. Help Me! I just upgraded to Pretty Link 1.4.51 and now none of my links are cloaked anymore! Good news, if you upgrade to Pretty Link Pro today then these links will continue working as they always have. Its a pretty simple process to purchase and install Pretty Link Pro — so you'll be back in business fast.

I'm really sorry about this change — I always hate removing features like this … but in this case it was necessary to keep Pretty Link on the WordPress.org repository. If you have any issues upgrading or questions feel free to drop a note on my Contact page.

Reader Interactions

Comments

    • Thanks frosty — everything’s going great and everything’s rolling again on Pretty Link but a little notice from wordpress would have been nice before they pulled the plugin 🙂 … I’m just glad everything’s up and running again …

  2. Blair,

    Thanks for the update and putting together Pretty Link, has been a great find for me and my clients lately, looks like its time for some of them to invest in the pro version, we can’t live without it now!

    Would love to know the reasons behind WordPress’s new “undocumented” policy on cloaking links and why they considered it needed to be done…

    • Honestly the plugin was taken down without my knowledge and no warning. The guys on the WordPress IRC were very helpful this morning but gave me a pretty simple explanation — here’s an excerpt of our conversation:


      supercleanse: I'm the author of Pretty Link -- I was just wondering why it was blocked and what I can do to get it back up.
      markr: ah - all plugins that offered lick cloaking were removed. So if that aspect of the plugin were removed all should be good and it could go back.
      ....
      supercleanse: updating the files here -- I was just wondering if there's a blog post or other official announcement that I can reference in my changelog and on my blog so I can explain this change to my users?
      markr: no, there won't be. bloggers noticed, complained and we agreed. Ones that cloak are okay - they just can't be included in the directory.

      I’m not exactly sure what happened, it all seemed pretty random but they were firm on their decision. So I removed those features from the lite version, pushed a new version and then they put it back into the repository.

    • Owen — if you’re not using the “cloaking”, “prettybar” or “pixel” redirect types on any of your links (you can see this in your link options on the link add / edit screen) then you won’t notice any change. Your Temporary and Permanent Redirects will continue working exactly as they have in the past.

  4. Blair, I replied to the email notice I received about this. Assuming the return address on your responder is a real one you should have an email from me – it was asking about some possible pro features and if I could be of any assistance in seeing them come into being. Look forward to hearing back from you.
    Kimberly

  5. Blair, I just bought the pro version, and the email I received says “go here” and then put in my user name and pass, the page that it sends me to is the “sales page” and nowhere can I find where to login and download the pro version, I installed the one at this site, thinking there might be a user name and pass field in the plugin itself, but no luck.

    Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

    Best,
    Josh

  6. Would there be any way to have an a and b version? One for at WordPress and a second here? I’ve upgraded and encourage everyone else to do the same, but the cloaking and pixel link were always good “selling” points to get them started on the free version.

    • I thought about doing that — but currently the update mechanism for Pretty Link is tied to the wordpress.org repository and so we’d have to make some significant changes in the code to make it work for a “b” version here. Plus we’d then be supporting 3 different versions of pretty link (lite, standard and pro) — and trust me, 2 is about all we can handle right now… Maybe at some point we’ll make this change but to keep it simple right now we’re just offering the 2 versions. If you really have issues with spending the $37 on pretty link pro and just need the cloaking / pretty bar then you can stick with 1.4.50 which is available for download here … eventually though, it will probably become out of date with wordpress and other changes, etc but it should work for quite a while for you.

  7. Hi Blair

    Just wondering on this as I have not yet upgraded, and don’t want to if I lose the Pretty Bar, and cannot afford (or justify the cost of) the Pro version on all my sites – financially or time-wise – right now.

    If I were to simply hack the PrettyLink PHP file and change the version number up to something like 5.0 then other than missing out on future up/de-grades like this WordPress policy has caused, would there be any impact on the plugin itself? The main reason for hacking the version number being so that it doesn’t keep showing as upgrade available and cause me to click on it one bleary-eyed morning.

    I’m not using the PL free version to anywhere near it’s full potential, let alone being likely to do so for the Pro version right now, which is another reason for not going with the paid upgrade.

    Have to confess I am mightily pissed at WordPress for introducing this unannounced, and without giving the user base as well as the development community time to prepare for it – however, I shall be watching the websites of several “favoured children” very closely for replacement functions being released that “get around” this undocumented policy – you probably know who I mean, especially now that multi-site functionality is embedded in core.

    Watch for other similar no-warning policy changes too – I’ve noticed this last couple of days that all the plugins from “favoured children” have had obscure updates after a long time without any, and was wondering what was triggering them other than serendipity. Perhaps this “cloaked links” thing is just a first round of new hidden policies with nepotistic ramifications.

    Another thing that occurs to me as I close – this is a really BAD timing for those sites involved in ecommerce or ecommerce marketing, coming right at the onset of the pre-Christmas shopping season – I foresee a lot of sites being “broken” and severely underperforming over the next few months as developers and owners scrabble for a fix and workaround. The easiest one I see is obviously to not upgrade if using the light version.

    Finally, until WordPress come out with a feasible explanation for this, then they have severely plummeted in my estimation – this is the type of big-bully interference I expect from “the church of latter day eBay”, not from an organisation like WordPress.

    Gaz

    • haha, no joke — this actually couldn’t have come at a worse time for me either since I’m on vacation right now! gah! The only way I know of to get around this for now is to either stick with the 1.4.50 version of Pretty Link or to upgrade to Pro.

      It does suck that WordPress just comes up with an arbitrary policy and doesn’t even notify the plugin author before taking it down but they do offer a fantastic service and are super responsive — which is why Pretty Link came back up on the repository so quickly.

      As bad as this was for WordPress to pull Pretty Link down — I think it illustrates how valuable paying for premium versions of plugins is (any plugin). I mean Pretty Link Pro users are completely unaffected by this issue! I think that’s pretty cool because there’s a level of service there and these users aren’t tied to the whims of the WordPress. WordPress can pull down any plugin they want at any time because all the plugins on the repository are free — so that’s why I pay for the premo version of any plugins that I run my business on.

      But even so, hopefully they’ll notify me before doing this again… gah.

    • Mark, the only way to turn off the WP update for a plugin is to open the plugin readme and main php files and change the name of the plugin to something that doesn’t exist in the wordpress plugin repo. If you’re not sure what you’re doing though, this is not recommended.

  9. Did you really think this through Blair? Please correct me if I’m wrong on any point that follows:

    Unless there is some client/server relationship between this plug-in and your servers, those with existing installations, should be unaffected until such time as they try to do an automatic update through the WordPress plug-in update service.

    The fact that the WordPress plug-in directory disallows these features to be a part of plug-ins they list does not prevent you from offering this plug-in for download on your website here – without the removal of these features. WordPress has no control over plug-ins you offer privately.

    If you still want a version to be available through the WordPress plug-in directory, yes, you will need to create a version without certain features. There is nothing, however, preventing you from noting in your listing in the WordPress plug-in directory that you have a version(s) of the plug-in with some additional features available at your website.

    Perhaps I’m missing a key point here, but it seems to me this has turned into a convenient way for you to convert customers to your paid Pro version in order to receive features they had previously enjoyed without subscription, or additional payment, without it being viewed as what might otherwise be described as, “bait and switch.”

    Would it not be friendlier to the community of users that has come to rely on the features of your plug-in to continue to offer the features you are removing as an optional download from your own website?

    I would be interested in hearing your further rationale for this move, and welcome any discussion about why I am wrong in the assumptions I’ve made here.

    • I agree with Tom, why not just offer it on your own site.

      Letting WP dictate your sales policy overall is not the best course of action, unless you figure it as a way to get more sales for the Pro version.

    • Trust me, we weighed all the options before making this call. You’re right that the automatic upgrade mechanism is reliant on WordPress.org right now and if we were to introduce a new free version of the product there would have to be significant changes made to Pretty Link to get it working. The easiest (and best for the users) solution was to just move these features into Pretty Link Pro. If users need to continue using these features and don’t want to pay for Pretty Link Pro then they can stick with 1.4.50 for quite a while (it has been tested on WordPress 3.0.1 and uses pretty standard hooks into WordPress).

      As for the cloaking & pretty bar links not working now — we tried to make that as clean as possible too — they just default to a 307 redirect so everyone’s links still work, they just redirect instead of using the cloak/pretty bar.

      As for the “bait and switch” idea — I can definitely see how someone could think that — that was probably my biggest concern with this approach but the fact is that it was unavoidable. We even considered the 3 versions of Pretty Link idea and maybe we’ll offer that in the future but before that happens we’ll have to figure out the technical aspects of doing this (updates, maintaining a branched codebase, etc), how we’ll do releases and support — all of which will be much more complex.

      Anyway, I hope that resolves some of your concerns with this change. We really did think this through and found that this was the quickest and best way to keep Pretty Link users up and running given this unexpected change on the wordpress.org repository.

  10. Hi Blair, Pretty Link Pro user here. Have some more bad news to point out: The browser bookmarklet has stopped working with NewTwitter (the new layout). It would seem that Twitter has started blocking php status updates that feature a cloaked link. I can still turn any page into a prettylink just by clicking the bookmarklet button on my browser, but when I click on the twitter button, twitter filters out all but the article title. While you’re working on the other issues I’d appreciate it if you could look into whatever Twitter’s doing different and see if there’s a workaround. (Adding Twitter oauth to prettylinkpro, maybe???)

    EDIT: To clarify, clicking the twitter button on an article at my blog still sends the RT, article title, and prettylink to Twitter without problems. The bookmarklet page will not.

  11. Blair

    Myself and a couple of others have been giving WordPress a hard time over this is their forums ( http://wordpress.org/support/topic/where-is-the-wordpress-new-policy-info-about-cloaked-links ) and it seems very incongruous that even the Dev/Mods like Ipstenu, MacManX, Otto are claiming to not know what link cloaking is and how it works or what it is used for – I don’t know if they’re being deliberately obtuse, or having a wind up or whatever, but one thing that does stand out is this …

    When i first noticed that they now all referred to your in discussion as “Mr Williams” I thought it odd. I was sure that previously they had all mentioned you less formally in forum as “Blair” or by your username. When I did a casual search I found I was right. Does this switch to formal titling mean there is some form of formal dispute between you and WordPress, which has not hit the gossip clubs yet?

    Another thing I noticed in that thread – a lot of post rewriting is occurring – almost as if there’s a hidden hand monitoring it and changing posts to meet some form of obfuscation target. When I caught and pulled Otto on it by posting his original response received by email notification, that got deleted by someone. There were other similar instances too – something unsavoury surrounds this whole topic in the WordPress hierarchy right now. In fact the entire thread has been taken down off the forums as of 5 seconds ago when I went to look for it.

    The last post in it that I made (others may have followed mine) was an “ah-ha” post regarding following the money … with “wp.me” now embedded in WordPress and needing a monetisation method, are WordPress now intent on knocking out competing services in order to (short term) increase adoption of wp.me, and thus traffic and web rank, with the mid-term goal of monetising it?

    The entire handling of this issue by WordPress by hidden action, then forum content manipulation, to finally outright censorship, has me thoroughly disgusted with them and my opinion (previously holding them in such high regard) now places them down in the gutter.

    It also leaves me leery of future upgrades and the Akismet service – who knows what other big-brother actions they could (maybe already) be implementing via those services.

    Did / does something reside on / crawl my sites via WP 3.0 or Akismet than sniffs what plugins I’m using so that WP can launch commercial competitors to them? Is this how they decide what to launch as paid services on WP.com?

    As I said in the pulled thread, the opening of thinking in this vein now has me itching as though I’d been sitting next to a dog with fleas. WordPress no longer has my implicit trust. I feel very reluctant to continue following their upgrade path via the automatic installer route.

    I’ll be saving up for the paid version of Pretty Link Pro – thank you for opening my eyes by bringing this whole subject to the attention of your plugins’ users.

    Gaz

    • Gaz there are already some significant issues with IP/keyword censorship making posts completely vanish rather than just go to spam arising with Akismet. May want to check out Gail’s Blog “GrowMap” for some of the lengthy engagements we’ve had attempting to get a large number of average bloggers removed from their ban list that never should have been there in the first place and had no way of knowing they’d been blacklisted. There’s becoming some pressure for bloggers to move off of akismet to protect their visitors at this time and competing services like defensio are absolutely loving it.

      With the WordPress.com API keys no longer free to small businesses – which limits a small business (including blogger monetizing) from utilizing Akismet or Wp.me or wp.com stats without paying, I think the monetization method is already in place and just now becoming more apparent.

      Kimberly

  13. I am using free version I downloaded from WordPress’s plugin directory few weeks ago and I am not going to update anything: neither wordpress nor PrettyLink!

    That is it.

    • I would recommend staying up to date on all your installations. Otherwise you significantly increase your risk of hackers and lack of support for outdated products.

    • Vusal, its safe (for now) to not upgrade prettylink – however you MUST keep your wordpress installation current. Cartpauj is not kidding when he says you become a SIGNIFICANT target for hacking and virus style attacks. Over time, if the prettylink is left non upgraded it COULD become a target as well, but for now its relatively safe to leave it non-upgraded. Please keep your wordpress install up to date however because as much as I enjoy supporting site owners that need emergency assistance – I’d rather you not set out to become someone that needs my hacked site cleanup services.
      Kimberly

  14. Blair if I am on wordpress.org or at least that is the wordpress I originally uploaded to my server then shouldn’t my pretty links work??? If so how do I get it to work again? I had to uninstall the original site and just got the new site reinstalled and installed my back up but for whatever the reason it is not working.

    • Kimberly, check that your permalinks aren’t set to default and if they’re not you probably need to save them again just to refresh the permalink settings for your site.

  15. Hi Blair

    Have you seen the latest on Matt Mullenweg’s personal blog?

    Now, when a WP.com user migrates their blog to a self-hosted WP.org version, all their inbound links will be redirected through to their new install so they keep the SEO and traffic from the links to their closed WP.com blog.

    I’m wondering if the planning of that had anything to do with taking down all the URL rewriter and masking plugins,

    @Nathan Hangen – that may be, but he’s a swoosh with serious cash and IT industry influence. And he’s still a young pup – younger than the majority of his users.

    Gaz

  16. Ok I’ve been using the free version of Pretty Link and really like it. This is going to sound really dumb but after googling it I still don’t understand the significance of link cloaking in this plugin. Aren’t my redirects that I use in the free one just as good/same thing as cloaking? :s

    • The difference is that with cloaking the user has no idea what URL they are visiting when they go there. For example with a re-direct the user can see the URL in their browser address bar when they get to the site. With cloaking they cannot.

    • Aaron, Cartpauj is spot on but I know that sometimes that is still hard to wrap your mind around without an example.

      Say you make the link yoururl.com/go/product1 – and you make the link point to producturl.com/product1&affid=1234554321

      If the link is non-cloaked/non-masked (cloaking and masking are essentially the same thing here)… Then the user will click the link that says yoururl.com/go/product1 … and then the address in their browser bar will change to show that they have landed on producturl.com/product1&affid=1234554321 (And this is where some users will manually edit what’s in the browser bar to remove your affiliate code so you won’t get paid if you’re an affiliate)

      If the link is cloaked/masked, the user will click yoururl.com/go/product1 and yoururl.com/go/product1 will STAY in the browser bar. The visitor/user will have NO WAY of knowing what page they’ve REALLY landed on or of editing the hidden link in a way that takes the affiliate ID off, or of coming back to the site via the non prettylink unless they manage to search it in google and find it there.

      For non-affiliate type redirections, either one is fine and there is no big deal for the average person. However for someone that is protecting their affiliate links from being tampered with, the cloaking/masking is essential.

      Hope that helps
      Kimberly

  17. Hey Matt,

    Can I still use Pretty Link for Amazon 301 Redirect so that the long data string will be shortened? If so, how do I do this as the redirect example I have seen from you uses a regular website address and not an amazom URL using an ASIN number.

    Thanks, Ken

  19. Awesome post here Blair and I love the shirt you have on in that picture. This is my first time visiting your blog, It is very very nice. You awesome have a awesome alexa ranking which is cool. I will be back to read more. thanks a million for this great read.

  20. My permalinks are not in the default setting but I did hit the save button do not know if that is going to make a difference but, still weird things are going on with my blog like I write a post and hit the publish or update button and I get a weird error message and sometimes it works and sometimes I have to redo everything and hit update again. Like I tried to use the more button to shorten my posts and when you click on it you get to 404 error. I do not know but I am very frustrated now….

    • Kimberly, in your permalink structure, when you typed it in, you wrote “catagory” instead of “category” … so its not correctly using the variable. WordPress does not know what a “catagory” is so you have to go to Settings -> Permalinks and fix what you misspelled.

    • Its easy to overlook little things – glad I was able to use your url link to find your site and track it down as quick as I did. Now check to see if it solves the other behavior problems your site was giving you or we will have to find out if you have a second hiccup somewhere. I think though that that change is going to fix a lot of issues since I’m kinda surprised it even allowed you to do that without a major fuss! Good luck and glad I could help. Feel free to check out my site for more wordpress tips etc as I do a lot with it 🙂
      Kimberly

  23. I can now hit the view post button and it really works WOW what a big difference I will now try to redo the other stuff I undid boy that really sounds silly but anyways I am forever grateful I really do not understand why anybody would purposely try to mess up your site but I guess some folks just do not have anything better to do with their time. I will check out your site as well I continue to pluck away at this I am determined to be successful and I know someday I will be. The other part about keeping my install up to date you mean when I get the messages from wordpress that they have a new update?? Or a new version? Oh yeah I finally figured out why my gravatar was not showing up yayyyyy got that fixed. It is all such simple things that make such big problems..

    • Yes – as a general rule of thumb – be it a plugin update or a wordpress version update – you want to wait almost exactly a week after the release – and then update your site. The short wait protects you from undiscovered critical bugs in the code – while upgrading within seven days shortens the window that you are highly at risk for a hacking due to having not upgraded. With hobby bloggers I don’t always advise them to wait but since I teach a lot of small business owners my advice to them is to give the update just a few days to be stress tested before they jeopardize their business.

      And of course, don’t upgrade wordpress versions without having backed up your install. If you’re not sure how to back up your site – I released two of my training class webinars onto my blog for everyone to use – one on how to correctly back up wordpress (for the average user, its not quite a perfect backup but its the best most users can handle) – and the other on how to upgrade in the most safe way possible that minimizes conflicts with themes/plugins and minimizes someone like me needing called to help unscramble the site if something didn’t go right. Those are normally part of my class but I decided the community of small biz owners I support needed them so you can use the search box on my blog for “backup wordpress” and “upgrade wordpress” to find them.

      Kimberly

  25. Kimberly,

    Thanks for the info on your training class webinars on how to properly backup WordPress. I’ve been concerned about this and your webinar was a big help.

    Again, Thanks!

  26. I don’t know how long there has supposedly been a problem with pretty link cloaking, but my links still appear to be cloaked when I view previous pages I created a long time ago. I use the free version. Has this problem already been resolved? If not, what do I need to do?

    Thanks,
    Joey

    • Joey if you are still on the non-changed version, meaning if you have not upgraded the plugin, then nothing has changed “yet”. I believe (off the top of my head) that the last full one was 4.5.0 (which you may have at the moment) and the altered plugin is 4.5.1.

  27. So if I upgrade the plugin, what specifically will happen? The links will not work? Sorry, I’m a bit confused. But if I don’t upgrade to the current Pretty Link version, is that a security risk?

    • That’s understandable — if you’re using Pretty Link Pro then upgrading won’t do anything to your existing links — they will stay the same. If you’re using Pretty Link (the lite version) then when you upgrade your cloaked, pretty bar and pixel links will still work but will just behave like a temporary redirect — so the users will still get to the target url but just the cloaking / prettybar will be gone.

      I hope that helps!

  28. What is the difference from a cloaked link, and a redirect link? So your sharing that our redirect links will continue working…

    Thanks,

    Owen — if you’re not using the “cloaking”, “prettybar” or “pixel” redirect types on any of your links (you can see this in your link options on the link add / edit screen) then you won’t notice any change. Your Temporary and Permanent Redirects will continue working exactly as they have in the past.

  29. Blair, I can’t see any captcha text on your contact form so am trying here. I’m happy to pay for support time if you can help me.

    I’m trying to integrate WL Member with Mingle and profiles aren’t showing up. At first I got a message that they weren’t available so turned the ‘AutoCreate Page’ setting to point to “My Profile.” Of course, that went to MY profile (duh) so I turned it back. Now it makes its own page called “profile” that displays in the menu of WP 3.0.1 and still only shows my own profile.

    Thanks,

    Dave Bricker
    305-908-1350

  30. Does anyone know if there will be a 50% discount for PrettyLink Pro? I like the Lite version but would like to be able to use the pro features? However the full price is a bit too much for me. 🙂

    • he runs promotions every once in a while but you can start with the single site license for $37

  31. OK
    This is a quote:
    Since Pretty Link Pro is actually a separate plugin not hosted on the wordpress.org plugin repository it is immune from this policy change.

    So why don’t you make the Pretty Link Plugin a separate plugin like the pro version?? Is it because your afraid that less people will buy your pro version if they can use the lite version?

    • I think this one is fairly obvious 😀 — Move it from the WP repo and lose a LOT of potential customers.

  32. Does version 1.4.52 have the cloaking capability, or is it just an upgrade to 1.4.51?–Thanks

    • not the (light) version. But Pro does. The cloaking option had to be removed from the (light) version via WordPress’ request.

  33. No cartpauj, it’s not that obvious.

    Keeping a version in the WordPress directory that satisfies WordPress’ requirements would result in NO loss of potential customers.

    As a web developer myself, I realize that three versions of the program would need to exist so that all existing users could continue with the same experience they always had.

    1. A version for the WordPress directory that satisfies their requirements.

    2. A version containing all the functionality that used to exist in the free version and that was available in the WordPress directory.

    3. A Pro version, which has always existed and been available for a price.

    Blair commented to me earlier in this thread that pushing functionality to the Pro version was unavoidable, and suggested that other ways of handling it would have been much more complex, apparently referring not only to the code base, but deployment and support as well.

    In a properly written application, the code base would cleanly separate functionality at each of the three levels. A simple “switch” within the code would establish the functionality available to the particular version being installed. Deployment would be as simple as throwing the correct switch, and including the correct function libraries. This would need to be done once for each update or new version deployed. Further, to facilitate deployment of bug fixes, and changes to accommodate WordPress updates, the free and enhanced versions probably already shared a common code base.

    The version in the WordPress directory could direct users to the enhanced free edition, as well as promote the Pro version. No loss of customers. No annoyed customers who have been pushed to buy the Pro version in order to maintain what they had always enjoyed with their original version of the plug-in. Bonus: Additional traffic to Blair’s site from those who would be visiting to grab a copy of the enhanced version who never would have come previously because they would have installed the plug-in from the directory without having any reason to come here. A little extra work? Yes. More traffic, more customers? Quite likely!

    Pushing disgruntled users directly to the Pro version, rather than using this as an opportunity to extend additional goodwill, and continue to load up Blair’s prospect list, seems folly to me. I’m just saying…

    • I think you have grossly underestimated a “little extra work”. I’m a plugin/web developer also and I would not in a million years want to try and run 3 different versions of a plugin — while trying to maintain the other projects and customer support as well. Bottom line is Blair did what he felt was best and we’re not in a place to judge his decision. We should be grateful for what he has given us. If you’re unhappy with something that’s free you have no grounds to complain…just don’t use it.

    • cartpauj –

      As a 30 year IT guy, project manager, and MCSD, I don’t believe I’ve grossly underestimated anything. Properly written code can be stratified well enough and with out a lot of difficulty. Ever hear of Microsoft Windows? Hmm, let’s see – Starter, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate editions. How about Intuit Quicken – Deluxe, Premier, Home & Business, and Rental Property Manager editions… There are dozens of other examples.

      And for the record, I’m not complaining. Rather, you have found me making a compelling argument for NOT taking away features of a plug-in that users had previously enjoyed as a part of the “user supported” version.

      Although I don’t necessarily find a “paid” version of a plug-in to be distasteful in an otherwise Open Source and User Supported venue, I do find it hard to be “grateful” for features that have been pushed to a paid edition of a product. And as I have said, I find this move representative of a poor customer service decision, and expect this will result in the loss of potential customers.

    • Haha well it looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree Tom. No need to start an argument neither of us can win. Keep in mind though that M$ is a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of employees to share the load. Blair is a one-man show, and as far as I can tell features weren’t “moved” to the Pro version they were required by WP to be “removed” in order to remain in their plugin repo. Hosting a 3rd version of the plugin would just require more work and more server resources.

  35. I was kind of surprised at what I read on this post. I have been using Pretty Link for quite a while now, but apparently I’ve only been using a fraction of its full capabilities. I don’t even know about a cloaking function for pretty link, nor do I have a clear idea of what it would be used for! Is there somewhere on your site where I can read about this function and perhaps examples of how it could be used? I suspect that I would be a good candidate for your pro version just based on the context of what I see in this post, so anything you can give me on this is likely in our mutual interest! 🙂

    Thanks!

    • Rick, you can do a google search on cloaking links and find lots of information. Basically the whole idea is that you are directing a user to a page that they have no idea what the address of the page is. You’ll notice that your 307 redirects will update the browsers address bar to the target URL after the user has been redirected. But when cloaking or using the Pretty Bar the address bar does not get updated.

    • cartpauj,

      Thanks so much for your explanation. That’s about what I thought it was, however, although I’d seen it done before, I never knew how to do it. Regarding the “why” of the matter, am I correct in my understanding of your comment that the purpose of doing so (and not wanting someone to know the real URL to which they are being directed) is so that a) their focus (and perhaps their business) doesn’t get taken away from your site to someone else’s, and b), so that everything looks like it’s all on your site, making your site look larger and better to them?

      I can find a lot on Google about cloaking links. I can’t find much on why people do it, benefits, advantages, strategies, etc. I was hoping to find something on this site, but so far, I haven’t found anything like that.

      Thanks!

      Rick

    • Frankly, it sounds like a pretty good tool to me, regardless of why people want to use it, or what the strategy is behind it. However, I, too, would be interested in any information that may be available about strategies, etc.

  36. I’ll have to wait until another coupon pops up somewhere. I just can’t afford a hundred bucks for a plugin right now.

  37. I’m totally new to all this as i have never used cloaking or link tracking(apart from what the affiliate manager provides) but i have very good wp experience.
    Can anybody advise which version to start using?
    I just want to track all my links including affiliate links in 1 place for 5 of my sites.

    Thanks

  40. I completely agree with Tom, three version is better than 2 where one is useless since it doesn’t do a cloacking anymore, but just a redirect not hidding the final destination. A bit dissapointed by Blair at this moment

    David

  41. Either version is perfect… its a FREE plugin which complies with wordpress policies and so stays on the directory list of easy to install and avaialble to all.

    As for the multi-version argument its a storm in a tea cup, I am sure everyone has better things to do than complain over something that is FREE and extremely useful in its basic form AND he has provided the download to the version with full cloaking?

    As for the pro version it’s definately one of the best and most convienient plugins I use and covers several processes that litereally save me hours and hours on EVERY site. @ $37 it is an absolute bargain and extrordinary value.

    After testing both versions it’s one I will be recommending to all my clients, contacts and friends.

    My support to this great work goes with my dollars. They are well spent. Thanks Blair, your work is much appreciated.

    See it in action: http://www.accxess.com/blog/prettylink

  42. I think the plugin is/was great, really. I do. The only problem I have though was that I don’t think we were clearly told on upgrading that cloaking would NO LONGER work.

    I only discovered it after upgrading the plugin. Whatever rules/rationale WP.org had for getting rid of the plugin as-was, we should ALWAYS read the Changelog instead of haphazardly upgrading for the sake of it. We are, after all, not robots!

  45. I am a little unclear on why anyone would NOT upgrade to pretty link pro?? If you have the money to do anything online (server, software, etc.) and you are seriously concerned about cloaking links and not just redirecting and tracking them, then there should be no excuse for not having $37 to invest.

    If you are not earning at least $37 within a month through a side business, then there is a different problem that we should be talking about. If it is a new venture, then it should be a cost of doing business. The point of any free or ‘lite’ version is for users to try something out long-term with real functionality. But is surely is not Blairs fault that WP made secret changes.

    I upgraded a long time ago, as I saw the basic value of having the pro version. It was one of my better investments and I now use it on every WordPress Site I set up for my business and personal sites. I honestly do not use all of the features. In fact I do not use most of them, but it is still of great value to me.

    I have followed several different threads about cloaking and most people do not agree with them, when it comes to affiliates HIDING the URL of the vendor that a buyer is getting a product from. Since most affiliate URL’s use cookies for tracking, and the better ones actually change the URL that long affiliate URL back to the primary product page URL you are on, it is not the best option to use for that purpose.

    If the affiliate program or link you are using does not have the means of internally track something, meaning it does not use some additional strand for tracking only your traffic only, while then hiding that extra strand, so the customer never sees it, then you might want to seriously consider finding a better affiliate program or alternative. Because ultimately, I tend to agree with most people that say it is not right to not let the person know what site they are on, when you do not own that site and you want them to buy something, or do any other type of action. It has become so dangerous to click on links, fill out info on unknown sites and then not let your visitors know where they are or let them easily to navigate the pages of a site you sent them too, because they are completely cloaked to one single link. Some sites will break out of cloaked links anyway, especially if the programmers know what they are doing.

    But the bottom line is, if you want to track all of your clicks, do any split testing, cloak URLS for products, services, that belong to you, use a pretty bar with some other info, or you just want to use short-links for any other non-nefarious reason, then Pretty Link Pro is really the way to go.

  46. Maybe I am missing something here but surely the reason WP would adopt a policy of banning cloaking of affiliate links is to be in compliance with the FTC rules on disclosure of affiliate links that came into effect 12/1/09? Please do correct me if I am wrong!

  47. Hi,

    I found this blog through PLLite version I have on my self hosted WP page.
    I would like to refer to post from October 11, 2010 at 6:06 pm by Kimberly Castleberry

    I`m thinking to upgrade to Pretty Link Pro. I`ve read a lot of good reviews about Pretty Link. I use free version at the moment and it only redirects, which is not good with some affiliates pages because aff link (number) at the end is still visible. Some of websites just catch affID and immediately change to their real website so it`s not a problem, but most of them don`t.

    Before I knew PL I had bought Samurai Link Cloaker which is based on PHP. Very easy and with very basic tracking. However, it happens very often that cloaked links do not open, even though it loads page but stops on blank white page. Mostly the one which have “stealth” cloak. I have to each time log in to my “samurai” page with cloaked links and reload them. Have anyone experience this with Pretty Link?
    SLC have built in following cloak choices:
    1. stealth
    2. frame
    3. redirect
    Number 3 as I mentioned above is only good for websites which cacth affID and at the end lands to their .com page without any extension. How is about PL in this regard?
    I want to avoid spending for link cloakers, which I find later useless as the one I own at the moment.
    Thanks for any answer to my question

  48. Hi I just started using pretty links and would like to know how to apply an image add to my website using prettylink see I applied to a cpa network applied for a banner they gave me the tracking code and I tried adding it could look prettty but it didn’t can I even cloak a banner ad from a cpa network using prettylinks the code they gave me was a html code by the way

    • Hi David,

      I hope I can help you with that. First of all put banner they gave you on your own server. What you do is “Save as…” and put into your pc. Next upload to your server. In my case I use widgets “text” for my banners, but you can put them wherever you wish. Then, I pasted into “text” following code:

      [quote][/quote]

      Check my website (click my name) to get an idea what I mean. All banners are done the way as I wrote above.

      Let me know how is it goes 🙂

Trackbacks

  1. […] Pretty Link‘s creator/author Blair Williams notified everyone on his mailing list today as soon as he knew what was going on and has worked avidly all day to help all of the plugin users to understand the change. His blog post about the Pretty Link changes is here. […]

  2. […] some time ago. According to the developer, Blair Williams, that is because WordPress.org has an undocumented policy that doesn’t allow plugins to cloak […]