View Full Version : Advertising standards
mjmacky
03-28-2011, 12:21 PM
So after seeing this yet again, I had to point out it's the worst advertisement banner I've ever seen. This is something beyond lazy.
http://thumbnails32.imagebam.com/12549/3eacb7125488894.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3eacb7125488894)
http://thumbnails32.imagebam.com/12549/3eacb7125488894.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3eacb7125488894)
70704
I never saw those phony download buttons, and I'm not blocking ads for this site. What would one try to download or play in this forum anyway? :unsure:
mjmacky
03-28-2011, 05:33 PM
I never saw those phony download buttons, and I'm not blocking ads for this site. What would one try to download or play in this forum anyway? :unsure:
They appeared 2 or 3 times, and I never clicked them. They were a yieldmanager link or something of the sort. What bothered me most was not the lack of context, it was the poor artwork. It look like someone prtsc'd some flash player and did some mild editing to make a graphic.
tesco
03-29-2011, 11:18 PM
I never saw those phony download buttons, and I'm not blocking ads for this site. What would one try to download or play in this forum anyway? :unsure:
They appeared 2 or 3 times, and I never clicked them. They were a yieldmanager link or something of the sort. What bothered me most was not the lack of context, it was the poor artwork. It look like someone prtsc'd some flash player and did some mild editing to make a graphic.
In the defence of whoever created them, they probably looked normal in the default style...
mjmacky
03-29-2011, 11:35 PM
In the defence of whoever created them, they probably looked normal in the default style...
I was evaluating them on a general level, but by what you say, it implies that the ad was tailor made for this forum. That begs the repeat of the question posed earlier:
What would one try to download or play in this forum anyway?
tesco
03-30-2011, 12:05 AM
I was evaluating them on a general level, but by what you say, it implies that the ad was tailor made for this forum. That begs the repeat of the question posed earlier:
What would one try to download or play in this forum anyway?
Nahh what I was getting at is that most sites have a white background, not black; that ad probably looked fine on a white background (which the default style has).
That ad space is yieldmanager, they provide a lot of different ads, none of which are tailor made for this site.
mjmacky
03-30-2011, 12:45 AM
That ad space is yieldmanager, they provide a lot of different ads, none of which are tailor made for this site.
I see what you mean.
You can't see the fail so well on the right:
http://thumbnails36.imagebam.com/12572/c6424d125719883.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/c6424d125719883)
Play FST now and win a PS3.
mjmacky
03-30-2011, 06:58 PM
I've been playing FST for awhile now... but so far they've only let me download a PS3. I of course deleted it because I already have a 360
How did you unlock that? I'm on level 121 and haven't managed to download the PS3 yet.
tesco
03-31-2011, 12:01 AM
It unlocks at lvl 150 and costs 15,000PP (Post Points).
Thank you, tesco. Just a few more months of grinding and I'll be there. :happy:
mjmacky
03-31-2011, 02:03 AM
How did you unlock that? I'm on level 121 and haven't managed to download the PS3 yet.
I didn't have time to level so I used up up down down left right left right b a select start
I tried that, but it removed all my inventory and the game told me "cheater - you don't deserve weapons!". :dry:
tesco
03-31-2011, 11:04 PM
That hole was plugged in a patch. ;)
mjmacky
04-01-2011, 03:30 AM
Somethings it feels like I make a difference
http://thumbnails37.imagebam.com/12602/91aae3126017421.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/91aae3126017421)
http://thumbnails37.imagebam.com/12602/91aae3126017421.jpg (http://www.imagebam.com/image/91aae3126017421)
Excellent blending.
They never heard of transparency, I guess. :idunno:
I've seen a lot of those "download" icons on various torrent and MP3 download sites - which I think is precisely what they were designed for. People search for a file, then mistakenly hit the fake "download" button. I've done it myself a few times.
Apparently these people feel that the only way to get customers to visit their site is to trick them. To me, it's just another form of scam advertising.
You know, for some reason I thought of this thread today. Now you posted on it. Law of attraction, I guess. :idunno:
I've seen a lot of those "download" icons on various torrent and MP3 download sites - which I think is precisely what they were designed for. People search for a file, then mistakenly hit the fake "download" button. I've done it myself a few times.
Happened to me quite often with software downloads (see the pic I posted in the first page). That tactic may work until these stupid buttons make their way to the major ad blocklists. If ads weren't so obtrusive these days (pop-ups, pop-unders, floating animations, seizure-inducing banners) I'd gladly surf the Web with ad blocking disabled.
mjmacky
05-02-2011, 05:08 PM
I use noscript+FF for venturing into the unknown. There's a slight art in determining which domains are relevant and should be allowed to run javascript sometimes when trying to get a page to display correctly. Flash video seems to be easier, comment sections seem to be the tougher level bosses.
mjmacky
05-03-2011, 04:54 AM
Hi, I'm an idiot that's not going to even bother reading any part of this thread and make some sort of generic post so that little number at the bottom of my badge goes up. I'm afraid doing any more than that might accidentally be construed as effort derp derp derp
agreed
@mjmacky - the user "diziizleri" is obviously a spam-bot, probably the same as the dozen other users who registered here and post "thank you for sharing" over and over.
These spambots are usually easy to spot. The name is often a random combination of letters and numbers, and they usually post short off-topic comments in broken English. Their goal is to spam their website on every forum where they can breach registration captchas, using a URL link in either the post or the the user signature, or the user's "about" page. Some bulletin boards are set up to filter out new user's URLs, so that is why we often don't see them.
mjmacky
05-03-2011, 03:48 PM
@mjmacky - the user "diziizleri" is obviously a spam-bot, probably the same as the dozen other users who registered here and post "thank you for sharing" over and over.
These spambots are usually easy to spot. The name is often a random combination of letters and numbers, and they usually post short off-topic comments in broken English. Their goal is to spam their website on every forum where they can breach registration captchas, using a URL link in either the post or the the user signature, or the user's "about" page. Some bulletin boards are set up to filter out new user's URLs, so that is why we often don't see them.
I know as much, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun right? There's also the off chance that it could be a live human being, and what a tragedy it would be if that went uninsulted...
zot is right, although these bots aren't even spamming links of any kind. Maybe they want to use their signature, but can't since that's disabled for n00bs?
Either way, still annoying to see a bunch of them every day :dabs:
Google is largely to blame for the spambot invasion because the search engine encourages link-spamming by ranking a site according to how widely spammed its links are.
With all the money Google has, I'm sure they could easily design a system to ignore links posted to forums by "one hit wonders" - and that alone would solve the spambot problem. But then I was saying this a half-dozen years ago when it all started.
tesco
05-04-2011, 11:16 PM
Google is largely to blame for the spambot invasion because the search engine encourages link-spamming by ranking a site according to how widely spammed its links are.
With all the money Google has, I'm sure they could easily design a system to ignore links posted to forums by "one hit wonders" - and that alone would solve the spambot problem. But then I was saying this a half-dozen years ago when it all started.
They did, it was rel="nofollow", but for some reason they've started ignoring that as of 2009... :wacko:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.