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/125...7125488894.jpg
Printable View
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/125...7125488894.jpg
Attachment 70704Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
In the defence of whoever created them, they probably looked normal in the default style...Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyThey 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by tesco
Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyI 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tesco
You can't see the fail so well on the right:
http://thumbnails36.imagebam.com/125...d125719883.jpg
Play FST now and win a PS3.
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.
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:
I didn't have time to level so I used up up down down left right left right b a select startQuote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
I tried that, but it removed all my inventory and the game told me "cheater - you don't deserve weapons!". :dry:
That hole was plugged in a patch. ;)
Somethings it feels like I make a difference
http://thumbnails37.imagebam.com/126...3126017421.jpg
Excellent blending.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
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.
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by diziizleri
@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...Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
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.
They did, it was rel="nofollow", but for some reason they've started ignoring that as of 2009... :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by zot