Webmaster Forum Rules | Posting Guide | Contact Us | Testimonials | Contributing Geek Program | Advertise on Geek/Talk
Welcome to the GeekTalk Webmaster Discussion Forums from GeekVillage.com

Click Here To Register. It's Free!

Go Back   geek/talk: Signature-free discourse for serious web publishers > YOUR REVENUE: Making Money On The Internet > Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2002, 09:30 PM   #46
darnell
Registered User
 
darnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Suwanee, GA, USA
Posts: 704
Default Re: Re: Interesting....

Quote:
Originally posted by jnestor


Let's see someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater causes people to panic and run for the exits where people are trampled leading to serious injury and death.

A banner that says "you have 8 new messages" hasn't caused any injury or death as far as I know.
Point taken.

But I can't see how anyone can say these ads are not deceptive with a straight face .

It almost justifies the user blocking them.
darnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2002, 10:00 PM   #47
jkcity
Registered User
 
jkcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 427
Default

"But I can't see how anyone can say these ads are not deceptive with a straight face"

I have never thought they where that deceptive in banners, but fastclick is running a warning ad in and invue ad at the momant, and that is pretty deceptive cause there is two x's next to each over and you can't tell which one to click, in fact most users probably think its just all an ad and probably don't realise they can close it down, I find that pretty deceptive but I can't see how anyone could ever think one of these ads was a real system alert.
jkcity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2002, 10:49 PM   #48
darnell
Registered User
 
darnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Suwanee, GA, USA
Posts: 704
Default

What about the InVue that says "Congratulations, you are the XXX visitor to this web site" (where XXX is a random value)?? That user is NOT that numbered visitor to my web site. I don't run that one.

I don't run any of the warning box styled InVue ads.

Some of you should sit down with "ordinary people" that are outside of the technology field sometime and see how they navigate the web.
darnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2002, 11:09 PM   #49
jkcity
Registered User
 
jkcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by darnell
Some of you should sit down with "ordinary people" that are outside of the technology field sometime and see how they navigate the web.
I have and the only deceptive type ad I have seen people think was real was the "if this banner is flashing you have won $500"

I think alot of people click on warning ads just to see the junk thats behind them, I know thats why i often click them when I see them, I do admit there is some users who probably do get confused but I don't think its many and after the first time I don't think it will happen again, these banners still get hight ctr (some still 8%) I doubt that 80 out of every 1000 people is still confused.

Last edited by jkcity; 12-08-2002 at 11:10 PM.
jkcity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 01:02 PM   #50
JAL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1
Default

I actually read the complaint and did a little research.. A few facts are interesting:

1) The plaintiff bringing the suit just happend to be an actual attorney employed by the firm that is bring suit on his behalf.

2) The complaint acknowledges that it would be impossible to actually find all the citizend who have "suffered" and as a result the plaintiff/firm will generously accept the potential award on behalf of the class

3) The attorney/plaintiff previously sued his employer b/c theywould not pay for a damaged tooth he incurred while eating candy during work hours.

Regardless of the merits of the case, it looks lke a money grab, pure and simple.
JAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 01:06 PM   #51
shareasale
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
shareasale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 82
Default

jkcity,

im going to go ahead and disagree with you a bit...i would venture to say that about 70 out of those 80 clicks were people that were "confused" or "deceived" into clicking it... i agree with darnell - we all know what we are doing ... we are "geeks" so to speak, but we make up a very small percentage of people on the web. i wish that i could share with everyone here some of the transcripts of conversations that we have with people every day, and these are typically even more experienced users than the "base" user..... and the questions still astound me. Again, I refer to my earlier post on this one....the main problem in most of these ads isn't just the confusion brought about by the "X" buttons, and dialog-box-looking-things....but the fact that they are also trying to intentionally prey on the naivety of internet users in general - who don't know the difference between ads/dialog boxes/real warning messages/fake ones...

Steve - i agree with you in the sense that there are no real damages here - the lawsuit i imagine will not get very far in a damages or monetary sense...but then again, there are no real damages that come from a SPAM email...or at least the two are essentially the same...meaning the damage is basically the time it takes me to hit the delete button, etc... -- however, we ALL want SPAM to stop...and some of us are quite testy about it... I know of a couple of people on this board that have shared my experience with an anti-spam-fax-guy, who wanted a certain amount of money (lots) for every perceived spam mail that we "sent" him, based on an old anti-fax law.....

What I am trying to input into this thread, with little success , is the idea that whether or not the ads deserve a lawsuit or not, which is certainly debatable....the advertising world as a whole, I believe, needs to step up to the plate on a whole bunch of fronts. That includes everyone, ... webmasters, networks, the graphic designers that put the ads together (do you remember your "Manifesto"... probably not ) , the merchants that make them available.....everyone.... there needs to be integrity in the online ad world...in my opinion it is a very critical message. The further we slip down the slope as a whole group, the more the consumers will simply ignore us.

Everyone here agrees on the "theft"ware stance, the SPAM, etc... I think this one goes in that group, and should be addressed that way.

My seven cents.
__________________
-Brian
-Owner/Operator of Shareasale.com
brian@shareasale.com
shareasale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 01:18 PM   #52
darnell
Registered User
 
darnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Suwanee, GA, USA
Posts: 704
Default Well said Brian

Businesses should be able to stand on their own good merits. Not deception and fraud.

As much fuss as was made over X-10, they do sell their cameras via simply telling people what they have to offer. They never had to fool anyone into clicking their pop-unders.

Which is why I try to avoid the overly deceptive ads.

(Brian, I said I was not going to say much because I did not want to take away from what you said, but I could not resist putting in 2 more cents . Deceptive advertising is as much SCUM of the web marketplace as all the others you mentioned.)
darnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 02:10 PM   #53
jkcity
Registered User
 
jkcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 427
Default

" im going to go ahead and disagree with you a bit...i would venture to say that about 70 out of those 80 clicks were people that were "confused" or "deceived" into clicking it... i agree with darnell - we all know what we are doing ... we are "geeks" so to speak, but we make up a very small percentage of people on the web."

I was not always a web geek though

but how often can people still be tricked into clicking the ads I find it hard to beleive that 80 out of 1000 people still can, surely after the first time they click they will learn to recongise it, surely peopel would recongise them for what they are by now and still not be clicking baring the few people that are just brand new to the internet.

I have probably delevered warning banners to over a million people since 1999 and I have never once recieved a complaint about them.

I don't know if this is typical though, but how many people here have had alot of emails complaining about them because the user felt tricked?

I know in all my posts I amke out as if I really like warning ads I just want to tell you I don't, I think they are ugly and annoying, but at the end of the day they do pay money.
jkcity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 02:45 PM   #54
shareasale
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
shareasale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
I know in all my posts I amke out as if I really like warning ads I just want to tell you I don't, I think they are ugly and annoying, but at the end of the day they do pay money.
Just poking at the bush here....because i completely understand the quest and need for money to come in....BUT...what if the above sentence was written by the network provider for an un-named, but highly know internet rebate service that was accused of over-writing affiliate links...

it would need to be modified a little bit...maybe it would read...

"We may not agree with their practices, but there is nothing illegal (as of yet)... but at the end of the day, they pay us a lot of money"...

That is a made up sentence, with a made up scenario...and in no way do I mean to call jkcity out about it...Im just trying to make a point...

I know it is not directly related...but there are a large number of webmasters who are asking networks and other parties involved to take a HUGE hit monetarily in order to get rid of "theft"ware....

Should we, as a community then...not be able to ask webmasters to take a financial hit in order to rid the we of deceptive advertising? Just a question...

If it were only money that we all wanted, without concern for consequences on society, etc. etc... wouldn't we just all be pushing advertising for pornography? hard to argue that it doesn't sell the best...but there is at least a large majority of people here and elsewhere that simply won't do it....most TOA for ad networks will include clauses for adult ads, as in - we don't allow them....im not saying all...but a lot.... why did we draw that line.? certainly, adult sites are not illegal.....?

im not sure if my point is coming across, so the typing stops.
__________________
-Brian
-Owner/Operator of Shareasale.com
brian@shareasale.com
shareasale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 03:27 PM   #55
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by shareasale
......Steve - i agree with you in the sense that there are no real damages here - the lawsuit i imagine will not get very far in a damages or monetary sense...but then again, there are no real damages that come from a SPAM email...or at least the two are essentially the same...meaning the damage is basically the time it takes me to hit the delete button, etc... -- however, we ALL want SPAM to stop...and some of us are quite testy about it... I know of a couple of people on this board that have shared my experience with an anti-spam-fax-guy, who wanted a certain amount of money (lots) for every perceived spam mail that we "sent" him, based on an old anti-fax law.....
Point taken and good points. If we don't police ourselves, then I guarantee you that eventually the feds and states in the USA will step in and pass legislation. To prove my point please let me refer to your own thread with respect to the state of Washington and it's SPAM laws:

http://www.geekvillage.com/forums/sh...threadid=16640

AND:

His winnings at: http://www.aboutspam.com/index.php

Returning to the "trick" banner. It's easy to see exactly what will eventually happen if we carefully examine the DRE (Dept of Real Estate) in the state of California. Years ago, you could do and say just about anything you wanted in your advert. Today, every advert must be approved by the DRE and they audit for compliance.

Perhaps my example is a bit of a "stretch" but it's certainly food for thought. Five years from today:

- All adverts approved before they run
- Email Sub forms MUST include opt-out and privacy statements in 12 point type inside the form
- Spammers go to jail

</i_hope_not>




Steve_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 04:37 PM   #56
shareasale
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
shareasale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 82
Default

yes, good find on that thread...it is a very similar kind of claim...and i think i am trying to say the same thing in both threads, although not very elegantly... I don't want to see every spam end up in court, - but I am glad to see somebody pointing out to the companies involved that "deceptive ads"...not just "annoying" ones (spam in general) will be addressed by somebody.

i completely agree with you that there most likely won't be a monetary judgement in this case for the "class" ... i don't believe that i ever said that i did... i was just glad to see the issue raised by someone, even if it is in court - those ads have been on my "bad"-list for a while as i've been trying to clean them off of my own network as i can find them..., and i hadn't even seen the issue adressed anywhere...... it is very similar to the old thread you referenced in that the damage, like you say, is non-existant really since the ad only wastes 2 seconds of your time....

we are experienced users though....if the ad says "Your computer is broadcasting your IP Address, Hackers will come and destroy your computer" ...or whatever that ad says....and then it leads the unsuspecting user to a website where a purchase is made....then there could be a case for damages on an individual case to case basis...or at least with an identifiable "class", i.e., people who actually purchased...

I don't know...I think they are all tied together....my opinions are just that...but in the case of spam, I still think the "delete" method is probably the best....in the case of these flashing ads, i wish people just wouldn't put them on their sites...and in the case of "theftware" i think legal action is justified... I hope that we can all define our roles, police ourselves as you point out, and do our parts WITHOUT the need for litigation (unless necessary), to further the industry, not bring it down.

thanks for the good points and discussion
__________________
-Brian
-Owner/Operator of Shareasale.com
brian@shareasale.com
shareasale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 05:53 PM   #57
jokearound
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 739
Default

This is the text for one of the bonzi ads :

"Your computer is currently broadcasting an internet IP address. With this address, someone can immediately begin attacking your computer!"

Are both points made in that ad not correct? operative word : "CAN"

Where is the deception? unless the programme doesnt do what is advertised (which i dont know, but thats another story)
jokearound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 06:11 PM   #58
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Point taken on the copy which is interesting to isolate in this friendly little thread with just one major problem:

See this page:

http://www.lukins.com/bonzi/index.php?pid=banners

The banner on the bottom: This copy is not true! I certify this fact on 3 machines using 3 different lines. And yes, I'm rather familiar with regedit and every legal hardware and software "hack" known to a geek on the face of planet Mouse


"Your Internet Connection Is Not Optimized.
Download bla bla bla ...."


Last edited by Steve_S; 12-09-2002 at 06:12 PM.
Steve_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 06:50 PM   #59
GSE-Media
Registered User
 
GSE-Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Doraville, Georgia
Posts: 191
Default In addition

I personally don't have a problem with the warning ads, but....

With current technologies available, they could easily make this type of ad even more deceptive if they wanted. Using layers (similar to invue ads) and having the banner appear on top of content after say a 5 second delay, using flash to even make a generic window alert sound at the same time, they could make it even worse than it is. Maybe this lawsuit may set some standards and / or limits. ?

Added:

I made a test / sample one just because I was bored. This would definately draw a lawsuit if it were used:

http://www.celebrity-fansites.com/evil_test.html

(IE only)

Last edited by GSE-Media; 12-09-2002 at 07:21 PM.
GSE-Media is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2002, 06:57 PM   #60
jokearound
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 739
Default

Steve : aha, yes, I havent seen that one for a while, I forgot about it (actually, I probably havent seen it since 2001 )

its been said that the geeks in this thread are not "decieved" by such banners, but we make up a small % of the internet populus. Lets turn that one around shall we?

Maybe our "geeky" connections are optimized (some of ours - mine certainly arent - a small % of a small %). That means that only a tiny % have been "decieved" by these ads, and are geeks anyway, so as said before, we wouldnt have clicked..

a paradox of sorts!

the vast majority of peoples connections are not optimised.
The suit is not for us geeks (probably because we didnt click), its for the newbies and others who clicked. But the ads were relevant and truthful for them, so I cant see a claim for deceptive text.

actually, after reading the site given, the case has nothing to do with the text, its the fake interface bits..so I guess my rant is completely inconsequential. ill be quiet now

Last edited by jokearound; 12-09-2002 at 07:27 PM.
jokearound is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
text ads competitive with adsense? dognose Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 3 04-04-2006 11:59 PM
PayPal Litigation Settlement... Eric_eLyrics Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 10 08-01-2004 08:30 PM
eFront? Class Action lawsuit?!?! Outlaw Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 5 07-05-2001 11:40 PM
Alexa Class Action Lawsuit Rhea Web Design and Webmaster Issues 0 05-14-2001 05:43 PM
Highly Targetted Ads - how to sell em WildComputer Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 2 08-18-1999 08:27 PM

Please support our advertisers. They ensure our survival.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 PM.


GeekVillage.com is copyright © 1998-2015 Curiosity Cave - Science gifts for clever kids. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.