The paid-to-search evolution!!!

Just another "paid-to-search" scam!? DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

At Ibux the business plan is much more secure. You collect earnings at a very reasonable rate, not too low to be a poor use of your time, while not so high that this website will be forced down once membership peaks. The advertising at Ibux is very efficient, and also filled with very useful products from established companies.

Also, Ibux is the ONLY "paid-to-search" program that has it's own forum, so you can discuss the program with other users.

Dont't waste your time with "scam-search", try Ibux...


http://www.ibux.net/?r=456

In reply to:

---

Just another "paid-to-search" scam!? DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

---

At least these one-post-wonders have, thus far, confined this nonsense to the Offtopic Discussion area.

> At least these one-post-wonders have, thus far, confined this nonsense to
> the Offtopic Discussion area.

Yes.

This is getting rather annoying at this point, though. 'Offtopic' or not, this sort of thing is very much not in line with the spirit or purpose of these forums.

It's becoming increasingly clear that in the context of this forum, changes need to be made in how affiliate links can be used as they are getting out of hand. I think a policy A) against posting messages which are solely intended as a means to drive people to an affiliate link (providing one as a way to be 'tipped' after helping people would still be fine), and B) of requiring transparency in the labeling of such links would provide an appropriate middle ground.

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Not to belittle either issue, Jeff, but aren't you jumping from this forum spam to the recent referral link discussion?

TorbenGB

> Not to belittle either issue, Jeff, but aren't you jumping from this forum spam to the recent referral link discussion?

I will belittle the issue just a little, in a friendly, good natured way. :-)

I searched the forum for similar posts, and only found 10, in about the last month.

In the last month, there were about 1600 posts total.

Therefore Jeff does seem to be a wee bit over sensitive to these "one post wonders."

Edit: Oh yeah, and folks like prufrock would say, technically, this latest example didn't even include a "link." :-)

YMMV,

BobS

eerrrrrr. why don't these threads just get locked or deleted by the first passing mod? They are spam, which is forbidden, yes?

yes but that wouldn't serve Jeff at all.

Has noone noticed that all these started *after* the debate began?

Clearly Jeff has it in for BobS (you'r a goner BobS).

/me stirs the pot :D

jason

> They are spam, which is forbidden, yes?


"Predominately promotional messages must not be posted to bulletin boards, discussion forums, guestbooks, Usenet newsgroups, or any other similar service unless the operator of that service explicitly allows such messages. In the case of Usenet newsgroups, such messages must be specifically allowed in that group's charter."

Was this one spam?

This one?

It's a slippery slope, censorship. :-)

BobS

Anarchy is a slippery slope too, BobS ;)

The two threads you posted (into which, thankfully, you forgot to include your own referral link) I would not think of as spam. Those were questions about serving ads... support questions... by members who aren't one-post-wonders.

No doubt moderation would hinder your ability to get money out of sneaky referral linking like you've done in your posts, so I can understand why you'd be upset about it.

> you forgot to include your own referral link

Wrong again - I don't know how to (easily) use it with forum links.


> sneaky referral linking like you've done in your posts,

Nothing sneaky about those. If you think those are sneaky, you don't know sneaky. I know sneaky. I worked with sneaky. You, sir, don't know sneaky. :-)

> so I can understand why you'd be upset about it.

And you'd be wrong yet again. :-)

Cheers,


BobS

Hum. Right you are. I completely missed that [AL] part..

My apologies for calling you sneaky.

No sneakiness with BobS.

BobS not sneaky.

*nod*

> Not to belittle either issue, Jeff, but aren't you jumping from this forum
> spam to the recent referral link discussion?

Perhaps it's a bit of a jump, though in my mind they are somewhat related.

I'm not sure what the original poster is getting for his post, but I still believe it detracts from the usefulness and enjoyment of these forums. I'd rather nip this sort of thing in the bud now, as it seems to be becoming more prevalent.

FWIW, I see this obvious type of spam as actually being a bit less problematic as the Rewards link issue we've been talking about, as at least it doesn't detract from the relatively 'unbiased', straight shooting nature of the forum. Even Rewards links along aren't really a problem, though when perusing these forums I'd like the people I send here for unbiased opinions about DreamHost to feel confident that they're getting truly personal opinions. That's why I think a full disclosure requirement seems like a fair middle ground.

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

The fact that it's not a clickable link and that's it's obviously a ref link is also in the OP's favour. You have to copy/paste the link so you can choose wether or not to do the ref link.

This is going like the other topic we had a while back hehe =). Can't you just have a message on the signup screen saying "You have been referred by xxx. If this is so, please click here". That sort of thing? Becuase click-throughs don't count for anything do they?

> I'd rather nip this sort of thing in the bud
Then why didn't you simply delete this thread when you found it?

> ... a full disclosure requirement seems like a fair middle ground.
Completely agree! (So, why don't I disclose that my links below are referral links? I feel that the 200-char signature is very limiting. Could you increase that so we could add some hint, like perhaps a small DH referral graphic?)

TorbenGB

Try PHLAK with Sneaky, :-) Latest Distrowatch featured distro of the week. I think you'll like it.

Would that be spam first post? Does it depend on motives? Posting history?

Cheers,

BobS

> getting truly personal opinions.

Most of what we consider "truly personal opinion" was fed to us by some media. :-) It's all just repeating somebody else's opinion... I think Josh or Dallas told me that once. :-) They got it from Plato or Socrates.

Cheers,

BobS

>Try PHLAK with Sneaky


Use the older version because the new version of ettercap isn't all that great.

happylittlethings.com

> Then why didn't you simply delete this thread when you found it?

Not sure. I guess I'm just not used to it - I've only closed a handful of threads since I installed this forum years ago. It's not something I really care to do, though I suppose it's starting to get to the point where it really makes sense. There's already 'legitimate' talk at this point about related subjects, though, but I'll keep an eye open for more of these.

> I feel that the 200-char signature is very limiting.

Yeah, it kind of is. I'm not sure whether that's hard-coded or not, but I'll see if I can find some time to look into it.

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin