Thanks, to whichever mod!

[Ntense]

on deleting BlasBlas18. I found out what his scheme is, finally. It turns out that hotlinkimage IS a pay-per-click site, and several of the forums have found out about it. It doesn't show up anywhere on the outside in the FAQ or notes, only inside once you register. They have an alternate domain at SWFImage dot com that doesn't allow porn.

Here's the current banned list from AnotherSite in the UK:

File/Image upload sites that are not permitted:
This list is not exhaustive, and is subject to change without notice

alphabetized list so far

Bigtuning.net
cashmoneyuploads
castorcash
cheapfilehost
depositfiles
digitalvideotimes
dumparump
easy-share
fastfilehosting
filebounty
filefactory
filerom
hotlinkimage.com
imageadd
imageage
imagebeaver
imagecash
imagefap
imagefly
imagegravy
imagereverb
imageshack
imageshappy
imagethrust
imagetomie
img.to
linkbucks
linkbux
maxuploader.com
md-net
mediabux
megashare
megashares
multidesi.com
myimg.info
nastydollars
nscash
ParkMyImage
payserve
picapollooza
picbase
picbux
picfury
profit-online.org
protect.to
realfreevideos
realsexcash
rebashare.net
resourcereview.info
Scipym
shareapic
sharedlinks.net
sharedimages.org
shareloading
spookycash
the-dumper
uk-adultcash
************
uploadarmy
uploaded.to
uploading
urlcash
usercash
videolist.biz
webcamsdot
yankscash
zucimi.net

or pretty much any site involving the word "cash" in the title or pay per click or revenue sharing image hosts
Last edited by rokr : 10-12-2007 at 08:56 AM. Reason: added hotlinkimage.com

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by Ntense

on deleting BlasBlas18. I found out what his scheme is, finally. It turns out that hotlinkimage IS a pay-per-click site, and several of the forums have found out about it. It doesn't show up anywhere on the outside in the FAQ or notes, only inside once you register. They have an alternate domain at SWFImage dot com that doesn't allow porn.

Here's the current banned list from AnotherSite in the UK:

File/Image upload sites that are not permitted:
This list is not exhaustive, and is subject to change without notice

alphabetized list so far

Bigtuning.net
cashmoneyuploads
castorcash
cheapfilehost
depositfiles
digitalvideotimes
dumparump
easy-share
fastfilehosting
filebounty
filefactory
filerom
hotlinkimage.com
imageadd
imageage
imagebeaver
imagecash
imagefap
imagefly
imagegravy
imagereverb
imageshack
imageshappy
imagethrust
imagetomie
img.to
linkbucks
linkbux
maxuploader.com
md-net
mediabux
megashare
megashares
multidesi.com
myimg.info
nastydollars
nscash
ParkMyImage
payserve
picapollooza
picbase
picbux
picfury
profit-online.org
protect.to
realfreevideos
realsexcash
rebashare.net
resourcereview.info
Scipym
shareapic
sharedlinks.net
sharedimages.org
shareloading
spookycash
the-dumper
uk-adultcash
************
uploadarmy
uploaded.to
uploading
urlcash
usercash
videolist.biz
webcamsdot
yankscash
zucimi.net

or pretty much any site involving the word "cash" in the title or pay per click or revenue sharing image hosts
Last edited by rokr : 10-12-2007 at 08:56 AM. Reason: added hotlinkimage.com

Hear me out here.

How exactly do you expect those sites to FREELY allow you to use THEIR servers? You could say, "well, they can have a donation system where ppl donate money", but then there are bandwidth costs, and monthly fees to pay. As long as the advertisement IS NOT harmful to the viewer (i.e. malware, spyware, viruses etc), why is it a bad thing for the site owner to collect SOME money from the ad itself? I know it's the site's rule but I'd like to hear about the logic in that decision.

I've noticed DepositFiles, Megashare, Megashares, FileFactory, along with a few popular sites aren't acceptable according to that list, which really means that you're opening up a monopoly for companies like Rapidshare, and I really think that's not what this site should be promoting. People who use Rapidshare often opt to go for membership for more efficiency and voila, Rapidshare thus profits enormously since it gets a truckload of customers because this site doesn't allow such a "scheme". It could be argued that this site has a "scheme" that is promoting Rapidshare since a lot of times files ARE hosted on RS and are split up into different parts; this pushes people to go buy membership accounts from them because free accounts have to wait 2 or 3 hours typically after one file. And since there's no alternative, well, there's always Rapidshare...

I don't like the sound of this at all.

Again the key part of this is, ONLY if the advertisment doesn't harm the viewer, no viruses, no installed progs that spy or transmit data etc, should a site be allowed. I'm URGING for, at the very least, another look at my observation of the situation. Thank you.

[my dark side]

To answer Ntense's original question. The thanks would have to go to our good old Marsh for kicking his ass

[Undecided]

I think AWD makes some really valid points here.

[ego]

Well, if someone wants to be 100% right, he has to buy the product instead of free download it. The conversation is meaningless.
But there are sites that you can use for free, such as imagevenue for pics. And if i have to pay (one way or the other) i would prefer to cut advertisment and pop-ups out.

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by ego

Well, if someone wants to be 100% right, he has to buy the product instead of free download it. The conversation is meaningless.
But there are sites that you can use for free, such as imagevenue for pics. And if i have to pay (one way or the other) i would prefer to cut advertisment and pop-ups out.

agreed and as Ntense pointed out the list isn't from here . it's from AnotherSite . every board is different . ya' have to live by their rules and regs . or you can be like RapeU and start your own , so you have control over the content . btw nice board there . looking forward to seeing what it turns into .

[Ntense]

The difference is in 'advertising sponsored' and 'we pay you for traffic' sites.

ImageVenue and a bunch of others are merely 'advertising sponsored'. You see a selection of frequently random ads when you visit those sites. The ones listed above PAY the person that generated the traffic for one of the many Internet 'get rich quick' schemes. In the case of Blasblas18, I found that he'd posted the identical sets of photos to hundreds of sites. He was purely trolling for 'click traffic' on his posts.

Television is 'advertising sponsored'. So are technical magazines. I don't have a problem with that. The 'internet cash' sites RECOMMEND the same kind of unacceptable behavior that Blasblas18 did - slamming hundreds of boards with a tease.

The few file servers listed above DO pay the users for traffic. Well, in a matter of speaking, so do both RapidShares, as they'll extend your account or give you a freebie with enough DL traffic. DepositFiles and FileFactory are pretty obnoxious about it, and have stronger limits on a per-country basis so they're severely annoying to some users. Half the time I try DepositFiles I'm forced to wait, and I'm in a 'first world' country.

Hey, *I* didn't make the list above, it's the one AnotherSite uses. That does NOT mean that the Admin & Mods here have to agree with every site on the list; they may have different limits on what they choose to allow. It's merely a suggestion from a different forum with similarly abusive users.

I tossed up a warning flag 'cos Blasblas18 was posting vanilla soft porn. I googled him and got this:






NOTE: The first and last image are taken ONE DAY APART. The first yesterday, the last one TODAY. He's a fucking click troll.

On some forums that allowed it, he was using Usercash links when it was allowed. Most don't allow it, so he'd switched to Hotlinkimage (which people didn't recognize as a pay-per-click site). I guess Usercash pays better.

[Ntense]

Also, to be getting that many posts, he HAD to have been using one of the programs that people use to spam forums. There's no way a human could be flooding that many crap posts without a robot.

read this, if you're bored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam

[sindyloo]

You made a good point AW but crap now adays who doesnt have a monopoly on the internet??

And you have to look at the bad side of spammers as well? Yes some are good while others are only interested in making money depending on how many places they get their ads into which most of them get paid to do!

Its not like they are all wasting their own time for nothing??

Not counting the ones who plant info gathering spiders at these sites to pick up info on site users that they are unaware of!

Luckily this is one site where the Mods care enough to keep us safe as well as our personnal info as well!

But you do have a good point to...and it is so hard to reach a happy middle on all this!

[somedude]

Spammers will be shot! That's RB policy

[sindyloo]

And SO says the "Big Boss Man" from Cobb County Georgia!!!

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by Undecided

I think AWD makes some really valid points here.

Thank you Undecided - are you undecided about this current debate at the moment?

Originally Posted by ego

Well, if someone wants to be 100% right, he has to buy the product instead of free download it. The conversation is meaningless.
But there are sites that you can use for free, such as imagevenue for pics. And if i have to pay (one way or the other) i would prefer to cut advertisment and pop-ups out.

Isn't ImageVenue on that list of banned sites? On that list, there is a ridiculous amount of image uploader sites that are "banned". Also, there's no way a site can handle traffic like that without some advertisement. Look at Google - how on earth did you think they were able to afford the kinds of traffic it had when it first opened up? Ad-sponsored. Often, at the top, you can see that it links to some "bad" sites, which may contain spyware, adware and/or viruses. Added to that, careless users might click on it thinking that link contained everything they searched for because all of their keywords were all matched up. Does that make Google bad?

Originally Posted by Ntense

The difference is in 'advertising sponsored' and 'we pay you for traffic' sites.

ImageVenue and a bunch of others are merely 'advertising sponsored'. You see a selection of frequently random ads when you visit those sites. The ones listed above PAY the person that generated the traffic for one of the many Internet 'get rich quick' schemes. In the case of Blasblas18, I found that he'd posted the identical sets of photos to hundreds of sites. He was purely trolling for 'click traffic' on his posts.

Television is 'advertising sponsored'. So are technical magazines. I don't have a problem with that. The 'internet cash' sites RECOMMEND the same kind of unacceptable behavior that Blasblas18 did - slamming hundreds of boards with a tease.

The few file servers listed above DO pay the users for traffic. Well, in a matter of speaking, so do both RapidShares, as they'll extend your account or give you a freebie with enough DL traffic. DepositFiles and FileFactory are pretty obnoxious about it, and have stronger limits on a per-country basis so they're severely annoying to some users. Half the time I try DepositFiles I'm forced to wait, and I'm in a 'first world' country.

Hey, *I* didn't make the list above, it's the one AnotherSite uses. That does NOT mean that the Admin & Mods here have to agree with every site on the list; they may have different limits on what they choose to allow. It's merely a suggestion from a different forum with similarly abusive users.

I tossed up a warning flag 'cos Blasblas18 was posting vanilla soft porn. I googled him and got this:






NOTE: The first and last image are taken ONE DAY APART. The first yesterday, the last one TODAY. He's a fucking click troll.

On some forums that allowed it, he was using Usercash links when it was allowed. Most don't allow it, so he'd switched to Hotlinkimage (which people didn't recognize as a pay-per-click site). I guess Usercash pays better.

Oh ok. Good explanation Intense on the differences between Ad-sponsored and pay-for-click sites. To me, they're practically the same thing. Sites like Google get advertisement revenue for users who use Google because advertising companies hope to "get rich quick" when users visit their sites that Google directly links to them. TV companies work the same; the number of viewers in a slot (i.e. prime time) determines how expensive a television ad will be right? The more users = the more supposed exposure to the product. This increases the likelihood that people will buy their product. Television companies win, advertisement companies win.

So going back to my Google example; it sometimes directs users to AD-SPONSORED sites which somehow manage to match up the keywords that a user places "i.e. Cheap plane tickets" and the link shows up as "cheap plane tickets - get them here now!" - know what I mean? They could be scams for all Google knows, yet they "allow" them on. Does that make Google an unethical search engine since careless users may click on them quickly, thinking they found what they're looking for. Also, we really don't know if Google gets paid "commission style" for the number of users that come from Google to that site. Other sites with "forced advertisement" have users spoon-fed to the company; I just can't really see the difference between Ad-supported and pay-per-click as they get paid through the number of users that click it at the end of the day really.

You've mentioned that Rapidshare give incentives. With these incentives, they gain an upper-hand advantage over the "free" sites that may offer a 250 MB storage space (versus RS' 100 MB limit) but the reality is that RS can offer people free accounts if they can make free users download the links and thus, other sites can't really compete in that same scale. What's blurry is this question: Does giving incentives mean it's a bad thing? People who post RS links on forums COULD have a secret agenda to collect RS points and get a free premium account. Do we ban those users who use RS because there's a promotion out there that allows something like this?

Whenever there's a motive or an opportunity, there's always someone willing to do it - you can't stop them all - just the same when a guy spots an attractive (perhaps slutty) looking girl walking down a dimly-lit street/alley alone and contemplates about his attack on her. If he's really willing to do it, he'll take this opportunity to do it.

[Ntense]

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by sindyloo

You made a good point AW but crap now adays who doesnt have a monopoly on the internet??

And you have to look at the bad side of spammers as well? Yes some are good while others are only interested in making money depending on how many places they get their ads into which most of them get paid to do!

Its not like they are all wasting their own time for nothing??

Not counting the ones who plant info gathering spiders at these sites to pick up info on site users that they are unaware of!

Luckily this is one site where the Mods care enough to keep us safe as well as our personnal info as well!

But you do have a good point to...and it is so hard to reach a happy middle on all this!

Thank you Sindyloo.

Originally Posted by Ntense

And who the hell is somedude?......


What about this page Ntense?

http://photobucket.com/about/partner-with-us

Since PhotoBucket is opening themselves for business, it's clear they're trying to make a quick buck or two with the help of a partner. Can that be seen as a bad thing? I don't notice anything strange with that site but if they decide to host an advertisement on their page where THEY get paid each time a user follows it, would that make it a bad site? That would still fall under what you call an AD-Supported website.

[Ntense]

Ummm, color me confused, but I'll be fucked if I see them mentioning ANYONE getting paid for the 'partnership'. If you're suggesting the 'partners' have to pay, well, that's normal if they want to eliminate the sponsored ads. Nuttin' wrong with that. You do the same when you buy a RapidShare or MegaUpload account - you skip the crap and get right to the meat. Same goes for pay TV. If you want 30% ads in your viewing content, you watch for free. If you want NONE during the show, you pay $10 per month per channel.

And a bit more fun!

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by Ntense

Ummm, color me confused, but I'll be fucked if I see them mentioning ANYONE getting paid for the 'partnership'. If you're suggesting the 'partners' have to pay, well, that's normal if they want to eliminate the sponsored ads. Nuttin' wrong with that. You do the same when you buy a RapidShare or MegaUpload account - you skip the crap and get right to the meat. Same goes for pay TV. If you want 30% ads in your viewing content, you watch for free. If you want NONE during the show, you pay $10 per month per channel.

And a bit more fun!

Well I'm not suggesting they are since I don't have any evidence for that. Just that in the end of the day, companies hope for people to click on THEIR link so that they have someone looking at their damned product or offers. In return for the advertisement, they pay maybe a flat-fee or commission. Sometimes salesmen are paid on commission; that is, they are paid by the number of sales they make in a week/month. Do the salesmen really give a damn about your well-being? Probably not (though not necessarily); they'd more than likely wish for a sale. This same concept should work for ad-sponsored sites; the ones that are deemed more successful to the advertising company, that company will pay to the site.

In summary, Ad-sponsored sites and pay-per-click sites are synonymous with each other, just that one is "deemed" better than the other, but the fact remains that they both get their paycheques through each other.

So Google can withstand that heavy traffic it's getting from users searching things from music videos, travel destinations to porn pictures and movies, in exchange, another site will get a higher opportunity for users to hit their site. Users can use Google for free since Google won't have to pay out of its pocket as the fees for the bandwidth usage etc etc are covered by the advertising companies.

I have Satellite TV and my dad pays like 5.99 per package. So much for free TV because I have commercials too, so 10 dollars a month doesn't mean that it becomes free.

[Ntense]

There's a difference, as I tried to show. Advertisers would LIKE to throw their ads in your face in 10,000 places, but they understand that if you REALLY piss off the customers, they'll go elsewhere. Ads are a fact of life; get over it or live in a cave. Advertising reduces the price of a lot of things, so it's a necessary evil.

Oh, and the ads on sat TV are 'cos you're not counting the 'premium channels'. All of the re-broadcast stuff will be chock full of 'em. You won't find 'em on HBO, Cinemax or the other premium movie channels except *between* shows. Compare that to regular broadcast or cable channels sometime. Minimum satellite costs are about $10K per channel per month. If they had more subscribers, the cost per-person would be less due to the advertising.

The 'pay per click' sites are solely to do revenue generation. In my example with Blasblas18, he's now done 28,600 totally junk posts in the last month or so to generate click traffic. Most of the forum spam is generated by assholes like that, and by people selling Viagra or the latest 'get rich quick' scheme. We're here on a forum where it's an issue, not advertising in general. In fact, if you'll look, the hosting costs HERE are at least partially defrayed by the little ad in the top-right corner of each page. Otherwise you'd have to pay a nominal amount 'cos Internet servers aren't free. Minimum hosting costs are around $300/year, average for high-traffic businesses is $3K to $5K per month.

Socialism is all well and good in concept, but it sucks in practice. Ask the friend of mine that was a victim of Canadian 'socialized medicine'. In the US she'd still be alive, there she died 'cos they had a backlog and she had to wait for 3 days in 'critical care'. If you want it for free, you get crap. If you're willing to pay high-dollar, you get better quality (occasionally).
</soapbox>

[RapeU]

Edit

nevermind

RB is hardly alone in not allowing links to pay per click sites. In fact, I don't know of any forum that does allow them.

Why would the owner of a website want to spend the money to host a site, let people use it for free and then have some guy come along and try to make money by spamming the forum with links to pay per click sites?

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by Ntense

There's a difference, as I tried to show. Advertisers would LIKE to throw their ads in your face in 10,000 places, but they understand that if you REALLY piss off the customers, they'll go elsewhere. Ads are a fact of life; get over it or live in a cave. Advertising reduces the price of a lot of things, so it's a necessary evil.

Oh, and the ads on sat TV are 'cos you're not counting the 'premium channels'. All of the re-broadcast stuff will be chock full of 'em. You won't find 'em on HBO, Cinemax or the other premium movie channels except *between* shows. Compare that to regular broadcast or cable channels sometime. Minimum satellite costs are about $10K per channel per month. If they had more subscribers, the cost per-person would be less due to the advertising.

The 'pay per click' sites are solely to do revenue generation. In my example with Blasblas18, he's now done 28,600 totally junk posts in the last month or so to generate click traffic. Most of the forum spam is generated by assholes like that, and by people selling Viagra or the latest 'get rich quick' scheme. We're here on a forum where it's an issue, not advertising in general. In fact, if you'll look, the hosting costs HERE are at least partially defrayed by the little ad in the top-right corner of each page. Otherwise you'd have to pay a nominal amount 'cos Internet servers aren't free. Minimum hosting costs are around $300/year, average for high-traffic businesses is $3K to $5K per month.

Socialism is all well and good in concept, but it sucks in practice. Ask the friend of mine that was a victim of Canadian 'socialized medicine'. In the US she'd still be alive, there she died 'cos they had a backlog and she had to wait for 3 days in 'critical care'. If you want it for free, you get crap. If you're willing to pay high-dollar, you get better quality (occasionally).
</soapbox>

I think I understand what you're saying; all up to the part about American health care.

Isn't it a well-known fact that American healthcare is VERY expensive compared to Canadian health care since it's "free"? Even the most basic inquiries may cost thousands of dollars there. I was surprised that you'd say that in the US she may stay alive because of your health care, I thought you made a typo there; if she doesn't have money (i'm not assuming anything here, this is just hypothetically speaking), Canadian health care would be better.

But regardless of all that, I'm sorry to hear that your friend died; it's clear that neither of the systems work to the best of what they can.