| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2006 11:22:40 PM · #1 |
| To my suprise I just saw a stupid banner ad on dpchallenge for onlinerewardcenter.com promising to send a free canon 20d camera to you if you just complete a "survey" with your name, address, phone # and so on. This is obviously bogus and this site is of too high a quality to permit this in my opinion. |
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:24:15 PM · #2 |
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:24:33 PM · #3 |
There was a thread on this a few weeks ago. The site has a contract with Google Ads and has no control over which ads get placed by Google.
R. |
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:25:32 PM · #4 |
We can block specific ads, but only after we've spotted them. You wouldn't happen to know the URL of the bogus site would you Care Bear?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:26:18 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Konador:
We can block specific ads, but only after we've spotted them. You wouldn't happen to know the URL of the bogus site would you Care Bear? |
Ah, that's good to know.
R. |
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:36:39 PM · #6 |
The url is www.onlinerewardcenter.com
Google should know better too with their good reputation.
Message edited by author 2006-01-24 23:37:56. |
|
|
|
01/24/2006 11:55:01 PM · #7 |
For the most part I don't think Google reviews their incoming ads manually (though they will if there are complaints on the ads, I believe)
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:36:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Care Bear:
The url is www.onlinerewardcenter.com
Google should know better too with their good reputation. |
Since when did google have a good reputation?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:41:49 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Since when did google have a good reputation? |
They suck as a search engine, but at least they had the balls to block the bastards in Washington from accessing our search queries. That's better then most of the others out there.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 02:23:01 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They suck as a search engine, but at least they had the balls to block the bastards in Washington from accessing our search queries. That's better then most of the others out there. |
Everyone in Washington thinks they did that to protect their inner workings from public scrutiny, not out of any concern for consumer's privacy.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:23:29 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They suck as a search engine, but at least they had the balls to block the bastards in Washington from accessing our search queries. That's better then most of the others out there. |
Everyone in Washington thinks they did that to protect their inner workings from public scrutiny, not out of any concern for consumer's privacy. |
The reason really doesn't matter. The fact that they blocked the illegal probe is the only way we would have found out about it at this time. Yahoo didn't say shit.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:42:57 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They suck as a search engine, but at least they had the balls to block the bastards in Washington from accessing our search queries. That's better then most of the others out there. |
Everyone in Washington thinks they did that to protect their inner workings from public scrutiny, not out of any concern for consumer's privacy. |
The reason really doesn't matter. The fact that they blocked the illegal probe is the only way we would have found out about it at this time. Yahoo didn't say shit. |
I didn't know that the probe had been determined to be illegal. Not that I think it was a good idea, but illegal?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:12:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They suck as a search engine, but at least they had the balls to block the bastards in Washington from accessing our search queries. That's better then most of the others out there. |
Everyone in Washington thinks they did that to protect their inner workings from public scrutiny, not out of any concern for consumer's privacy. |
The reason really doesn't matter. The fact that they blocked the illegal probe is the only way we would have found out about it at this time. Yahoo didn't say shit. |
I didn't know that the probe had been determined to be illegal. Not that I think it was a good idea, but illegal? |
I damn sure hope it's illegal. All of this shit will be in the courts in the coming year, so I guess we will find out what is legal and what is not.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:53:08 AM · #14 |
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:30:03 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o) |
We're talking about the legality of Google holding out against a subpoena from the US government. That's law, not politics.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:32:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o) |
We're talking about the legality of Google holding out against a subpoena from the US government. That's law, not politics. |
That may be, but it's definitely not "Photography Discussion", as per this forum area.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:55:51 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o) |
We're talking about the legality of Google holding out against a subpoena from the US government. That's law, not politics. |
That may be, but it's definitely not "Photography Discussion", as per this forum area. |
This is DPC. Since when has that been a concern?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:05:42 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o) |
We're talking about the legality of Google holding out against a subpoena from the US government. That's law, not politics. |
That may be, but it's definitely not "Photography Discussion", as per this forum area. |
This is DPC. Since when has that been a concern? |
It's off-topic for the thread, so we're asking you to continue the discussion elsewhere. Since the topic is closely related to politics, we request that the "elsewhere" is Rant.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:09:10 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder that political discussions should be kept in the Rant folder :o) |
We're talking about the legality of Google holding out against a subpoena from the US government. That's law, not politics. |
That may be, but it's definitely not "Photography Discussion", as per this forum area. |
This is DPC. Since when has that been a concern? |
It's off-topic for the thread, so we're asking you to continue the discussion elsewhere. Since the topic is closely related to politics, we request that the "elsewhere" is Rant.
~Terry |
Then why don't you enforce all the other "off topic" posts and threads the meander all over this site?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:11:12 AM · #20 |
But no need to worry. I'll start a new thread in the appropriate place.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 08:38:03 AM EDT.
