Bogus hotlinks infecting PhotoNet posts!

Title:

Bogus hotlinks infecting PhotoNet posts!

 

 

What's the deal with these so-called "Sponsored Links" suddenly

cropping up in my posts to various PhotoNet forums?!?  This seems

to be a new phenomenon, which I encountered for the first time today.

<br>

<br>

I often use embedded links in my posts, to point the reader to either

previous PhotoNet threads (particularly when a topic has already been

recently discussed), or to off-site reference materials (spec sheets

for a product we might be discussing, etc.).  That is *NOT* what

I'm talking about.  The links I'm referring to are lame ads which

are obviously auto-generated based on the system looking for keywords

in the posted text.  For example, in <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D2yt">THIS

THREAD</A>, discussing flash setups, I mentioned use of the ubiquitous

PC cord.  The term PC is now a link (which I did *NOT* create) to

Dell's website, hawking personal computers!

<br>

<br>

I take an *extremely* dim view of this sort of nonsense.  If I

wanted a link to Dell's web site in my article, I would have put it

there.  Anything I post to PhotoNet, be that an image or a Forum

article, is MY intellectual property, copyright by ME, and you do NOT

have permission to screw around with it like that, or to permit

third-parties to use it for commercial purposes!  This is

explicitly codified in the PhotoNet <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use">Terms and Conditions of

Use</A>, which states (in part):

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Ownership of Submitted Material

<br>

<br>

<B>Submission of material to any photo.net forums, chat rooms, image

critique areas, or photo sharing systems does not transfer the

copyright to that material to photo.net.</B> However, by submitting

the material, You grant photo.net and its successors or assigns a

perpetual non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to publish

that material on the World Wide Web as part of the photo.net web site

for the purpose of operating, displaying, distributing and promoting

the Site. photo.net will not use Your materials without attributing

them to You. If You object to any modification by photo.net of Your

materials (except for minor edits), or, in the case of forum postings,

comments on photos, or comment on the Site's static content, to the

use of Your materials separate from their original context, photo.net

will either restore the original text and context, or delete the

materials.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Please see to it that these bogus links are removed IMMEDIATELY. 

I would strongly prefer that you do this *without* removing the

articles themselves, as my original intent in posting them (to help a

fellow photographer) is still just as strong as it ever was; and

frankly, I see no reason why this should not be "do-able".  And

in any event, do *NOT* add third-party links to ANY of my articles in

the future.

<br>

<br>

Thank you.

<br>

<br>

Jay has expressed how I feel about this new "feature" although I probably would say things a little more low key. In any event, it is very, very hard to even read a simple thread, let alone a complex one with these little mouse-overs tucked in all over the place.

 

If you can't get rid of them, I will probably start spending more time on some other site.

I also seem to be waiting for other sites--Tribalfusion, clickthru, photo.us.intellitxt.com, to name a few. The links also seem to have "infected" archived postings. Besides PC, zoom and camera seem to be popular "link words". AAAAAARGGGGHH!

I know we need revenue. I support the other ads that appear in various forms. I pay my dues. This one is annoying. And of all the links it might follow and have followed form photonet, these would be at the absolute bottom of the list.

I guess that's what happens when not enough people pony up the $25. Free lunch etc etc

Egads. I generally support including ads and such, even the interstitials that require me to do something just to get by them. [Note: I've been a subscriber in the past, but don't happen to be at the moment.] Nonetheless, using the poster's text to advertise something that may not even be the same item to which the poster is referring is pushing it a little too far. Also, it reduces the ability of the posters to include links and have them be noticed as the point of their posts.

I agree with Jay, the new "intellitxt" set-up crosses the line by tampering with intellectual property not owned by photo.net. This is not only against photo.net's T&C's, but is also arguably an outright breach of copyright.<p>

 

As for not enough revenue - there are already plenty of text and (intrusive) flash google ads thankyou. With the volume of traffic photo.net attracts, this must equate to @ $US 50 a day. If this isn't enough to run a server with a simple text & photo database, then, er... maybe it's time to start sacking a few vice-presidents :?)<p>

 

Intellitxt are an interesting outfit. Very secretive. They only deal with "500 000 page view a month" sites too, making them well beyond the reach of lesser mortals:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.intellitxt.com/site2005/web_01.html">

http://www.intellitxt.com/site2005/web_01.html</a>

<

Sorry, but NO that does NOT solve the problem.

<br>

<br>

Such measures as that, and the one posted by Lance McVay (whose article seems to have "mysteriously" disappeared within 15 minutes of it being posted), would amount to nothing more than covering my eyes a la the famous <A HREF="http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/m-p/noevil.shtml">THREE MONKEYS</A>.

<br>

<br>

The underlying fundamental problem of my (and everyone else's) articles being turned into shill pieces for unknown/unpredictable third-party commercial entities would still exist unabated.

<br>

<br>

I'd really appreciate the courtesty of a response from the site's management on this one. I'm a little startled that you would do such a thing, as you are converting posters' communications into marketing tools for products. What is your rationale for such a thing? Is this permanent?

I don't mind them because I don't click on them, but woory that it will slow down PN more than it already fails: "The site timed out..." and "The document contains no data" among the other errors I get.

OK, obviously, someone is playing games here... 

<br>

<br>

Now, in addition to Lance McVay's article, John Barclay's post is now "missing in action -- and again, in less than 15 minutes after it was posted.  There can be only one explanation for this: One of the PhotoNet administrators is closely monitoring this thread, and selectively deleting any article which explains to users how to "hide" the bogus auto-generated links.  Yet, said administrator has not had the integrity to either come forward and state this, or to even address the issues raised by this thread.

<br>

<br>

Well, that tears it.

<br>

<br>

So, Mr. PhotoNet Administrator, since I *know* you're reading this...

<br>

<br>

This is no longer a polite request.  It is a *DEMAND* that you IMMEDIATELY remove any and all auto-generated links to third-party URLs from ALL of my posted articles.  As shown in my original article in this thread, PhotoNet has violated not only your own Terms and Conditions, but basic Copyright law as well, with these unauthorized modifications to and commercial uses of my intellectual property.  If I need to follow this up in writing via Certified Mail to your address of record:

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Luminal Path Corporation

<br>

Brian Mottershead

<br>

118 Nowell Farme Rd

<br>

Carlisle MA 01741

<br>

US

</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I will do so.  But if I have to get my lawyer involved, I'll be asking the court for *you* to cover his bill.

<br>

<br>

From the above-linked terms & conditions of use:

<p>

<tt><blockquote>we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to delete, move, or edit any postings that come to our attention that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate, of for any other other reasons, which we need not disclose, <i>and which need not be reasonable</i></blockquote></tt> (emphasis mine)

<p>

Certainly seems that indeed reasons need not be reasonable.

Google 'intellitext' and the first hit takes you to scumware.com. Here's what they recommend:

 

"The closest sure thing you can do to get rid of IntelliTXT is to simply stop visiting sites that have chosen this advertising method. There is nothing on your computer that needs to be removed or changed."

 

(Source: http://www.scumware.com/apps/scumware.php/action::view_article

/article_id::1088567305/

topic::Scumware,-Spyware,-Adware-&-Malware-Applications/)

 

I'm sure that's the last thing Brian wants us to do. But many of us may resort to doing that if all posts are poluted with this kind of junk.

while we are all searching terms of use, how about this one?

 

photo.net is a subcription service, although it provides free "Trial/Guest" access to visitors who are new to the site or who visit infrequently. Free access is also offered to people who cannot afford a subscription.

But people who have been using the site frequently over the course of several weeks, and who can afford it, are expected to upgrade their "Trial/Guest" membership to a Subscription membership. For frequent visitors who can afford it, subscriptions are not optional, but they are on the honor system: each person is trusted to decide for himself when his access has become frequent enough and whether he can afford it. As guidelines, you should consider subscribing if you are visiting the site more often than once per week on the average, and if your disposable income is sufficient for you to purchase photography equipment, film and processing, books and magazines, internet access, etc. In other words, if you have a photography budget at all, and you are visiting photo.net regularly, the site should be part of your budget, the same as any other photography expense.

While I have no issue with the standard fare of adverts, I'm not too keen on this either. I just ran across a few in a thread I was reading. I thought the link was included by the person posting a question. Basically, I was tricked into clicking on the link.

 

At the very least, it should be made obvious when a link is an advertisement and not a link posted by the author of the text.

 

Perhaps Brian thought things were too quiet in the site feedback forum and he thought he'd spice things up.

This is different than the other forms of advertising. This affects readability of the forums. Having an ad at the top of the page, the side or the bottom is one thing. Having a link in the text is another. Is the next logical step planting links in the images? What's really disappointing is the very loud silence from Brian and crew on this matter.

It seems to me one of the more reprehensible and distorting aspects of this new linkage is that it creates the appearance that the poster is actually endorsing the link, since the uninitiated would have no way of knowing that the writer did NOT create the link. For example, if I post a question about a Canon lens, it appears that I have created the link to whatever store this site directs the reader to. Talk about putting words in our mouths!

Is it possible this has happened without Admin's knowledge and blessing? While Brian has made it clear the site needs advertising dollars to keep going, I can't imagine he would be comfortable with this. It's worse then telemarketing.

The fact that posts made which contain information on how to remove these ads by making changes to <b><i>your own computer</i></b> are being deleted makes me think that the admins in charge know exactly what is going on.

Find that hard to believe Laurie, looks like the site has signed up for this. Brian? BRIAN?

The links are very distinctive. They are green, and they have a double underline. There are a maximum of five of them per page. When you hover over the link, a box pops up that says it is a sponsored link. There is a "What's this" link in the box, which you can click on if you want to learn more about the link. On that site, you can opt out of the links if you wish. So, I don't see how one can say this is deceptive.

 

If anybody objects to the addition of these links to their posts, please send us an email via the Contact Us box, and we will remove the link or delete your posts, as provided in our Terms of Use.

Wow, I hope that's not the case. That would be very disappointing. For the most part, I've always thought Brian did a great job of handling legitimate issues and concerns in a professional manner.

This is the Site Feedback forum. It is not a forum for people to inform one another about how to defeat the advertising on the site. I'm deleting posts with instructions like that. You are entitled to give feedback about the advertising and I am considering the comments in this thread; but I will continue to delete posts that give instructions on how to remove the ads. If you want to opt out of the Intellitxt links, there are instructions in the box that appears when you hover over the links on how to do that.

Thanks for your messages Brian. I'm not finding a way to opt out of links as a poster. I used as a test a link I recently posted at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D2ks. As you can see, I refer to Canon in my posting, which is highlighted in green and double underlined. I clicked on the link where it says "What's This" and was directed to a Vibrant Media page. I don't see how to opt out on that page. Maybe I am missing something? Can you provide more instructions on how to do so? Thanks.

Brian said:

 

"If anybody objects to the addition of these links to their posts, please send us an email via the Contact Us box, and we will remove the link or delete your posts, as provided in our Terms of Use."

 

 

And then he said:

 

 

"This is the Site Feedback forum. It is not a forum for people to inform one another about how to defeat the advertising on the site. I'm deleting posts with instructions like that."

 

 

Seems like the top post does just that!