Dodgy ad

[cfimages]

Hi Brian,

 

<p>I noticed in one of the Google ads served at the top of the page

(when logged in as a subscriber) that looks a bit dodgy. <a

href="http://www.adobesale.info/" >Here's</a> a link to the site in

question, I'll also attach a screenshot. Basically, they're making

themselves out to be an official Adobe reseller, yet offering CS2 for

$115.<div></div>

[cfimages]

Oops, that looks a bit small, it's the yellow ad on the left.

 

I'll atach a bigger version.<div></div>

[afs760bf]

Well, they say right on their home page that they're an "Adobe Sertified (sic) Reseller." You mean you don't believe them? There's always a sceptic in every crowd. Now c'mon, everyone, let's go download their virus-laden software and fix our pics:>) How can you beat a deal like that?

[ellis_vener_photography]

I clicked on the ads, and it is two different ads.

 

At least when I clicked on it the ad on the left is from Wacom. Thye are definitely doing a

partnership deal with Adobe systems right now.

 

I have no idea who the people are who have the ad on the right are, but their prices look

way too low to be legit.

[paul -]

FWIW, the domain name "adobesale.info" was only created yesterday, according to the "WhoIs" lookup at register.com.

[kai_griffin]

Just brilliant - the net's "premiere photography website" serves up - albeit via a 3rd party ad bot - advertising from bogus, dangerous vapourware (or at best bootlegware)-peddlers right there prominently at the top of their home page. If Photo.Net was old enough to have already sent former directors to their grave, they'd be spinning in it.<p>

What ever you do, don't install an ad-blocker. We wouldn't want you not to see such helpful ads. Help support Photo.Net today by clicking on that banner and getting ripped off by an internet fraudster; funds recovered will be put towards, amongst other things, researching new orifices in which to insert/ram more ads.

[GerrySiegel]

Say, Kai. I feel your pain. A brainstorm came (in a headstand) that could mitigate the native antipathy to ads. Why not have a " rate the ad" feature? This could be useful commentary to the Nokia et al ad agency copy editors and provide a cathartic experience to some who feel their own posted photos get met with no respect,,. This is the time to experiment(!),with so many new features. Kai, what say you? But actually, a few more anchovies like that Digital Liquidator Google squib I spotted will give me indigestion. So be well,and shalom, Gerry S.

[digitmstr]

Brian, have you contacted Adobe? They would the party to contact about this, first and foremost.

 

PN cannot be responsible for ADs placed on its site, anymore than your local TV station is, or any of the thousands of TV, Cable and Satellite operators in the US. Indeed, even ISPs are NOT reponsible for the legitimacy of advertisers and neither are PHOTO magazines or any other publication.

[digitmstr]

I meant CRAIG, *not* Brian :)

[mottershead]

All we can do is call the attention of Google's security department to the ad. On the one or two occasions when we've done this in the past, they were responsive. We aren't going to drop Google over a bad advertiser here or there. Considering the large number of advertisers that they work with, there are very, very, few bad apples. I can't say that we would do better if we were selling ad space directly rather than through the 3 advertising networks to which we belong, given the limited resources we would have to check out all the advertisers.