cicchetti Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 In case any of you are in the greater NYC metro area and happen to see this add or similar ones on Craigslist in your city, beware, it is an offshore scam - see below link: http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/ele/113159944.html A few of you have been looking to get one cheap, but in this instance, you will probably get what you pay for. Though it may seem common sense to avoid such obvious schemes, I just thought I would alert those who might not be aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Yeah these are everywhere at the moment. credit card scam probably (or chinese replicas)... <a href="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Brand-New-Nikon-D2X-Professional-SLR-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ7565737949QQcategoryZ30020QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem">click here</a> Who cares? If someone really thinks that they can get a real brand new D2X for silly money then they deserve to lose it. This is just a case of the greedy feeding off the greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armando_roldan Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Nothing like a Polish name sounding guy that posts in German that lives in China selling Japanese cameras at 1/5 the price of the ones sold in America. All we need is a Nigerian bank account to make sure this is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey moore Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 They even appear at the top of these pages quite frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 <I>They even appear at the top of these pages quite frequently.</I><P>That is one issue that I really feel bad about. Since photo.net needs the income, we sell that ad space to Google and they control the content, but since they appear on our pages, photo.net clearly has some (or maybe a lot of) responsibility about what appears there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 What ads? I got AdBlock filtering all this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Word up Yaron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Do not advertise your ad-blocking too loudly especially where a site moderator can see it. To quote Bob Atkins from here.... http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CcGq "Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, jun 20, 2005; 03:24 p.m. You should be aware that blocking ads is a violation of the Terms of Use of the site, which you have agreed to by using the site." And the terms of use he quotes from... ...you agree to display the content, without modification, as specified by the code. In particular, if you retrieve the content and cause any part of an HTML page from the site to be displayed, you must display the page in its entirety, without removing, blocking, filtering, suppressing, or modifying any features of the content, including advertising... Shun will know all this better than I. I am sure some people block ads but they are not supposed to advertise the fact as it enourages others to do likewise and could affect PNs relationship to their advertisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Trevor, surely by quoting Bob Atkins you've just failed to "display the page in its entirety, without removing, blocking, filtering, suppressing, or modifying any features of the content, including advertising" and are therefore in breach of the photo.net T&C? As, of course, I am (by quoting the T&C). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Gosh, I never read the TOU closely enough to notice that (or it was added after I first started using the site?) Funny, I thought I was supporting the site sufficiently by being a paid subscriber. Guess not, so come renewal time, I won't be renewing my paid subscription. The funny thing is, I don't even mind the ads that much. I do object to being told what I MUST display on my own computer screen. That's not something any Web site operator gets to decide. Those are MY terms of use. I'm sure photo.net can live without my subscription. Trust me, I can live without photo.net. -- Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Let's nit-pick a little. What is the definition of a "page"? Naturally, the ad content belongs to google, and is not a part of photo.net, henceforth does not consist a photo.net page element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briany Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Shun, there's an ad right now as I look at this page for a D2X for $3199. It is embarrassing, but I do agree that people should know better. Regardless, do they pay every time someone clicks on their ad, or do they just pay when someone clicks through and makes a purchase? Or does it vary from ad to ad? If they pay for clicks, then the least we can do is click on this ad and cost them some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 '...or it was added after I first started using the site?' Quite possibly. You can check here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use Of course the T&C also says: "Please read both documents carefully and often as they are subject to change. Your continued use of the Site after the posting of changes to these Terms and Conditions constitutes acceptance of the changes." This sort of clause has been called 'sneakwrap': http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/06/19/000619opfoster.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the internal finances of photo.net. Moderators are not paid and are not empolyees of photo.net. I know Google pays us for ad space. How Google deals with those scam shops I don't know. These ads hurts Google's good name as well as ours. I am surprised that they don't do anything about it. Unfortunately, photo.net has no direct control of what Google puts there, and I know that is not a satisfactory answer. This issue has been brought to Brian Mottershead's attention a few times. If you have futher questions, please feel free to contact him or post to the Feedback Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Shun, when was the last time you checked GOOG's stock quote? Why *should* they care? They're pimping spam, and get paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey moore Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 As of close Wednesday, $422.86 a share. I know we've strayed off topic here, but here is an interesting bit of trivia for you. And it also provides further evidence into how our economy is under transformation from a manufacturing-based economy to an information-based economy. Do you know just how big Google is? If you combine the market capitalization values of the TEN BIGGEST publicly-held American automobile companies (GM, Ford, Delphi, Visteon, Lear, Johnson Controls, TRW, etc.) it is only approximately ONE-HALF of the market cap of Google. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleprock21 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Thanks Yaron, That ADBLOCK works well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_lee1 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 It would be nice if paid subscribers wouldn't have to endure the online ads... Sort of like network tv vs pay per view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now