ericgraham Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I'll keep this short and sweet. When i typed nikon d80 into the search area it brought an advertisement from bestpricecamera.com. They were selling the nikon d80 for $509. I went to reseller ratings website to check out the websites customer feedback and it has a lifetime rating of .24/10. Why in Gods good name does photo.net even allow this advertisement to show up when it has this bad of a reputation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayak203 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 They have a 0.32 out of 10 recent rating at: <br><a href="http://www.resellerratings.com/">http://www.resellerratings.com</a><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayak203 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 oh, I jumped the gun. Good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfoster70 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 When I typed D80 into the search area it brought me to Google. On Google there was an ad for bestcamera, along with links to various posts on photo.net. How is this the fault of photo.net for google having a an for bestcamera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericgraham Posted May 6, 2007 Author Share Posted May 6, 2007 that's my bad. sorry. although you do type it into photo.net's search area first and that is the first thing you see at the top of the page. it is not photo.net's fault. too good to be true i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfoster70 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I checked the same search on Yahoo and you get a very similar result. bestpricecamera and expresscamera (I think are the same people) are both at the top as "sponsor links". Its a true example of Buyer Beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericreagan Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Kevin, <p> I think Mr. Graham is referring to the Adsense ads that appear on the Photo.net site. To answer that question, advertisers bid for keyword placement based on sites' content. Photo.net produces very relevant content for camera retailers - both good and bad. <p> While Adsense users, as a general rule, don't have control over what content is served. Adsense uses <i>can</i> filter unwanted sites from posting advertisements through ads appearing on the user's site. Personally, I haven't seen any of these shady camera retailers on the P/N ads in a while. I would imagine that they have a really high click-through rate, which boosts revenue. So there's a couple competing interests there in deciding whether to filter such sites. <p> My $.02. <p> Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericreagan Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Ok, looks like I missed the mark entirely. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancoxleigh Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Yes, but, the side bar ads (supplied by google) also link to some questionable places. For example while reading this very post the ad on the side is trying to sell me a D80 for $514 from USAPhotoNation (rating on resellerratings: 0.41/10). It would be nice not have ads on these pages over which you have no control (such as those places by Ads by Google). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_daly Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Caveat Emptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 B+H Photo-Video KEH.com Adorama Beyond the three dealers above, you are in for a trip through "Fantasy Land," for the lack of a better word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Photo.net is just like everyone else who has a business, they are trying to make money to stay in business. Just like pop photo mag allows Broadway photo to take out huge 2 page adds in their magazine(Broadway are total scumbags). They all have to sell ad space to stay in business, it's up to us to figure out who's legit. It does seem like they are some how endorsing these companies by allowing them to advertise, but in reality they're just trying to meet their bottom line so we photography junkies have a place to go and talk about this stuff. I would stick with the good companies that have a good reputation like B&H, Adorama, Amazon, places like that. They may not advertise the low prices of the scam places but in the long run you will pay less with far better customer service. I have bought a ton of stuff from B&H, I have never been dissatisfied with their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrana_batik Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 -- "Photo.net is just like everyone else who has a business, they are trying to make money to stay in business..." So basically, you pass on the blame to Google/photo.net's business practices (I had no idea Google has problems with its financial model) for trying to lure us members into questionable businesses. These death-traps/bait&switch scammers have been around for ages, and so were their ads, digital or magazine-driven. I know that America is known for its take on business, but this is a highly irresponsible policy. Google KNOWS about these scammers, and photo.net knows about them too (just google for similar posts!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrana_batik Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Let me rephrase my quote above. I run a business too. I would never in my wildest dreams feel right to post links to or ads for services that are a scam within my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_ho2 Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Like a deer in the headlights.... It always happens that someone posts - 'gee, I didn't know this merchant was a bad player - bait and switch - on and on ....' Wouldn't make so much more sense to direct forum readers to a list of bad sellers and then add to or modify the list as readers find other dishonest merchants. Then there would be a reference list one could check first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_cornelius Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 I have taken many classes in e-Business and I agree with Brian. It is not generally the responsibility of the site (Photo.net in this case) to "monitor" or "check up on" the companies paying for advertising. "I had no idea Google has problems with its financial model." How do you think Google ever got to the point they are but by selling ads?!? Last time I checked 90-some % of Google's revenue is from advertising. Petrana, it is very likely that your business is a different type of business and therefore has a completely different business model. I would surmise that you are comparing apples to oranges (as the saying goes). "Wouldn't make so much more sense to direct forum readers to a list of bad sellers..." This is EXACTLY what www.resellerratings.com is for and does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_cornelius Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Also looking at a different aspect, I would check on possible versions. For example: when I was looking into buying my D200, I found out that there are actually two different versions available. One is the standard magnesium alloy frame and the other has a polycarbinate chassis (which doesn't support many lenses) and sells for about 1/3 the price. In all my research and all the plethora of reveiws I read I never came across this - I eventually found out from a salesman on the phone. There may be a similar situation with the D80; I don't know. Most of the various companies carried both versions, but the dirt cheap price was the one advertised and displayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjacksonphoto Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Nathan A salesman told you there was an all-polycarbonate version of the D200 that costs 1/3 of the price? And you believed him? Did he work for bestprice cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_cornelius Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Ok, granted I may likely be wrong but it seemed consistent. About 6+ DIFFERENT companies had a VERY low price listed for the D200 but when I asked them specifically about the magnesium alloy "version" (after having that mentioned to me previously) it had a larger, more realistic price for it. I don't remember which companies, I believe one of them was bestprice cameras and most were the "wonderful" bait & swith scammers - and of course it is possible they were all under the same organization. However, just for the record I didn't end up ordering from one of these anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_cornelius Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 ...and at the time I didn't know about this site or "resellerratings"; but I'm learning. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericgraham Posted May 8, 2007 Author Share Posted May 8, 2007 Victor That is a good idea. Lots of people don't know about reselleratings.com and maybe photo.net could somehow make this more known to its members. 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