Forum
Comments:
-
- on Mon 19 Oct 2009
- 02:35:31 AM UTC
Phishing or other scams
Just because the software is legitimate doesn't mean the affiliate selling it is.
Claiming that one "miracle tool" will solve all of your computer problems is a complete lie. No one software can do it all. These are the affiliates we rate low. Contacting them with complaints only wastes time because many of us have tried at one time or another. All they want is their affiliate fee and many lie in order to get it.
See this topic from MysteryFCM. Rogue bloggers and vendors caught with their pants down. You need to click the links of reference to get the whole story. Those and the ones who sell malware described as "safe and clean" are the types we rate low.
-
- on Mon 19 Oct 2009
- 05:15:12 AM UTC
I noticed that some
I noticed that some affiliate networks have a poor rating - so that if you go to buy a product that is run through such an affiliate network - even if it's not a poor product, the "poor rating" warning comes up.
Simple, they are "judged" by the company they keep (their affiliations) Like the old saying, "It takes two to tango".For example:
secureorderstore.com
swreg.org (I remember this one from my old Compuserve days)
digitalriver.comThey offer many rogue scanner software products. These are more commonly referred to as Scareware or Riskware.
Here is a recent example (quick dig) where registry repair 2008 provides a fake online scan, then requires you to purchase (through the domains listed above) for $19.95 where it will then "remove" those fake results.
http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/4653-http-www-update...Not only does that quick dig produce the affilates for digital medai purchase, it announces some new affiliates - all with 1 common theme "work from home, get rich quick"
I personally can't stand those sites; seen enough of that info-mercial crap on late night TV.
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Mon 09 Nov 2009
- 04:09:08 AM UTC
Is FaceBook keeping bad company?
I read an article in NewsWeek today and it made me think of this comment you made in light of the amount of scam ads FaceBook has been responsible for running (and the fact that FaceBook has a green rating).
Here's the 11/06/2009 NewsWeek article:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/arc...with this quotation from Michael Arrington of TechCrunch:
“Ultimately this is Facebook’s fault,” Arrington says. He says the social-networking site isn’t enforcing its own rules against scam ads. “It’s like with Major League Baseball and steroids. If the rules aren’t enforced, which is what’s happening on Facebook, then people are going to break the rules. Facebook needs to stop this.”
In reviewing all of this I'm thinking of the position the FTC recently took against MoneyGram in this case:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/moneygram.shtmFrom their press release on the case:
"The FTC charged that MoneyGram knew that its system was being used to defraud people but did very little about it, and that in some cases its agents in Canada actually participated in these schemes. According to the FTC’s complaint, MoneyGram knew, or avoided knowing, that about 131 of its more than 1,200 agents accounted for more than 95 percent of the fraud complaints it received in 2008 regarding money transfers to Canada; a similarly small number of agents was responsible for more than 96 percent of all fraud complaints to the company in 2006."
Considering that FaceBook is to be considered and of course would like to be considered TRUSTED social space it makes it an incredibly dangerous venue for the consumers who see scam advertisements (than say if they were on a flash gaming site, etc) and apparently an incredibly effective place for scammers to run their advertisements.
And considering that these ads and sites would be incredibly easy to detect through automation (i'm working on a script to prove that) it seems disingenous for FaceBook to claim that they are "doing their best".
Question about affiliate network ratings
I don't have the answer to this, but its something I've been thinking about and would love to get the input of the community on this.
I noticed that some affiliate networks have a poor rating - so that if you go to buy a product that is run through such an affiliate network - even if it's not a poor product, the "poor rating" warning comes up.
Now, anyone following the recent FTC bizop crackdowns will have noticed that actions against affiliate networks running the offers are notoriously absent. My understanding of their reasoning is that since most affiliate networks run both mainstream (legitimate products) and "other" (i.e. questionable) products that their concern is that they will be affecting legitimate businesses by pursuing the affiliate networks (one exception I can think of is when the FL AG did pursue Azoogle back in 2007),
I've advocated that people complain directly to the affiliate networks about specific products in addition to the normal channels such as the FTC, IC3, AGs, BBB etc. While WOT plugin can have a similar impact it is a bit different in that it affects all merchants.
Now, maybe that's a good thing and will result in networks that don't take on those questionable products (although the more likely result is that they'll just set up two separate networks - one for borderline products and one for reputable ones).
Again, I'm just trying to think this through from the vantage point of reputable vendors balanced against consumer concerns and law enforcements continued reluctance to pursue affiliate networks.