-
Good, spyware must be stopped. -
Sig Spot
Global Traffic Acquisition & Monetization
Telegram: @bakokayeComment
-
Is this a different $3 million, or just affirmation of the first agreement?Comment
-
But, but, but!! I thought they were legit!-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!Comment
-
Not taking sides here
But $3 mil is pocket change for themSigned nick3131
Comment
-
FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX
For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot comComment
-
-
I bet it's just affirmation....Comment
-
True, but:
ADG WebmasterMost importantly, the settlement bars Zango from "using its adware to communicate with consumers' computers ? either by monitoring consumers' web surfing activities or delivering popup ads ? without verifying that consumers consented to installation of the adware."
It also prohibits the company and its affiliates from exploiting security vulnerabilities to download software and requires the company to disclose a plain-language installation consent form. Finally, Zango must monitor third-party distributors and affiliates to make sure they comply with the FTC order.Comment
-
Zango can be my bidet.Comment
-
fuck zangoComment
-
Good,but i would realy like that money redirected to my account heheComment
-
Right on top of the latest breaking news, I see.Comment
-
Fuck zango, fuck spyware and fuck all programs that use them (AFF for example).Comment
-
well its good that they are finally paying...TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.Comment
-
Very interesting.. let me get some popcornAdult Search Results
Working the search engines for your adult website.
Currently not accepting new clients
ICQ 474143357Comment
-
-
-
Unreal.In an official statement on its corporate blog, Zango blamed its affiliates for the mess.
"Early in our business, and as we've acknowledged, we relied too heavily on our affiliates to enforce our consumer notice and consent policies," Zango CEO Keith Smith said. "Unfortunately, this allowed deceptive third parties to exploit our system to the detriment of consumers, our advertisers and our publishing partners. We deeply regret and apologize for the resulting negative impact."
Of course the PRODUCT/SOFTWARE couldn't be to blame.Comment
-
-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!Comment
-
sounds to me as though this will be like signing 3% of their profits away to costs.Comment
-
fuck spyware...Comment
-
I am talking about Xbiz and the articles that are usually posted on this board. Otherwise, i don't read anything there and don't know who writes for them.
articles that are posted on here are usually very poorly written, misleading and innacurate and done with the obvious intent to create controversy while often lacking any real substance.
thats not my fault.
i'm sure you're a great guy... being that i publish a magazine and considering the fact that its incredibly cheap to hire great writers with strong backgrounds in writing, i dont think its excusable.
depends on the business model i guess... if its about "the bro club" and just fluff to fill a site targeting a circle jerk of friends who buy advertising out of charity and a sense obligation to the friendships, then shitty writing is always forgiven.
if its a business, trying to report industry news to attract a consistent and growing readerbase, then quality of writing, editing and every other production detail is just as important in porn news as it is in Time Magazine... and every word in every article is a direct reflection on you as well, as you are associated with them.
a man might have been a good nazi, but unfortunately in life, perceptions are often the reality.
JMHOLast edited by Pleasurepays; 12-28-2006, 02:43 PM.Comment
-
Maybe so, but I think it's a generalization to say that ALL of the Xbiz stuff is swill. They are flexible on the editorial side (in fact, the editors are some of the best I've EVER worked with), and although the rates are lower than I usually ask ($2/word being my ABSOLUTE minimum), they pay within a few days of getting copy. That's rare, as I'm sure you know.
Pick up a copy of the mag, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Usually, when someone gripes about dated material, with Xbiz in particular, it's because it ran in the mag, then got posted to the web some time later. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's certainly possible.Comment
-
Today?s article dealt with the Zango case that was previously reported in November; http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=17960
While we covered the story on- and offline when it was hot, I publish online at XBIZ.com selected pieces that may have originally run in the print edition of XBIZ World Magazine and which may be based on expanded, in-depth coverage of news and current events issues, such as the Zango piece.
Due to the vast quantity of content we offer, there?s often a lag in the time between when something happens and when it appears (or reappears) online or in print. Today, it just happened to be this piece that I selected to run. Nothing new, just a good analysis of the case and the lessons learned that some readers might find helpful and informative.Comment
-
it can be said that its a generalization to say a restaurant sucks because the 3 times you ate there, the food was terrible... even though you didn't try every single item on the menu. others would call that a safe assumption based on a persistent pattern.
now your boss is saying basically "hey man, shit happens" ... some might say that advertisers and readers expect more and deserve better.Comment
-
That's funny. I read it as him saying that content is shared between print and (with a bit of lag) the web.
Maybe the Xbiz advertisers (who seem to be VERY pleased with the quality and the results), you, and I read on different levels.
Also, if Stephen is my boss, shit, sign me up for the job! He and Gretchen ROCK as editors.Comment
-
Zango has been installed on PCs more than 70 million times and has served more than 6.9 billion popup ads.Comment
-
-
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I am confused..Which of the many reasons for the "reprint" offered above actually applies here?
The original article was published online by you when the news of the settlement was hot. So two months later you publish an article with half or more of the same copy as the old one and the same headline..and the other half of the copy was old news too..if you wanted to publish the unpublished old news part you should have at least changed the headline and added something current like what happened after the appeal process ended on Dec 5 or whatever...
So a two month lag on something timely like this is cool with you? Does the removal tool mentioned even still work? Every webmaster knows about the zango hoopla except that one guy that was hibernating in a cave in Nepal during November.
It just doesn't leave a good impression that XBiz.com is the place to go for the latest industry news.
Comment
-
I don't really have a horse in this race .. despite PP's insinuation that I'm somehow an Xbiz employee.
However, I'll say this: I go to Xbiz FIRST for all industry news. I read Xbiz World avidly (with back issues in the bathroom for guests), and I go to the website a few times a day to check headlines.
To say that it's NOT the place to go based on this article is ... I dunno, hasty, maybe?
I respect your opinion, of course, but I'll have to disagree in this specific case.Comment
-
huh? print and web have no connection to each other. you are talking about a story that was news 2 months ago... reprinted today as if it just happened. that was surprising even to me when i expected very bad journalism.
i think the assumption that you worked for him is a logical one being that you identified yourself as an Xbiz writer and he, as the one who chooses what gets published online. ;)'
and don't get me started on the "awards" where everyone is spamming their friends to vote for them and even putting the links to vote for them in their stats area or e-mailing people to vote. thats hardly a fair basis to determine who is best at something.Last edited by Pleasurepays; 12-28-2006, 07:03 PM.Comment
-
congratulation zango :-) good on uComment
-
If you say so. You identified yourself as someone who was involved with publishing, so I just assumed you were familiar with the relationship between writers and the publications.
I'm clearly not an "employee," nor would I want to BE anyone's employee. Those years are LONG gone.
Also, to clear it up further: I contribute to Xbiz World, the physical real-world publication. It's been a few years since I wrote for the online side of the house. I owe Stephen some love because it's been so long, now that I think about it. Just have to grab a topic.Comment
-
Seems like as good a system as any. I asked exactly one person directly to nominate us, and our customers showed an outpouring of support (as they always do for our products). We got nominated, so wheeeee.
It seems like you're just nit-picking for the sake of it, so I'll bow out at this point. It was fun while it lasted, but I've got slacking off to do.
See ya in the other threads.Comment
-
"Early in our business, and as we've acknowledged, we relied too heavily on our affiliates to enforce our consumer notice and consent policies," Zango CEO Keith Smith said. "Unfortunately, this allowed deceptive third parties to exploit our system to the detriment of consumers, our advertisers and our publishing partners. We deeply regret and apologize for the resulting negative impact."
What a fucking asshole.Comment
-
its old newsComment
-
they should make it $30Mil or more.. just take the f*ckers out of biz
they are pure shitI am not a Sigwhore!Comment
-
The first time this came out the FTC had asked for public comments. The deadline to submit comments was sometime in December, don't remember the exact date. Then the FTC was to review the comments and announce their final ruling on the issue.
Although it does sound like old news, this could just be the final official statement that would have come out after the review of all comments.
MissieLooking for a clean sponsor that won't steal from you?check them out here!Comment
-
And I suppose it was the affiliates that wrote the program so it could be installed without a users knowledge, could not be un installed, gave it confusing names and made it so it would re install itself.Early in our business, and as we've acknowledged, we relied too heavily on our affiliates to enforce our consumer notice and consent policies," Zango CEO Keith Smith said. "Unfortunately, this allowed deceptive third parties to exploit our system to the detriment of consumers, our advertisers and our publishing partners. We deeply regret and apologize for the resulting negative impact.
Keith Smith must think he's talking to 5 year olds. Shows his level of contempt.
And stop diverting the debate about it being new or old news, it brings it back to the table. XBIZ thanks.Last edited by Paul Markham; 12-28-2006, 10:52 PM.Comment
-
this is old news and nothing more than the government taking a "small" tax "bribe" for allowing a company to steal..hatisblack at yahoo.comComment
-
Maybe, maybe not. The fine is a slap on the hand. It all depends whether the FTC enforces the ruling 100% from this point on. There were a lot of good things in what they had proposed last month. Baby steps with one scum company is a good start and it will be interesting to see what the FTC does next.
Some people are monitoring zango's every move, every download, every popup, and taking their TOS apart.
No doubt that adware companies, not just 180, cannot control 100% of their affiliates 100% of the time. Besides, if they HAVE to provide uninstall tools that work and do away with driveby downloads, that's a huge slice to their bottomline right there. Who in their right minds wants their shit on their computer? If they don't abide by the rules... what will happen to them?
That's what we're all waiting to see...
MissieLooking for a clean sponsor that won't steal from you?check them out here!Comment
-
Good News.Comment
Zango Founders Hit for $3 million by FTC
Comment