Would the 'noparse' button do?
:D. (Looks like it.).
:D. (Looks like it.).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
Sent this to Camikaze and he told me to post here.
It would be in my sig and possibly any links to stuff I upload on imgur. Examples:
http://3a4c88c0.linkbucks.com
http://e5eb4743.linkbucks.com
http://429aa45e.linkbucks.com (ridiculous scammy survey thing I get $10 from apparently)
It would be in my sig and possibly any links to stuff I upload on imgur. Examples:
http://3a4c88c0.linkbucks.com
http://e5eb4743.linkbucks.com
http://429aa45e.linkbucks.com (ridiculous scammy survey thing I get $10 from apparently)
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I hate adfly, It always forces people to go through an ad page.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Well yes. Otherwise the people making the links wouldn't make money.
---
As for my input on the subject:
Most ordinary web pages that are linked to have banner ads on them already. For me, it would stand to reason that use of non-invasive banner ads in links would be reasonable. (I use linkbucks elsewhere, but the vast bulk of these redirect to pictures and I use banner ads to avoid being intrusive)
Something such as ads that cover the whole screen(as the "Intermission" ads do) if only for a few seconds, however, would be more controversial and a gray area - not many sites cover your entire screen. The most you can usually expect is a popup in the corner, or a popup blotting out the subject matter for a moment (a la Youtube).
Just my two cents.
Personally I'd treat that as spam, since it does not provide any value for the site, possibly distracts the users here, and give you money. Would not be different from a spam bot.
Since Cam does not seem to see it in this way, we might need to have a discussion about this in the staff forum, I guess
. Cam?
I just said to post it here because I don't know how to treat it, but the admins probably do. Links to personal websites, on the one hand, are allowed in signatures, but commercial advertising is not. But links to personal websites that happen to be commercial advertising are allowed (a website doesn't necessarily become any less personal just because it earns money). I'm not sure it'd be any worse than those kevan.org links a few people have (or have had). 
Links to personal websites, on the one hand, are allowed in signatures, but commercial advertising is not. But links to personal websites that happen to be commercial advertising are allowed (a website doesn't necessarily become any less personal just because it earns money). I'm not sure it'd be any worse than those kevan.org links a few people have (or have had). 
I would advise against allowing it. As pointed out, it does nothing positive for this site, and is merely adspam. It has the potential to infect peoples' computers with malware or other nasty stuff. It's not offering a product or service that would be useful to a gaming site such as CFC.
I honestly don't understand why the staff would consider for a moment allowing this.
I honestly don't understand why the staff would consider for a moment allowing this.
Because you should look at everything from more than one point of view . And if you don't know enough to build your own opinion, then it's the best to ask first .
Valid point, but IMHO doesn't apply here.
mmhh...just checked that...the links are nearly as bad, they just hide their real intention better. Should probably remind the users not to use them, but I'd not say that it's as serious.
. And if you don't know enough to build your own opinion, then it's the best to ask first .I just said to post it here because I don't know how to treat it, but the admins probably do.
Valid point, but IMHO doesn't apply here.
I'm not sure it'd be any worse than those kevan.org links a few people have (or have had).
mmhh...just checked that...the links are nearly as bad, they just hide their real intention better. Should probably remind the users not to use them, but I'd not say that it's as serious.Ban this, and ban this hard. In fact, add "linkbucks" to the word censor so it can't be used in any sense. There is nothing good going to come from allowing it. It's just a way direct people to spam and bad advertising.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
I have no problems with depriving people of their 1/5 of a cent.
It builds up, joe. I currently have 5 cents.
That's exactly the reason why I thought it would be ok.
I'm gonna point out real quick that there's a banner you can stick at the top. It's the least obtrusive, but also the least rewarding for me. Depending on what the admins say, I could only use a side or top banner on the zombie site, or just use banners on links to my imgur. The main reason I'm doing this is so I'll have some cash to send to Desert Bus for Hope this fall so they can send it to Child's Play.
Exert from this review of the site.
I wouldn't be using it if I thought it was a shady scam that pumped your computer full of malware.
I currently have 5 cents.I'm not sure it'd be any worse than those kevan.org links a few people have (or have had).
That's exactly the reason why I thought it would be ok.
I'm gonna point out real quick that there's a banner you can stick at the top. It's the least obtrusive, but also the least rewarding for me. Depending on what the admins say, I could only use a side or top banner on the zombie site, or just use banners on links to my imgur. The main reason I'm doing this is so I'll have some cash to send to Desert Bus for Hope this fall so they can send it to Child's Play.
I would advise against allowing it. As pointed out, it does nothing positive for this site, and is merely adspam. It has the potential to infect peoples' computers with malware or other nasty stuff. It's not offering a product or service that would be useful to a gaming site such as CFC.
I honestly don't understand why the staff would consider for a moment allowing this.
Exert from this review of the site.
I wouldn't be using it if I thought it was a shady scam that pumped your computer full of malware.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
The point against malware is pretty valid. Though theoretically, anyone can post a link with malware in it already, regardless of whether they're making a penny off it or not.
However, the various ad-link services (linkbucks, adfoc.us, adf.ly, etc.) are fairly reputable, and their sites themselves don't contain malware(if they did, no one would use them, ergo they would go out of business). The issue is people linking to dangerous sites, I'd say. But the likes of imageshack, photobucket, and imgur, which it sounds like would be used, are hardly counted as dangerous to my knowledge. Never mind, to my knowledge, it's a lot harder to hide malware and such in images than it is in an actual webpage.
Perhaps a list could be compiled(and added onto over time logically) of sites that are okay to be used in such advertising links? People could suggest other sites of course, and the mods would be able to accept or reject the site as safe.
Camikaze has a proper point - if linking to something with ads is (against the rules) advertising, then by definition, practically linking anywhere is advertising. From what I can tell, CFC isn't so much anti-advertising, as much as anti-advertising without substance. This can be seen in Off-Topic quite well: just posting a news link and expecting people to read and comment is spammy, but posting a link, quoting bits and pieces of the source material, and adding comments to it is not. Provided a link is in the greater context of a post, it would seem to be perfectly legitimate.
Links to personal websites being allowed, I see no reason why in one's signature, any of the link services could not be used. I'd assume the standard procedure of not violating forum rules by linking to explicit content such as language or obscenity would be the primary rule regulating such.
As for in a post, however, there's not really too much of an argument.
Though theoretically, linking to a picture off the site(once again, provided the picture itself is within forum rules) would just count as another form of spoiling it, rather than using the spoiler tags. If it's a particularly massive image, like a map, furthermore, it going offsite makes it more convenient as it makes someone see the full image. I'd think the biggest concern would be posting links and only links, which is pretty clearly spam and pretty obviously against most forum rules and common courtesy.
I mean theoretically, can't we already link to images off-site without use of the img and spoiler tags? If so, what is inherently wrong about gaining a fraction of a penny from each view of it in addition? Linking off-site doesn't add much to the site as it stands already, after all; provided the advertising method is safe, non-spammy and non-invasive, I don't see the issue.
The only concern I would see, would be people spamming links without any substance to them, but it doesn't take too much to understand that's not allowed. As for malware, also readily addressed - I'm fairly certain the burden of avoiding linking to hazardous sites is already imposed upon anyone who links already. The financial side of things also incentivises one to NOT post malware, as I'm fairly certain that would lead to a swift ban and thus, loss of revenue.
However, the various ad-link services (linkbucks, adfoc.us, adf.ly, etc.) are fairly reputable, and their sites themselves don't contain malware(if they did, no one would use them, ergo they would go out of business). The issue is people linking to dangerous sites, I'd say. But the likes of imageshack, photobucket, and imgur, which it sounds like would be used, are hardly counted as dangerous to my knowledge. Never mind, to my knowledge, it's a lot harder to hide malware and such in images than it is in an actual webpage.
Perhaps a list could be compiled(and added onto over time logically) of sites that are okay to be used in such advertising links? People could suggest other sites of course, and the mods would be able to accept or reject the site as safe.
Camikaze has a proper point - if linking to something with ads is (against the rules) advertising, then by definition, practically linking anywhere is advertising. From what I can tell, CFC isn't so much anti-advertising, as much as anti-advertising without substance. This can be seen in Off-Topic quite well: just posting a news link and expecting people to read and comment is spammy, but posting a link, quoting bits and pieces of the source material, and adding comments to it is not. Provided a link is in the greater context of a post, it would seem to be perfectly legitimate.
Links to personal websites being allowed, I see no reason why in one's signature, any of the link services could not be used. I'd assume the standard procedure of not violating forum rules by linking to explicit content such as language or obscenity would be the primary rule regulating such.
As for in a post, however, there's not really too much of an argument.
Though theoretically, linking to a picture off the site(once again, provided the picture itself is within forum rules) would just count as another form of spoiling it, rather than using the spoiler tags. If it's a particularly massive image, like a map, furthermore, it going offsite makes it more convenient as it makes someone see the full image. I'd think the biggest concern would be posting links and only links, which is pretty clearly spam and pretty obviously against most forum rules and common courtesy.
I mean theoretically, can't we already link to images off-site without use of the img and spoiler tags? If so, what is inherently wrong about gaining a fraction of a penny from each view of it in addition? Linking off-site doesn't add much to the site as it stands already, after all; provided the advertising method is safe, non-spammy and non-invasive, I don't see the issue.
The only concern I would see, would be people spamming links without any substance to them, but it doesn't take too much to understand that's not allowed. As for malware, also readily addressed - I'm fairly certain the burden of avoiding linking to hazardous sites is already imposed upon anyone who links already. The financial side of things also incentivises one to NOT post malware, as I'm fairly certain that would lead to a swift ban and thus, loss of revenue.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Well yes. Otherwise the people making the links wouldn't make money.
I don't want to be forced to go through an ad-spam just to get a flipping file. I get enough of it when getting mods for Minecraft when I browse and download from their forums. Plus there is a risk that the less scrupulous ones would infect my PC with viruses and spyware.
If you want money so badly, Get a flipping job or save your money instead of e-panhandling!
Omega124
Challenging Fate
For some reason, my ability to acess the drop down bar to the community and notifcation bar has been impedied for the last two or so days (Didn't really keep track). I always have to take an indirect roundabout if I want to, say, read a PM if I have a new one, or acess any of the numerous social groups I am in. I have no clue why, and restarting my browser doesn't seem to help. I am currently using IE and Windows 7, if this helps troubleshoot any of this problem. In the meantime, I shall also test my alt. computer to see if it glitches over there.
Can you elaborate as to why?
It's a banner. There are banners on CFC. I cited a reputable source which stated that it's not evil.
I don't want money badly, that's why I'm only taking about 5 minutes a day at the most to copypaste links. I just want a little cash in my Paypal.
Similar threads
