Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Spammers/Amazon affiliates take note

Reply
Thread Tools

Spammers/Amazon affiliates take note

 
 
JFR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2004
Joe Liquor wrote:
>
> Mike Kohary wrote:
> > FAQmeister wrote:
> >
> >>I suppose anything I say will just become fodder for more personal
> >>attacks, but I'll explain my intentions one more time, for the record
> >>and for anyone who may be interested:
> >>
> >>I have no desire to moderate this group. I also don't want anyone to
> >>lose their accounts, but I do want the spam to end...

> >
> >
> > Fine, you don't want any more personal attacks, then be reasonable, and
> > understand that many people in this newsgroup don't consider these posts
> > spam - in fact they welcome these posts. Your actions are speaking for
> > those people as well, and that's just plain wrong.
> >
> > You are talking about 2 posters. TWO! For heaven's sake, killfile them and
> > be done with it. That way, you're satisfied at not having to see their
> > posts, and your actions don't affect anyone else - everyone wins. That is
> > the best of all worlds.

>
> It's an ego trip, pure and simple. People can actually send complaints
> to his ISP for posting off topic messages and give him a taste of his
> own medicine.


Ego trip it seems indeed. Then again, he probably craves all the
attention (positive or negative). Otherwise, why go through all this
trouble for such a silly issue? I guess he decided that was going to be
HIS war. Kind of sad really.

To the original poster: you can't expect people not to judge your
personal motivations when you barge in in here and try to take over the
NG with your silly notions. I doubt anybody believes you when you say
"Those who believe that I am on some big ego trip, trying to control
what people can post or read, trying to moderate or take over this group
are wrong".

Your actions are clearly not welcome for most, yet you insist on
deciding what's good for them. THAT is what annoys people. If this NG
was an appartment block, you'd be the cranky old man upstairs who keeps
complaining about everyone, calling the cops because someone blew his
nose, and that all the other tenants hate. You should be so proud.

Ok, I'm going back to lurker mode now.

JFR
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
FAQmeister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2004
"JD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:g1pyc.58$(E-Mail Removed)
> "FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cacu60$5l5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> I have no desire to moderate this group. I also don't want anyone to
>> lose their accounts, but I do want the spam to end and I am simply
>> exercising my right to;
>> State my intention to report people for spamming.
>> Write and post a faq to an alt group.

>
> Explain what gives you the right to WRITE A FAQ for this group?


I have as much right to write a faq as you do to question the validity
of any faq I write.
--
Buford T. Justice


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
FAQmeister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2004
"Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cad2ql$for$(E-Mail Removed)
> FAQmeister wrote:
>>
>> I suppose anything I say will just become fodder for more personal
>> attacks, but I'll explain my intentions one more time, for the record
>> and for anyone who may be interested:
>>
>> I have no desire to moderate this group. I also don't want anyone to
>> lose their accounts, but I do want the spam to end...

>
> Fine, you don't want any more personal attacks, then be reasonable,
> and understand that many people in this newsgroup don't consider
> these posts spam - in fact they welcome these posts. Your actions
> are speaking for those people as well, and that's just plain wrong.


Naturally I think I am being reasonable. If you are suggesting that
"anything goes" as long as there are some people who approve of it, I
disagree. In every group where advertising/spam becomes an issue, there
is always a vocal minority who complains loudly that their "rights" are
being infringed.

I believe everyone is free to voice their opinions on any subject and if
people don't like it they should use their killfiles, but advertising is
a different matter, because it is specifically addressed in most service
provider's TOS. If action is taken by a service provider because they
believe that their TOS has been violated, then that action is entirely
justified.

> You are talking about 2 posters. TWO!


At the moment. This represents a shot across the bow to all spammers.

The final arbiter of what is appropriate is the service provider. This
is one of two nearly identical email replies I received from Amazon this
afternoon because of complaints I sent this morning. I'm sure you
understand that Amazon would not be influenced by any opinion I
expressed about the value of the posts, but only on the actual content
of the posts I quoted from the individuals in question.

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:05:59
From: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry

Thank you for writing to Amazon.com Associates, and for bringing this
to our attention.

We were unaware of this Associate's intention to advertise in this
manner and would certainly never have pre-approved it. We do not use
nor tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising method. We will
contact the offender immediately and put a stop to this.

With over 900,000 Associate web sites enrolled in our program, it is
difficult to entirely prevent this kind of abuse. However, help like
yours is invaluable as we work to ensure that Amazon.com Associates
continues to run smoothly.

--
Buford T. Justice


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2004
"FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cad8hv$qhi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Naturally I think I am being reasonable.


Naturally, you are stupid.

Once you finally come to this realization, it will be a life-changing
turn of events.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Hamilcar Barca
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2004
In article <cacu60$5l5$(E-Mail Removed)> (Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:55 -0700),
FAQmeister wrote:

> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cacjsu$j39$(E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> I used to work for Amazon.com, for 3 years, and that is not what they
>> regard as "spamming".
>>

>
> You are wrong again. Here is the question I asked them:
> Will you take action against Amazon Associates who spam newsgroups to
> drive traffic to a web site that contains Amazon Associate links?


Perhaps you're new to the Internet. You may have asked Amazon a specific
question but what you received is an automated response which is in no way
a direct response to any statement or question you made.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Biz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2004

"FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cad8hv$qhi$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I have as much right to write a faq as you do to question the validity
> of any faq I write.
> --
> Buford T. Justice
>
>


Do you know what a halfwit is? I'm going to go out on a limb and give you
the benefit of the doubt and say you're lucky if you measure up to
quarter-wit staus...

Now, I'm going to do something that should have been done at least 100 posts
from you ago....I suggest you do teh same to me and to anyone whose posts
you don't like.

*PLONK*




 
Reply With Quote
 
JD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2004

"FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cad8hv$qhi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "JD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:g1pyc.58$(E-Mail Removed)
> > "FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:cacu60$5l5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >> I have no desire to moderate this group. I also don't want anyone to
> >> lose their accounts, but I do want the spam to end and I am simply
> >> exercising my right to;
> >> State my intention to report people for spamming.
> >> Write and post a faq to an alt group.

> >
> > Explain what gives you the right to WRITE A FAQ for this group?

>
> I have as much right to write a faq as you do to question the validity
> of any faq I write.
> --
> Buford T. Justice
>


There is no question about the validity of YOUR FAQ, it simply has none.
Fortunately for those that you are complaining about, you've made yourself
to look like quite the buffoon and a simple pointer to your Google history
will illustrate that fact quite clearly for those that you are complaining
to.

Now, please continue to dance so that I may laugh at you again


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2004

"Biz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tmsyc.48622$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "FAQmeister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cad8hv$qhi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > I have as much right to write a faq as you do to question the validity
> > of any faq I write.
> > --
> > Buford T. Justice
> >
> >

>
> Do you know what a halfwit is? I'm going to go out on a limb and give you
> the benefit of the doubt and say you're lucky if you measure up to
> quarter-wit staus...
>
> Now, I'm going to do something that should have been done at least 100

posts
> from you ago....I suggest you do teh same to me and to anyone whose posts
> you don't like.
>
> *PLONK*


Apparently, people can't see smileys anymore.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2004
FAQmeister wrote:
> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cad2ql$for$(E-Mail Removed)
>> FAQmeister wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose anything I say will just become fodder for more personal
>>> attacks, but I'll explain my intentions one more time, for the
>>> record and for anyone who may be interested:
>>>
>>> I have no desire to moderate this group. I also don't want anyone to
>>> lose their accounts, but I do want the spam to end...

>>
>> Fine, you don't want any more personal attacks, then be reasonable,
>> and understand that many people in this newsgroup don't consider
>> these posts spam - in fact they welcome these posts. Your actions
>> are speaking for those people as well, and that's just plain wrong.

>
> Naturally I think I am being reasonable. If you are suggesting that
> "anything goes" as long as there are some people who approve of it, I
> disagree.


No, I'm not saying that, but I am telling you that there are people who do
appreciate these posts and find some usefulness in them. Therefore, it is
not up to you to speak for the entire group, when clearly a large portion of
the group dissents from your opinion.

In point of fact, a glance at the responses in this and other threads
reveals that the majority is solidly against your actions. Doesn't that
tell you something?

> I believe everyone is free to voice their opinions on any subject and
> if people don't like it they should use their killfiles, but
> advertising is a different matter, because it is specifically
> addressed in most service provider's TOS.


I agree with you. But whether or not the posts in question constitute
"advertising" is clearly up for debate, therefore you shouldn't unilaterally
decide that they are.

> The final arbiter of what is appropriate is the service provider. This
> is one of two nearly identical email replies I received from Amazon
> this afternoon because of complaints I sent this morning. I'm sure
> you understand that Amazon would not be influenced by any opinion I
> expressed about the value of the posts, but only on the actual content
> of the posts I quoted from the individuals in question.


You're right, they won't, but do understand that what you've received is a
form letter. If and when they review what you actually sent, they will
reject the notion that it's spam, because it contains no affiliate links in
the post. Merely leading to a website that contains affiliate links is not
enough, unless the sole purpose of the post is to drive traffic there.
Since the posts in question contain unique content not related to driving
traffic for the sole purpose of bolstering click-throughs on their affiliate
links, they won't make the determination to cancel these posters' accounts.
I've worked for them, I've known the people directly responsible for this
process, I know how it works from the inside, and I can almost guarantee
that what I've predicted will be correct.

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
FAQmeister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2004
"Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:caffcr$64s$(E-Mail Removed)
> FAQmeister wrote:
>> Naturally I think I am being reasonable. If you are suggesting that
>> "anything goes" as long as there are some people who approve of it, I
>> disagree.

>
> No, I'm not saying that, but I am telling you that there are people
> who do appreciate these posts and find some usefulness in them.
> Therefore, it is not up to you to speak for the entire group, when
> clearly a large portion of the group dissents from your opinion.


Declaring one's intention to report spam and actually making the reports
does not constitute speaking for the entire group. Writing a faq and
posting it does not constitute speaking for the entire group either.

You say you agree with me that people are entitled to voice their
opinions on any subject. Some people think off-topic posts are
inappropriate and I'm sure some complaints have been filed on that at
one time or another. Is either side of that issue attempting to speak
for the entire group? Of course not. Both sides are simply exercising
their right to have an opinion and act upon it.

>
> In point of fact, a glance at the responses in this and other threads
> reveals that the majority is solidly against your actions. Doesn't
> that tell you something?


As I said before, in every group where advertising/spam becomes an
issue, there
is always a vocal minority who complains loudly that their "rights" are
being infringed. A vocal minority does not equal (nor should it be
interpreted as) representative of the opinion of the majority of
newsgroup users.

This is not an issue that can be decided by a majority anyway. If the
newsgroup charter doesn't specifically permit advertising, then a
majority wishing to permit advertising cannot overrule a minority who
are against it.

Usenet is not a democracy. There is no "free speech" right to post
advertising.

>> The final arbiter of what is appropriate is the service provider.
>> This is one of two nearly identical email replies I received from
>> Amazon this afternoon because of complaints I sent this morning.
>> I'm sure you understand that Amazon would not be influenced by any
>> opinion I expressed about the value of the posts, but only on the
>> actual content of the posts I quoted from the individuals in
>> question.

>
> You're right, they won't, but do understand that what you've received
> is a form letter.


I received two letters and they weren't exactly the same. They were form
letters only in the sense that it was the usual canned response from the
two individual Amazon reps who reviewed my complaints and decided they
were valid. They would never say, "We will contact the offender
immediately and put a stop to this" unless that was exactly what they
intended to do. Otherwise they would have just said they would review,
or are reviewing my complaints.

Now of course the offenders will complain and demand a review. Maybe
they will prevail and Amazon will allow them to continue...but I really
doubt that.

> Merely leading to a website that
> contains affiliate links is not enough, unless the sole purpose of
> the post is to drive traffic there. Since the posts in question
> contain unique content not related to driving traffic for the sole
> purpose of bolstering click-throughs on their affiliate links,


Why don't those guys post the actual reviews and put a link to their
site in their sig? They would still get some traffic to their sites and
no one would complain about that. The reasons they don't are obvious.
They are selfish, greedy and short-sighted.

The sole purpose of those posts IS to drive traffic to a web site, but
even if the links were surrounded by a lot useful content, the messages
would still be spammy enough to get many service providers to act,
including Amazon. In a non-commercial group the only appropriate place
to promote one's own web site is in a "sig" attached to a legitimate
question or contribution.


> they
> won't make the determination to cancel these posters' accounts. I've
> worked for them, I've known the people directly responsible for this
> process, I know how it works from the inside, and I can almost
> guarantee that what I've predicted will be correct.
>
> Mike


I'm glad you left yourself a little wiggle room.

I can (not almost, but definitely) guarantee that those spammers are
going to have to change their ways. If that doesn't happen, I'll be
happy to admit I was wrong. Are you willing to do the same if you are
proven wrong?
--
Buford T. Justice


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SE promoting affiliates dilemma XyZed HTML 1 06-06-2006 10:13 AM
Attention Affiliates Silverstrand Front Page News 22 04-03-2006 02:00 AM
ATTENTION AFFILIATES Silverstrand Front Page News 3 10-10-2005 01:42 PM
Attention Affiliates Silverstrand Front Page News 18 08-20-2005 03:17 AM
Any affiliates intersted in my offers? the best affiliate program onthe web!!! theeb basheer ASP .Net 0 09-03-2004 09:16 PM



Advertisments