Spammers/Amazon affiliates take note

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by FAQmeister, Jun 11, 2004.

  1. FAQmeister

    FAQmeister Guest

    Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004
    From:
    Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry

    Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program.

    Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please know
    that we do not use or tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising
    method. We consider postings to non-commercial newsgroups, or cross-
    postings to multiple newsgroups at once to be spamming.

    Thanks for choosing Amazon.com.
    -------------------------------------------

    No one should delude themselves into believing that they will be able to
    argue successfully to Amazon that this is a "commercial" newsgroup.

    If anyone posts messages designed to drive traffic to a web site that
    contains Amazon links, they will be putting their Amazon account at
    risk, as well as their ISP account and their hosting.

    If anyone loses their account(s) it will be because they failed to abide
    by the rules (TOS) that they agreed to.

    --
    Buford T. Justice
    FAQmeister, Jun 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FAQmeister

    Joe Liquor Guest

    FAQmeister wrote:
    > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004
    > From:
    > Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry
    >
    > Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program.
    >
    > Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please know
    > that we do not use or tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising
    > method. We consider postings to non-commercial newsgroups, or cross-
    > postings to multiple newsgroups at once to be spamming.
    >
    > Thanks for choosing Amazon.com.
    > -------------------------------------------
    >
    > No one should delude themselves into believing that they will be able to
    > argue successfully to Amazon that this is a "commercial" newsgroup.
    >
    > If anyone posts messages designed to drive traffic to a web site that
    > contains Amazon links, they will be putting their Amazon account at
    > risk, as well as their ISP account and their hosting.
    >
    > If anyone loses their account(s) it will be because they failed to abide
    > by the rules (TOS) that they agreed to.


    BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA! I give you two weeks before your meltdown.
    Joe Liquor, Jun 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FAQmeister

    Richard C. Guest

    You are a total putz!

    If someone asks about a DVD release and someone prints a link to amazon
    showing where it can be purchased,
    that is NOT SPAM. Not by any standards.

    You need to get some kind of life that involves a purpose.

    =====================================
    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:caav6e$bu1$...
    : Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004
    : From:
    : Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry
    :
    : Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program.
    :
    : Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please know
    : that we do not use or tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising
    : method. We consider postings to non-commercial newsgroups, or cross-
    : postings to multiple newsgroups at once to be spamming.
    :
    : Thanks for choosing Amazon.com.
    : -------------------------------------------
    :
    : No one should delude themselves into believing that they will be able
    to
    : argue successfully to Amazon that this is a "commercial" newsgroup.
    :
    : If anyone posts messages designed to drive traffic to a web site that
    : contains Amazon links, they will be putting their Amazon account at
    : risk, as well as their ISP account and their hosting.
    :
    : If anyone loses their account(s) it will be because they failed to
    abide
    : by the rules (TOS) that they agreed to.
    :
    : --
    : Buford T. Justice
    :
    :
    Richard C., Jun 11, 2004
    #3
  4. FAQmeister

    Mike Kohary Guest

    FAQmeister wrote:
    > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004
    > From:
    > Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry
    >
    > Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program.
    >
    > Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please know
    > that we do not use or tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising
    > method. We consider postings to non-commercial newsgroups, or cross-
    > postings to multiple newsgroups at once to be spamming.
    >
    > Thanks for choosing Amazon.com.
    > -------------------------------------------
    >
    > No one should delude themselves into believing that they will be able
    > to argue successfully to Amazon that this is a "commercial" newsgroup.
    >
    > If anyone posts messages designed to drive traffic to a web site that
    > contains Amazon links, they will be putting their Amazon account at
    > risk, as well as their ISP account and their hosting.


    I used to work for Amazon.com, for 3 years, and that is not what they regard
    as "spamming". They are referring to people directly posting their Amazon
    affiliate links to forums, not posting links to websites that then contain
    Amazon affiliate links.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Jun 11, 2004
    #4
  5. FAQmeister

    Frode Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Richard C. wrote:
    >You need to get some kind of life that involves a purpose.


    I think the crux of the problem is, he just did. Yep, you're looking at
    it...


    - --
    Frode

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0.3

    iQA/AwUBQMn2/OXlGBWTt1afEQK5rQCfbcy4g2BjOsRP94z12Mt0R1OBeiUAn1ff
    aGQDhph59viO+11eV8COmExY
    =6h9o
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Frode, Jun 11, 2004
    #5
  6. FAQmeister

    FAQmeister Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:cacjsu$j39$
    > FAQmeister wrote:
    >> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004
    >> From:
    >> Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry
    >>
    >> Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program.
    >>
    >> Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please know
    >> that we do not use or tolerate the use of spamming as an advertising
    >> method. We consider postings to non-commercial newsgroups, or cross-
    >> postings to multiple newsgroups at once to be spamming.
    >>
    >> Thanks for choosing Amazon.com.
    >> -------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> No one should delude themselves into believing that they will be able
    >> to argue successfully to Amazon that this is a "commercial"
    >> newsgroup.
    >>
    >> If anyone posts messages designed to drive traffic to a web site that
    >> contains Amazon links, they will be putting their Amazon account at
    >> risk, as well as their ISP account and their hosting.

    >
    > I used to work for Amazon.com, for 3 years, and that is not what they
    > regard as "spamming". They are referring to people directly posting
    > their Amazon affiliate links to forums, not posting links to websites
    > that then contain Amazon affiliate links.
    >
    > Mike


    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?

    You and a few others are making a lot of incorrect statements, but of
    course everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that arguing
    about these issues is a waste of time and that the spammers who believe
    you and continue posting spam, thinking they can get away with it are
    the ones who are going to suffer.

    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 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.
    Complain to the service provider about any post I believe violates their
    TOS.

    Despite what some may think, none of these actions require the approval
    of anyone else. 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. I am exercising the same rights that everyone else
    in this group has, and I have done so without resorting to personal
    attacks, even though many have responded by taking cheap shots at me.

    I understand newsgroup dynamics though and expected the attacks as well
    as the empty threats to file complaints on me. Moronic comments like
    this are why I would never waste my time trying to get a group consensus
    on this matter:
    "Dick Sidbury" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > According to the webopedia, spam is electronic junk mail. So all the
    > posts from you and FAQMeister on this topic would qualify as spam.


    As if the "webopedia" or any other supposed authority was the last word
    on what constitutes spam. The determination of what constitutes spam
    (short of exceeding the "BI") or any other TOS violation is up to the
    service providers involved. People who don't understand this simple
    concept are incapable of any rational discussion about what is
    appropriate in a newsgroup.

    In short, talk is cheap--especially newsgroup talk.

    I started filing complaints today. The tally so far:

    dvdverdict has been reported to:




    genreonline been reported to:





    I won't respond to each individual spam, but the spammers should
    understand that I will continue filing complaints till they stop
    spamming. I will encourage others to do the same.

    Anyone who really believes I'm wrong should also believe that nothing
    will come of it, so there's really nothing to argue about. We'll find
    out who was right in due time.
    --
    Buford T. Justice
    FAQmeister, Jun 11, 2004
    #6
  7. FAQmeister

    Mike Kohary Guest

    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.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Jun 11, 2004
    #7
  8. FAQmeister

    Joe Liquor Guest

    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.
    Joe Liquor, Jun 11, 2004
    #8
  9. FAQmeister

    Frode Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    >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.


    But, then he'd not feel nearly as important.

    - --
    Frode

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0.3

    iQA/AwUBQMoX3eXlGBWTt1afEQJabwCg9j24x2oZhp7YVW/dQFohODb0vvsAnjGh
    QhayFCdzgLIv73qkyN/b8xNB
    =0buS
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Frode, Jun 11, 2004
    #9
  10. FAQmeister

    JD Guest

    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:cacu60$5l5$...

    > 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?
    JD, Jun 11, 2004
    #10
  11. FAQmeister

    JFR Guest

    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
    JFR, Jun 11, 2004
    #11
  12. FAQmeister

    FAQmeister Guest

    "JD" <> wrote in message
    news:g1pyc.58$
    > "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    > news:cacu60$5l5$...
    >
    >> 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
    FAQmeister, Jun 11, 2004
    #12
  13. FAQmeister

    FAQmeister Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:cad2ql$for$
    > 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:
    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
    FAQmeister, Jun 11, 2004
    #13
  14. FAQmeister

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:cad8hv$qhi$...
    > 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.
    Joshua Zyber, Jun 11, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <cacu60$5l5$> (Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:55 -0700),
    FAQmeister wrote:

    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:cacjsu$j39$
    >>
    >> 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.
    Hamilcar Barca, Jun 11, 2004
    #15
  16. FAQmeister

    Biz Guest

    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:cad8hv$qhi$...
    >
    > 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*
    Biz, Jun 12, 2004
    #16
  17. FAQmeister

    JD Guest

    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:cad8hv$qhi$...
    > "JD" <> wrote in message
    > news:g1pyc.58$
    > > "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    > > news:cacu60$5l5$...
    > >
    > >> 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
    JD, Jun 12, 2004
    #17
  18. FAQmeister

    Nonymous Guest

    "Biz" <> wrote in message
    news:tmsyc.48622$...
    >
    > "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    > news:cad8hv$qhi$...
    > >
    > > 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.
    Nonymous, Jun 12, 2004
    #18
  19. FAQmeister

    Mike Kohary Guest

    FAQmeister wrote:
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:cad2ql$for$
    >> 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
    Mike Kohary, Jun 12, 2004
    #19
  20. FAQmeister

    FAQmeister Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:caffcr$64s$
    > 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
    FAQmeister, Jun 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Attention Affiliates

    Silverstrand, Aug 10, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,208
    unholy
    Aug 20, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    ATTENTION AFFILIATES

    Silverstrand, Oct 8, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    713
    unholy
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    Attention Affiliates

    Silverstrand, Mar 25, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,677
    unholy
    Apr 3, 2006
  4. malika porter

    MyLondoners.co.uk and Easymaintain.com now affiliates

    malika porter, Feb 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    332
    Paul Heslop
    Feb 17, 2007
  5. T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz

    spammers take the weekend off?

    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    292
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Feb 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page