Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
Renegade:
I have to disagree with you there Renegade.
Not having a having a prominent link to the program homepage is unacceptable for a download site.
-mouser (August 25, 2011, 09:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
Seems like everybody is getting me wrong today... :(
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I just don't think that CNet will put links to developer sites there. They really have no incentive to do it, and every incentive to not link to developers. Acceptable or unacceptable isn't what I was talking about -- I merely wanted to point out that I don't think that it is likely that they WOULD do it. I wasn't trying to comment on whether they SHOULD do it.
It simply makes for a much better page to have links to the original source. So, yeah - I'm agreeing with you about the "should" part. :)
mouser:
Acceptable or unacceptable isn't what I was talking about -- I merely wanted to point out that I don't think that it is likely that they WOULD do it. I wasn't trying to comment on whether they SHOULD do it. It simply makes for a much better page to have links to the original source. So, yeah - I'm agreeing with you about the "should" part.
-Renegade (August 25, 2011, 09:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
Ah ok I misunderstood you then -- my apologies.
I don't think these big sites have much incentive to listen when people like us complain, but I do see a possible long term solution, in the creation of an advocacy organization whose only purpose was to establish guidelines to benefit consumers, and which worked to get SEARCH ENGINES to penalize sites that don't score well on the recommendations.
The search engines are the key because they have an insane amount of power over ranking results and therefore an instantaneous dramatic effect on income for big sites. A search engine could destroy any company on the web in a matter of minutes, and even a tiny change in rankings is likely to result in a very painful loss of income for a company.
So I'm basically suggesting that the most efficient and likely-to-succeed strategy for handling things like this is to set up an organization that establishes fair guidelines and for software sites, and reports on good and bad sites with respect to these guidelines, and then try to get the search engine companies (google, etc.) to treat the adherence to such guidelines as a factor in search engine rankings.
This would also help solve the problem I always rant about, which is companies which build up a reputation and then once they have earned respect and high search engine placement, they start to go rogue and do bad things, and by then their web traffic momentum is enough to keep them from paying a price. Getting search engines to rapidly adjust rankings when a company starts behaving wrongly is the key to stopping these bad behaviors.
This is similar to the idea we discussed regarding anti-virus program awards.
Anyone at DC feel particularly motivated and qualified to start a new site to establish guidelines for such things and evaluate sites for good behavior? DC could provide the web space.
wraith808:
It appears OpenDNS is now classifying the site in the Adware category... (see attachment in previous post)
-y0himba (August 25, 2011, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
LOL! On OT, your warning is a lot better than mine- I might steal it for humor's sake!
Stoic Joker:
It appears OpenDNS is now classifying the site in the Adware category... (see attachment in previous post)
-y0himba (August 25, 2011, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
LOL! On OT, your warning is a lot better than mine- I might steal it for humor's sake!
-wraith808 (August 25, 2011, 10:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
I got a kick out of that one myself...The picture totally nails it. Too Perfect!
40hz:
Anyone at DC feel particularly motivated and qualified to start a new site to establish guidelines for such things and evaluate sites for good behavior?
-mouser (August 25, 2011, 09:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
That would make for an interesting discussion since so many of the stakeholders (i.e. developers) seem to have mixed and migrating opinions as to what is acceptable - and isn't. As do the end users, whose opinions frequently clash with those of the development community.
So exactly who could best be considered qualified to establish such guidelines? And more to the point: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apparently the Romans had a bit of experience with this sort of thing. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version