Forum Moderators: open
So how is it Google would have the right to determine whether or not someone runs a piece of software that produces seconadry search results?
If the so-spyware does not alter information then its not my concern and spyware detection apps should clean it up :)
So webguerilla if you have a site can i advertise on it without your permission?
There is a huge difference between altering a web page by embedding hyperlinks into the content and launching a secondary pup-under window that shows additional search results.
The idea that a site owner should have control over my browser is rediculous. If SearchScout was altering the hyperlinks on Google SERPS the argument would be valid. But that isn't what is happening.
To the person who asked how they got to your computer, then the answer is scumware. eWallet, Kazaa, and such.
Search on google for "Spybot search and destroy" and you will find one of the best anti scumware apps out there.
I think you are confusing two different products. From what I've read, Search Scout launches a pop-under based on the keywords you typed into the search box. The page that gets displayed is underneath the search engine results, which means they are not even seen by the user until they've decided to abandon the particular search engine. If the user does that, one might draw the conclusion that they didn't find what they were looking for. In that case, how is it harmful for that user to see an additional set of results from a different search service?
I think you are confusing two different products. From what I've read, Search Scout launches a pop-under based on the keywords you typed into the search box. The page that gets displayed is underneath the search engine results, which means they are not even seen by the user until they've decided to abandon the particular search engine. If the user does that, one might draw the conclusion that they didn't find what they were looking for. In that case, how is it harmful for that user to see an additional set of results from a different search service?
In this case it is Google who should be doing the suing. SearchScout is stealing their traffic, and creating the perception that by searching on Google you get a second set of (almost always) inferior results.
In addition, I wish that all scumware apologists would stop making the stupid argument that "someone downloaded the app so they clearly want it so you have no right to tell Gator or whoever to stop popping up ads."
Right.
99.9% of people out there who download software that comes with hidden "shopping helpers" and other crap have absolutely no idea that they are also installing scumware. If they did, you'd quickly be out of business.
You are in the extreme minority if you are a webmaster and you are not freaking out about scumware. If you do not see how this is making money off of your web site, I suggest to you that you just need to install some scumware and surf your own sites. If you can do this and not see how these parasites are specifically making money off the sweat of your brow, I just don't understand it.
The IAD brought suit against these guys and settled because Gator agreed not to tread on their space. Now there are other big sites that are suing them. The only guys left after all the big guys make their deals with Scumcentral will be the small and medium sized web sites.
Your very words sound as if they come from the mouths of a scumware company. Let me ask you a final question. Say you surf in to Webmasterworld and a tiny popup jumps on your screen reading, "make a contribution to this free software you have downloaded, click here." You wouldn't do it cause you know it can't really be a contribution to Webmasterworld. But I suggest to you that most people would not realize this.
As a final comment, if you took all the sites that the Gators of the world suck the blood of off the air, Gator wouldn't have a very good business model.
Web guerrilla is spot on in my opinion.
MS has its own reasons for allowing activeX controls as a default. The typical person with a PC doesn't know what activeX is or that they can turn it on and off. Gator exists to earn money from advertising in connection with the content of other people's web sites. No web sites and Gator doesn't exist.
My problem is that Gator, if its business model is successful, will ultimately have the effect that all content will sit behind walls and require a paid subscription because revenue will not be able to be earned from free content.
Then again, this is hardly the forum for this discussion.
The discussion is that Gator has the audacity to popup on Google. That might be a really bad decision on their part. I hope it is.
Do you think Google got permission to put their ad at the top of Gators pages?
[216.239.37.100...]
