 B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Didn't Last Long?
As of right now "whenu" returns about 34,700 hits on Google. FWIW.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
 | 
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost | Re: Didn't Last Long? RTFA. They didn't remove all references to the company, just links to the company's site. | |
|
| | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: Didn't Last Long?
Don't curse at me. Crawl away.
-- B | |
|
| | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost | Re: Didn't Last Long? Don't try and cover up the fact that you didn't RTFA. Crawl away. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: Didn't Last Long? said by z28kindaguy  :
Reading this and your other posts makes me realize you're not too smart.
Thanks for your opinion. I'll be sure to put it exactly where it belongs...
 | |
|
| | | | 
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I agree, he should of read the fkin article, and also should know that google is not going to remove all text with the word "whenU"
--
:: My current desktop :: | |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Highly recommended Read the article => »www.benedelman.org/spyware/whenu-spam/
It's not the technical rocket-science stuff that some of us like, but it does a good job of explaining what's going on.
I respect Google for sticking up for its policies. Sometimes the results on Google are bad enough without morons trying to mess with the accuracy of the results. I can't imagine what it would be like without any sort of checks.
--
A good idea expressed in a poor manner is a bad idea. | |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Scumware=scumware, period. Subject. ^^^^^ | |
|
| |
| |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Re: Scumware=scumware, period. Gator, WhenU, CoolWeb, Whatever...it should ALL be banned/eradicated. | |
|
rstrandb
Premium
join:2003-04-17
Albany, GA | Horray for google Glad to see it, remove all references to spyware companies off your search engines. | |
|
| 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Horray for google I think that ought to apply to bogus spyware removal
tools like Stop-Sign (it is itself spyware) and Spy
Hunter (questionable spyware remover at the very least -
they make you pay to remove the spyware it finds), whose
ads still show up when you Google for Spybot. Or have
they in fact removed them?
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. | |
|
| | djblack
join:2002-08-19
Troutdale, OR
| Re: Horray for google said by Doctor Four :
I think that ought to apply to bogus spyware removal
tools like Stop-Sign (it is itself spyware) and Spy
Hunter (questionable spyware remover at the very least -
they make you pay to remove the spyware it finds), whose
ads still show up when you Google for Spybot. Or have
they in fact removed them?
Geez, no kidding.
It's kinda like a guy who sneaks out to your house, and drills a hole in your roof. Strangly enough, the next day, a roofing salesman shows up at your doorstep.
Hmmm... ?? | |
|
Varangian
join:2002-12-08
Collinsville, IL
|  counter attack needed
A grisly example needs to be made of one of them. Maybe the othes will back off.
Old time divers will tell you that the thing to do against sharks is kill one where the others can see you do it. Then they know you're not safe to eat. | |
|
| 
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: counter attack needed said by Varangian :
Old time divers will tell you that the thing to do against sharks is kill one where the others can see you do it. Then they know you're not safe to eat.
Since sharks have very limited vision, and a highly refined sense of taste, you'd have to be swimming in the middle of them so they could "see" you kill one. The sharks that saw you kill one might take off (I doubt it), but the sharks farther away would taste blood in the water and come zooming in for a feeding frenzy on the dead shark.
I think how it's supposed to work is to leave bloody food taste in the water, and get the hell out of there. I doubt sharks have a sense of brethren. They're just eating machines. | |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | Pathetic that they were relisted so quick The title covers it... but someone in their corporate management had to know what was going on... right??
So delist them for a nice long time as an example of what not to do. | |
|
Ben Edelman
@attbi.com
| Not true that 'Company was Relisted' The last sentence of the story above says "The company was relisted once they discontinued the practice." This is false: To date, WhenU hasn't been relisted in either Google or Yahoo.
WhenU's CEO was quoted as saying he anticipates being relisted soon, but Google's policy explicitly mentions the possibility of a permanent exclusion.
Meanwhile, there's evidence suggesting that WhenU's cloaking activities lasted for the better part of two years, going back as far as July 2002. (See the report for details.) If this is true, or if the search engines think it is true, I would expect them to be especially unlikely to re-add WhenU quickly. Setting the right incentives here -- not to cloak -- requires that the punishment for cloaking be larger (for the companies considering cloaking) than the benefit. If the choice were two years of cloaking followed by a couple days of exclusion, lots of companies might rationally decide cloaking is a fine approach, the rules notwithstanding!
Ben Edelman
»www.benedelman.org | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WhenU Booted From Google
·
Re: Scumware=scumware, period.