Hey Buzz! More @#$%&*! SPAM

[Bigincher]

Originally Posted by jmanjeff

This is Buzz's site he can do what he wants. Like i sead if you do not want to see the ad's


and set it up and you will not see any of the ad's

My software works just fine, and thanks for the tip.

[unclepsycho]

All the ads on this page are gone on my computer.

edit: all but three at the top.

[Paps]

Brought this back to the top for the firefox users. Paps
Firefox hit by multiple drive-by download flaws | Zero Day | ZDNet.com

[Buzz_Kanter]

I'm using Foxfire and AOL and don't have any spam issues here any more.

[Bigincher]

I haven't had issues here since Mike did sh!t-canned those banner ads.

[Paps]

Originally Posted by Buzz_Kanter

I'm using Foxfire and AOL and don't have any spam issues here any more.

I didn't mean to say it was affecting the forum Buzz. The article is about drive by attacks via Firefox, for those who may have noticed problems while surfing anywhere on the web. Just a heads up caution as a preventive measure of protection. Not even firefox is exempt from attacks, according to this article. Paps

[CAI-admin]

For once and for all, I believe we have cured the SPAM problem. It turns out that hackers were able to hijack the GoogleAdSense ads that had images in them. I deleted all the Google ads, and then re-posted them using a different method, and I posted only text ads, so it should be fairly hacker proof -- at least for a while.

As for the varying definitions of SPAM in this thread, they range from any advertising at all is SPAM, to SPAM is any advertising that is irrelevant and intrusive. I favor the latter. To regard any advertising at all as SPAM is wrong-minded.

We keep 5 web sites constantly brewing here, and we have a couple more sites that are getting pretty low traffic and are almost on the way to extinction. We host the sites on our own designated web server run by an outside firm in Texas. The costs to run the server, keep the software updated, pay our salaries, etc. is trememdous. The Google ads bring in a steady revenue stream that is fairly significant. Our other banner advertising also helps out by making our print ads more valuable, and consequently more popular with advertisers.

Those of you who are so vocal about there should be NO advertising at all, are you willing to man up and pay a subscription fee to keep the sites running? Those are the two business models we usually go by in the media -- Free, but with ads; or Fee-paid and no ads (subscription). Kindly give us an idea of how much you would be willing to pay, and we will count the number of you that want to sign up to determine if it will bring in suitable returns on our investment. Remember, that once we start to charge, we will take a significant dive in the number of registered members of our site.

[Bigincher]

Mike, thanks for all your unseen and (usually) unnoticed work.
My response is simple-- even though I personally would be willing to pay a minimal 'subscription' fee, I feel that many viewers here are not 'active', but value the information they come here to glean. I suspect the 'hit count' would be dramatically reduced if there was a fee on this site, and with that reduced hit count would be very diminished interest from advertisers; and without an income from them, AIM would hardly be able to afford to keep it running. In other words, it would probably kill the place.
I don't mind at all the way it is now, since you've fixed the problem of malicious re-directs and popups. Right now, I'm looking at text ads at the top of the page, Custom Wheels, Harley Boot Clearance, Harley Boots. Those kinds of ads are relavant to our interests, non-invasive, and probably of interest to many viewers. I see no problem there whatsoever.
You can count my vote as 'keep the ads as they are', even though I am willing to 'subscribe' if it comes to that. I just think that would be a mistake.
These are my own opinions, and nothing more.


By the way, I have noticed some real sluggishness on this site the last couple days--- are you guys vaccuming the LAN room again?