Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
I'm sorry but it is not...it is a dictionary term. Your mistake was saying that a few adverts are spyware, which they are not, because they are not spying on you, this is why it is called spyware, because it spies...It is not debateable as any computer literate user will tell you.
http://www.btsafersurfing.com/glossary/p_t.html

---

First, nothing is 'not debateable'.

What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
Maybe we should go back to the idea of only selected members can vote...

---

The entire idea is fundamentally flawed - that suggestion will not improve matters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.

---

Everything the sponsor program does or can do is outlined in the agreement, which you agree to. Therefore it has your permission, and it isn't spying without your knowledge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
The entire idea is fundamentally flawed - that suggestion will not improve matters.

---

Actually the entire system isn't fundamentally flawed. What you're receivng is users reputations of you - valid or not thats what hey think and that is their opinion. Perhaps if you didn't act how you did (I never actually read your posts - so i'm going off what has been said here), then people wouldn't think that of you.

Going back to selected members will actually improve things as well, because it used to be that only elite members and staff could vote - presemably the most sensible in the entire group.

The "lets try go give him a -30" thugh is what I would call abuse, direct and blatent abuse of the system.

I've always tried to be as sensible and truthful with the repuations I give out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Millenium_edition
the guy abused the forums in the first place, but what does his account matter anyway ?

---

That's not really an excuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kangie
ive got a +3 reputation, and ive been here 3years

---

quote:

---

Posts: 165
Reputation: 5
Age: 19, Sex:
Joined: Sep 2003

---

1 year.

Didn't she have another name before that Surfi!

I think you made a lot of sense with your ideas about this reputation system. My reps only small but to me it means something because I know people whoi gave them meant what they said

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.

---

Adware is, by definition, untargeted. It collects no information.
If ads are targeted, that means that there is a piece of spyware behind them, making the package spyware.
AFAIK, the ads in the sponsor package are untargeted, therefore by definition, the package is adware.

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and give you negative rep. I have given neutral, because you do try. All we ask is that you read up a little on background information that may be of relevance.

I think there would be far less trouble if all reputation votes were anonymous...

if you dont like the reputation system, just avoid it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
if you dont like the reputation system, just avoid it.

---

How can we avoid it when there is no way to turn it off, we can't hide it (like avatars and signatures), we can't opt out and there is no way to refuse or block votes.

Just don't do any voting, and ignore the number shown by your posts.

Oh, and most importantly, don't complain about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Just don't do any voting

---

Never have voted.

quote:

---

and ignore the number shown by your posts.

---

That's hard to do when people pointedly tell you they've voted or refer to a reputation score during discussions.  Ideally I'd like to be able to hide all reputation scores, just like I can hide avatars and signatures.

quote:

---

Oh, and most importantly, don't complain about it.

---

Or, as my brother says, 'put up and shut up'.  Let's face it, the reputation system *cannot* be avoided.  That situation won't change when we're told not to complain about it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
Ideally I'd like to be able to hide all reputation scores, just like I can hide avatars and signatures.

---

Well, if I added that option, it would be just like adding options to hide post count, registration date, age, etc. Hiding avatars and signatures can really be useful, because images can be an annoying waste of bandwidth and screen space. Hiding reputations is a different story, and I suspect that the only people interested in such an option are the people who have a negative number.