In any case, as no doubt most of you would surmise, I do not endorse "Chedda's" service. We here at Cappy Cap pride ourselves on the fact that we are all real men and women and support ourselves through work and not parasiting off the taxpayer. We here at Cappy Cap are not the lowest life form, known as the welfare bum. We here at Cappy Cap all are real adults, fully realizing that if the world was full of "Chedda's" there would be no motorcycles to buy with our "bling" that we stole from the non-existent taxpayers because there would be no economy by which to extract taxes from because we'd all be too busy lying around wondering why we're poor.
I shan't provide the link, for the scumbucket, real or not, doesn't deserve the traffic.
13 comments:
Oh god, that's been all over the web the last five days. The site is bordering on illegality anyway, as it is just that old "free grant money" scam.
Being spam, there are other sites by the same company/person but with different pictures. One is called "Jessica's Money" which is purported to be by a single mother. Same exact pseudo-blog format, but obviously less offensive.
You can block ads like this within AdSense. Unfortunately, it's a tedious process, but probably worth it at times.
I took ad links off my website when an Obama ad showed up.
Theoretically, Google uses word search to find topics of interest in the blog and then posts the ad of the highest bidder which is even remotely related to that topic.
On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past the leftist scumbags in Mountain View to deliberately place these ads on conservative blogs.
I've never, ever clicked a link off of anyone's blog or a Google search. Frankly, I can't understand how Google, Facebook, et. al. make a dime.
Actually, that's not completely accurate. When Obama's ads were running during my Google searches, I repeatedly clicked on them to charge him money. But I have never clicked a sponsored link with the intent of purchasing anything.
Robert, Google makes money because enough people aren't like you. It only takes a small percentage of users to make the system work.
Is it ethical to cost people money by clicking on ads for the sole purpose of costing them money? That sounds borderline criminal to me.
Actually, I am kind of two minds on this.
First, I fully 100,000% support your disclaimer that you do not in any way condone chedda's actions.
On the other hand, I can support chedda scamming idiots out of their money. In fact, he is kind of working hard getting suckers to fork over money for information that will do them absolutely no good in the overwhelming majority of the cases.
On the third hand, that site, and others like it, perpetuate the myth that people can get the Government to give them money. And, after they get scammed by these people, they blame the Government, not the scammers.
On the fourth hand (or should I say other foot), good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.
No, Ed, Google and Facebook make millions of dollars swindling advertisers into believing they are getting valuable product placement and charging them for artificially generated clickthroughs by the MILLIONS. Just like the worst Chinese restaurant in the world on Fisherman's Warf, they survive by pass-through rates, not return business.
With Obama soon moving into the White House after collecting tens of millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions on his website, Ed considers clicking his link a few times to cost him about a buck a "criminal act."
Shows you how the leftist mind assimilates information and weighs behavior.
I'm surprised you haven't been banned for accusing US troops of deliberately bombing civilians on your blog.
Get yourself a Firefox Browser, then get AdBlock Plus (Blocks Ads) and FlashBlock (Blocks Flash). I almost never see ads unless I want to.
Punchington Out.
Robert, nice attempts at changing the subject. Now, back to your misbehavior.
The term what what you're doing is "click fraud" and I, frankly, would have thought you were above such behavior. I was wrong.
Measuring the effectiveness (or lack) of Google's advertising is very easy. If it didn't work for people (swindle, as you put it) they'd simply stop using it.
In fact, Google takes into account behavior by people who let their emotions get the best of them, like you. They do what they can to detect fraudulent clicks so their advertisers will have a positive experience and keep on spending. So your clicks probably didn't cause as much damage to Obama's pocketbooks as you hoped.
But it's still fraudulent, and you should still be ashamed of yourself.
There's nothing illegal about clicking sponsored links even if you know it will cost someone money unless you yourself profit from it. Google would be guilty of click fraud if they knowingly charge Mr. Obama for obvious multiple clicks. For many retailers, multiple clicks are considered a natural hazard in internet business and Google refunds money from obvious click fraud. Mr. Miller may not have been playing nice, but Mr. Kohler is wrong about it being illegal.
No, Ed, you ignorant oaf, it is NOT 'click fraud.' Click fraud is when someone with a financial interest in the link being clicked has a bot or a team of people clicking on it so they gain money. It is Google, Yahoo and those that 'park' their links who are guilty of click fraud. I can click as many freaking links as I want, any time I want and there is no crime, not even borderline, if I receive nothing from it. Many people HAVE left Google for ineffectiveness and click fraud. You obviously didn't read what I wrote about passthrough. Google has been sued and they settle to protect their image and profits.
I did not change the subject. The subject was predatory ad placement of which Obama was blatantly guilty. YOU changed the subject from that to my mischief.
Obama actually bought internet search terms to censor unflattering information about himself. Obama also collected TENS OF MILLIONS in illegal campaign contributions over the internet, not even employing basic measures of fraud prevention such as matching a credit card number with the proper name on the card. And all you're concerned about is that I cost Obama's campaign less than $1. The shame of ignorance and disproportionate standards is on you. Oaf!
Firefox rocks! Much more stable than IE. Adds are the price of a free internet.
Robert, it's click fraud if you clicked the ads to cost his campaign money. You obviously did have a financial interest: an interest in hurting Obama's finances.
It's similar to when one business clicks on another business' ads. While they don't directly benefit from making money off those clicks, they hurt their competitor's by running up their costs. This has led to lawsuits as well.
Anonymous, hypothetically, if the Obama campaign brought a lawsuit against Robert Miller based on this admission of flagrantly clicking on the Obama campaign's ads with the intent of running up the Obama campaign's advertising costs, do you honestly think the case would be thrown out?
Post a Comment