I had another idea as to what might make it appear that a bot is clicking links. Has anyone else tried the fasterfox extension to Firefox? I have been using it at home for a while now. Despite being popular it's now frowned upon by many so I might get rid of it. Anyway, one of its features is to preload links on a page which could appear as if a bot is loading the ad.
From the Fasterfox website
Prefetch Links
Dynamic speed increases can be obtained with Fasterfox's unique prefetching mechanism, which recycles idle bandwidth by silently loading and caching all of the links on the page you are browsing.
I could see how you "clicking" every link to every ad which was ever shown on any page you visited on the site could viewed as a bot by another bot.
That sounds like an ingenious script. I think I'll go download Firefox just for this, and then let it sit on the Movies page so all of our bandwidth is utterly wasted for no reason.
What a stupid plugin...
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
That sounds like an ingenious script. I think I'll go download Firefox just for this, and then let it sit on the Movies page so all of our bandwidth is utterly wasted for no reason.
What a stupid plugin...
Fasterfox only does that if you check it's preload links checkbox.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I agree. Who the heck would be stupid enough to think that preloading all the links in a page could be a good idea?
The whole idea of having a website organized hierarcically in pages and subpages, forming a tree of linked pages is that you don't have to download *everything*, just the things you are interested in.
Just for the sake of example:
Preloading all links would mean...
opening the FAQ, search, memberlist, usergroups, profile, privatemessage, FAQ, logout, General Forum, Nesvideos Forum Index, New Thread, New Reply, direct-post link * posts on page, quote link * posts on page, profile links to each person, PM, AIM, MSN, Y!M, ICQ links for each user, for moderators the edit/delete buttons, etc etc etc
I hope it changes the user-agent string so I can ban it on my own server.
I'm pretty sure it would be smart enough not to preload links which call scripts (or anything with ? specifiers in them). Of course, I'm only 'pretty' sure. If I wrote that functionality, I'd make sure that was part of it.
Besides, power to the user, right? Who cares about service providers?
I'm pretty sure it would be smart enough not to preload links which call scripts (or anything with ? specifiers in them). Of course, I'm only 'pretty' sure. If I wrote that functionality, I'd make sure that was part of it.
Besides, power to the user, right? Who cares about service providers?
If you turned off loading pages with query strings (url.url?adsf=1 for those of you not in the know), the effective amount preloaded pages falls to about, uh, 7.
Only 1 or 2 of which would ever be requested by the user.
In short: still a large waste (and many requested pages wouldn't be prefetched), but not as big as one.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Because you totally can't have dynamic content without having that question mark in the URL.
Yes you can. But you can't have GET-type forms (as in with the input fields and stuff) without those.
You can have a GET based without it.
The trick would be to have JavaScript on the page load all the data in a cookie, then the GET based page without the question mark. The page parses all the data in the cookie. Technically it's not GET at all, but it's not POST, and it could have forms.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The trick would be to have JavaScript on the page load all the data in a cookie, then the GET based page without the question mark. The page parses all the data in the cookie. Technically it's not GET at all, but it's not POST, and it could have forms.
Right. I dodn't really consider that a strategy worth mentioning :)
After the last message I received from Google in Friday April 7th, I sent them one message I didn't post here yet.
Bisqwit wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Google AdSense wrote:
> After receiving your response, we re-reviewed your account data
> thoroughly. We have reconfirmed that invalid clicks were generated
> on the ads on your site in violation of our Terms and Conditions
> and program policies.
>
> https://www.google.com/adsense/terms
> https://www.google.com/adsense/policies
Can you please at least tell me whether it was something I did or
whether it was something I did not do. I'm completely baffled,
seriously and frankly.
For your information, I have mirrored this correspondance
at our forums at address:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/t/3564
Some of you might be interested to read the replies from our
userbase that this incident has triggered. (But then again,
some of you might not.)
--
Joel Yliluoma
http://iki.fi/bisqwit/
I sent this message the same day I received the "thank you for your appeal" aka. "good bye never participate in adsense again" message.
They did not reply. Which was … expected.
A week later a coworker suggested me that I send another appeal, this time in Finnish, to the Finnish subsidiary of Google. I considered the idea but I didn't have enough energy to do it.
...
I hadn't read any of this thread past the beginning of page 4, until a few minutes ago, so I'm a bit surprised by the sudden dive this situation took. o_O
I just now did a Google search for "google adsense horror"...seems like there are quite a few similar stories about innocent webmasters that found themselves abruptly shut out of the program due to the smallest technicalities.
That might explain why Omega's Slashdot writeup got rejected...too old/common, perhaps? Maybe they ran a similar story not too long ago...
Pals i suggest you to stop talking over a thing which is gone, Try some other Networks. Google is not only the one. A good Network: http://www.revenue.net/
Edit: Grammar Mistakes
Publisher requirements:
...
Does not distribute or propagate anything illegal, including but not limited to: mp3, warez, EMU, ROM, or promotion of any other form of illegal products or content.
All copyrighted material must be owned by the website or contain explicit written permission for use.
...
