SourceForge Appeals To Readers For Help Nixing Bad Ad Actors 198
Last week, we mentioned that the GIMP project had elected to leave SourceForge as its host, citing SourceForge's advertising policies. SourceForge (which shares a parent company with Slashdot) has released a statement about those policies, addressing in particular both ads that are confusing in themselves and their revenue-sharing system called DevShare, based on the provision of third-party software along with users' downloads. Among other things, the SF team is appealing to users to help them find and block misleading ads, and has this to say about the additional downloads: "The DevShare program has been designed to be fully transparent. The installation flow has no deceptive steps, all offers are fully disclosed, and the clear option to completely decline the offer is always available. All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't make users opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want complaints then make the DevShare program opt-in instead of opt-out.
You may argue that few people would choose to opt-in, but that's the point, isn't it?
how about... (Score:5, Insightful)
just not doing the installation share thing AT ALL. I don't care how well it gets documented, it's a tactic that is built to take advantage of the large group of people that will do nothing but hit "next" 7 or 8 times and not look at anything.
Horse, Stable, Bolted (Score:4, Insightful)
All they are doing now is stepping up their tap dancing in the hopes that people will fail to see the obvious about their bundled downloads.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
the whole concept is messed up (Score:5, Insightful)
When I want to download software, I want that software, not other piece of software that's going to install itself in my browsers and mine my information.
As others have said, make it purely opt-in and I can live with it. The opt-out stuff just pisses me off because it is so transparently trying to profit off people that aren't paying attention.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com emoyees to speak against this adware?
"Advertising policies"? Try borderline malware. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is that GIMP didn't want to be associated with tricking its users into installing borderline malware. If a program's installer is filled with traps that you have to carefully watch for to avoid - that sets off huge blaring alarms in the heads of most experienced users.
This is especially a problem for the open-source community, which still struggles to get a fair comparison with commercial software in the corporate IT world. If even major software gets saddled with nonsense like SourceForge is trying to pull, it could set back progress by years.
SourceForge had better smarten up before it becomes a ghost town. GIMP is certainly not going to be the last high-profile departure if things don't change.
While we're at it, the summary of this story was blatantly whitewashed. Mentioning the parent company link should be a bare minimum, not an excuse to abandon all pretense of impartiality.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't believe it when I installed some software from Sourceforge a while back and ended up with a malware toolbar in my browser (that was a huge PITA to remove, no less). At first I thought it was a mistake, that I *must* have gotten it from somewhere else. Then when I heard similar stories from others and realized it was intentional, just a cheap money grab--I knew the Sourceforge I once knew and trusted could never be trusted by me (or supported) ever again. Sad day.
Shove your crapware up your ass (Score:5, Insightful)
All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.
Except that you and the Sourceforge people know damn well that next to no one actually wants that crapware. 99% of cases it will be installef by someone merely clicking through not expecting crapware in the installer.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really funny is how they completely failed to understand who their customers were. It'd be like Whole Foods spritzing free Pesticides on your produce as you checked out.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really funny is how they completely failed to understand who their customers were. >
No, they know exactly who their customers are. their customers are the people who pay them to display ads and inject extra crap into downloads. That's where SourceForge's revenue comes from. Not from you.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
And there's the fact that the dumb things Sourceforge was doing was harming Gimp's reputation as a legitimate piece of professional software. That's a reputation they've been working hard to develop for years(name complaints aside).
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even think their statement is very honest. We have this line:
The installation flow has no deceptive steps
So, when I go to a project's download page, and I see a bunch of ads with giant green "DOWNLOAD NOW" buttons, that isn't supposed to be deceptive? Then there's this:
the clear option to completely decline the offer is always available
The "clear option" is a greyed-out "Decline" button on the bottom left of the installer. The green Accept button is on the bottom right of the installer, which is the place that people have been trained to click to go to the next step. While it's true that the decline button is always visible, making it appear greyed-out and away from the Accept button is not exactly clear (and possibly deceptive). Moreover, instead of "Decline" and "Accept", how about "Only Install Filezilla" or "Install Offer And Filezilla". THAT would be clear and non-deceptive.
Here's a hint for SF: if you want to identify bad actors, one indication is that they are an advertiser. The advertiser's goal is to steal attention and make people click on something, even (especially?) if it wasn't what they intended to click on. Advertisers ruin everything about the internet, they're the reason why we needed popup blocking in the first place. Whenever a new technology comes along, advertisers are there to shit all over it. Excuse me, "monetize" it. If you're putting ads on your site, and you have no control over the content of those ads (i.e. fed from a third-party network), then those ads are going to be annoying and deceptive. I fully expect to go to SF one day and see some ad screaming about how "one weird tip" can allow me to download Filezilla.
Re:Horse, Stable, Bolted (Score:5, Insightful)
When you try to install things of any sort I don't ask for, it's malware, by the way. It doesn't matter if you're screening for things you consider malware, it's my system, and configuring it in ways I don't intuitively intend to configure it is abusing your power as an installer, thus is malicious.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Atleast they were honest enough to add "which shares a parent company with Slashdot".
This loosely translates to "everything here is lies, and you have been warned".
Don't be evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't bundle /anything/ other than what the user wanted with the download. Don't bundle toolbars, helper programs, utilities, assistants, or anything else you choose to call your advertising product.
Trust that is lost can't ever really be regained, especially on the Internet. The quick dollars gained came at the expense of the dollars in the long run. You need to start with an apology that acknowledges what was wrong along with a promise in plain English never to do it again.
Now, I didn't say anything about not running advertising on the pages. Advertising is what makes sites run, and anyone with any length of time in the industry understands their importance. Google style ads that aren't disruptive are generally respected and static graphical ads from companies like Microsoft and IBM must work as they have advertised here for years. The problem is if things get pushed too far and the content can't be read without irritation.
If the website isn't functional (loads within 1 second without distractions or intermission ads) than you site has gone over too far and the next visit and every visit thereafter will be filtered. We also understand how these things work on the back-end, know how to implement ABP, No Script, Ghostery and other things with advertising gets overbearing.
At this point it is up to the WebMasters to show that they understand "don't be evil". You can't do it with fine print though, for this audience, reads the fine print.
Nothing but excuses. It's still wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.
You clowns at SourceForge/Dice are missing the point. Users DON'T WANT this garbage on their system. You are deliberately trying to get them to install it, even if it's by mistake.
And what about all the institutions providing you with mirroring? Are they getting a cut of this revenue now? If they're not, then you are DELIBERATELY attempting to profit from their charity and generosity. Personally, I hope every single mirror deletes any SourceForge related material from their servers and tells you to go die in a fire. You are attempting to profit from the work and resources of others who believed they were contributing to the free software community. For that, you are to be shamed, shunned, and written off as yet another group of clueless MBA's out to monitize the entire fucking world at the expense of others. Go fuck yourselves and look for a real job where you have to WORK instead of ruining other people's reputations by bundling useless shit with their software.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Find and block misleading ads"
Why is this our job?
Why do you not know what's being advertised on your own website?
Why do you run a business based on something you can't control?
Why don't YOU go through your ads and start removing the misleading crap?
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the deceptive part IMO is the "bait and switch" part where they showed one filename but in reality download a different file.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
The last sentence is also extraordinarily patronizing and seems to think we're dumb enough to fall for it. "It's okay that we installed this crapware that you didn't want because we document how to uninstall it!" I would like to think Timmeh doesn't actually believe such crap. It's one thing to parrot the company line it's another to actually believe it when it's so obviously absurd.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
SF are also shooting themselves in the foot for a few extra pennies. The hated (and I mean HATED by everybody) crapware is getting a free ride on Gimp's reputation and damaging both SF and Gimp's reputation in the process. That may be legal but it ain't right,
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers ruin everything about the internet
They are also the reason most websites on the Internet are free. They are the reason Gmail is free, maps, and, hell, even Android are free. Everything on the Internet that isn't a charity needs to get paid for, and if you aren't buying something then an advertiser is paying in order to get to you.
It sucks that some ads are annoying and intrusive. Those should be avoided at all costs along with the sites that allow them. But advertisers don't ruin everything about the Internet ... they actually are responsible for 95% of the Internet being free of charge.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a hint for SF: if you want to identify bad actors, one indication is that they are an advertiser...Whenever a new technology comes along, advertisers are there to shit all over it. Excuse me, "monetize" it.
The problem here is you (well, us) as consumers. We not only want FOSS, we want delivery to be free, too -- without regard for the fact that the infrastructure to facilitate that delivery actually takes tangible resources (i.e. money, not just developer time) to operate.
So, in effect, we the consumer base are CHOOSING this advertising model. If you were willing to pay $0.25 to Sourceforge every time you downloaded a program or code tree from them, you could make a reasonable demand for SF to do away with the stupid ad shenanigans. But you're not. Even if you personally are, the user base as a whole has gotten accustomed to delivery being "free" and now demands it. And since it's not actually free, sites like SF have to find a way to stay solvent.
The "bad actors" here are consumers of free stuff who get their panties in a bunch whenever the silver platter that their free stuff is served on is even the slightest bit tarnished.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of sites use inoffensive, non-deceptive ads. GMail was mentioned above, for example. The only reason these advertisers are resorting to trickery is because their products suck and no one would actually install them if they knew what they were.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more like ranching or fishing. The cattle and fish are not customers, they are your feedstock or raw materials. Treat them badly, over-fish, poison them and you have no feedstock and hence no revenue. Google gets this fairly well, they actively farm their users giving them plenty to feed on, and doing their best not to pollute the food supply (i.e. search results in google's case) they also add in cool stuff, new toys, etc. and hence Google's customers are happy fat cows who keep coming back for more - I know, I am one!