Would it be possible for co-op members to police other sites and black-list the bad guys? This may have already been discussed. If so, please let me know the thread. G-guy says the biggest threat to co-op members from link networking is jerks having ads on our sites which point to pages which G hates. That is the one, key thing to avoid. What if, each time a member makes a change to their listing, wants to see who has the potential to advertise on their site, volunteers to comb through other ads, etc. - a sampling (say, 10) of the ads that *could* show up on their site appear. The member could then rate the ads with one of 4 radio buttons: OK to show on my site Ad is OK, but not for my site Ad is not in category it is supposed to be in (suggest category) Ad is Definitely Spam / Cheating / Against TOS You'd still have ads served up that you have not yet rated, but slowly you would filter out the ones you don't want on your site, and EVERYONE would be filtering out the morons permanently. So, you'd be able to control what goes on your site a bit more. And, more importantly, the community could black-ball the bad guys relatively easily sinc ethe job is spread among everyone, nit just Shawn. For a site to be eliminated, it might take 3 or more different people blackballing an ad/member, which would kick it to a moderator who could black-list the ad and possibly member. It would still be possible for cheaters to get through this. But, with all members kicking in with eyeballs on the ads, I think you could cut porn, cheaters, bad neighborhood links, etc. by 90%. I also think this is a much more effective way that chancing across incoming ads that are placed on your site, then reporting them in the forum. It's better than nothing at all, and would be pretty easy for everyone to do if the mechanics worked. Lemme know. Thanks, joe
Well the current setup puts every single ad through a human review BEFORE it's in the rotation (showing on anyone's site).
I click on several ads that show up on my site, and never found any bad sites. So, there really isn't any need for all this fuss. Reviewers already have enough work. The "bad" sites are minimal, and we all police the coop and when we find something out of the ordinary we post it here and all the members serve as a court.
Thanks - it's cool to get a note from someone with so much talent. Thanks for this awesome site. The concept couldn't be better. I'm new but saw a few things of concern, like the kiddie porn thread and Google guy's comments. It made me think that cheats may be getting through the system after the initial review, and that if we all rate a few ads here and there, it can get kicked upstairs as an extra filter. I also thought it might help for each member to be able to skip certain ads that are somehow not appropriate for their site (thereby making the ones remaining more relevant). Plus, I was trying to get as much weight off of you guys at the top, and thought a community tool might help.
The kiddie porn site never had any ads going to it (no one ever linked to it). They put co-op ads ON their site though (which a review process cannot prevent since anyone can link to anything they want). If somehow in the future unwanted ads are somehow sneaking into the network, it will be addressed at that time. The only way I can think of it happening is one of the reviewers turn "rogue" and let bad stuff in. The backend tracks what reviewer approved every single ad though... so if something like that ever did happen, it would be easy to go back and assign for re-review every ad they approved. Trust me, I care about the quality of my own sites (in regard to "bad ads") exponentially more than Google does.
*So, there really isn't any need for all this fuss.* As someone who apparently plans to introduce a Meso site to the Coop, I can see your POV.
I already have the meso site... had no problems at all with the review. Anyway, what can I expect from a newbie with a gray square...
Besides the point I suppose... but anyone running a Meso site at this point is about a year too late.
OK, just because an "AD" passes, does that mean the site is reviewed also and the sites it links to What if the site that passes links to kiddie porn sites, how do members report that? Just posting on the forum is not good enough nor quick enough to deal directly with a bad site. I keep asking the same question and have not got an answer Why not put up a reporting tool for co-op members so they can automatically report offending sites for re-review, sort of like the spam tools that some search engines have
Good idea. Even a reviewed site can be a problem. I have a member that was posting on my site, VBulletin Webmaster. His site was www. Forumhelper .com -- I saw his site when he first showed up and it was a nice little forum. Today one of my members discovered its a porn site now.
I remember that guy, the deal is with porno operators is that they will buy any domain for a low price and forward the traffic into another site. They don't care what the site is, that site could not have had a lot of traffic, maybe the webmaster figured out that there is little money to be made in the forum business unless the forum is real large (20,000 members + or 500 folks online most of the time) so he went to a porno affiliate program and gave up the ghost
Scanning through active ads to check them out is a great idea if anyone wants to do it. Sites do change and it would be certainly welcome if you found something off to post it in this forum.
Wendy, voting on a post would not do anything but give more or less reputation to a forum member It has nothing to do with bad sites in the co-op, Shawn needs to develop an automated reporting system so members can alert the reviewers of bad pages/sites in the co-op PS: Wendy, I now see that your post is in response to post # 14, not the last post before yours, sorry but I will leave it in the record anyway to get on Shawn's back, it is fun for me once in a while to do so, oh well
That is alright Wendy, sometimes Mambers do that PS: Thread starter, no offense man, but Shawn never lets us correct our spelling errors on thread titles so I am making fun of him more than you man