SourceForge Appeals To Readers For Help Nixing Bad Ad Actors

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."

Comments

Missing the point

[finkployd]

I don't want useless add on application/browser extension/etc being installed when I chose to download something. No matter how much vetting and transparency, this is simply wrong.

Re:Missing the point

[twocows]

This, and I believe this was a big part of why GIMP left. Just because other download sites are doing it doesn't mean it's tolerable. Sourceforge is pretty much completely unusuable without ABP at this point (which, when enabled, makes SF completely bearable; forcing users to use ad blocking software means your advertising model isn't working).

Re:Missing the point

[Desler]

Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com emoyees to speak against this adware?

Re:Missing the point

[Charliemopps]

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

[rudy_wayne]

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

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Don't make users opt-out

[hawguy]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Shove your crapware up your ass

[Desler]

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:Horse, Stable, Bolted

[i kan reed]

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.

What?

[ledow]

"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?