Poll: Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
Dick_Hazeleger
The following question I want to put up for vote here:
Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
The choices:
A. No, absolutely not!
B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
The poll is open for voting till Sunday, August 14, 2005 00.00 hrs (UTC +
2) timestamp counts.
Regards to all,
Dick Hazeleger
John Corliss
No, absolutely not.
--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls. No adware, cdware, commercial software,
crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware,
time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez please.
Bernd Schmitt
The Six Million Dollar Man
A. No, absolutely not!
--
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says
something about human nature that the only form of life we have created
so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
-- Stephen Hawking --
Dick_Hazeleger
news:Xns96ABD4C...@194.134.69.69:
B.
DaVinci
A. No, absolutely not!
Old Gringo
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> The choices:
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
>
> B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
> C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
>
> D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
>
> E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
>
>
> The poll is open for voting till Sunday, August 14, 2005 00.00 hrs (UTC +
> 2) timestamp counts.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Dick Hazeleger
*F*
--
Old Gringo George
Magic Weaver Of Life
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>
Richard Steinfeld
- We can refer to adware as a reference. For example, when discussing a
free personal finance program and compare it to Quicken, _which is
adware_ (At least my version: it interrupts my work perhaps 4 times per
year to sell me something else from the publisher).
- I'm in favor of allowing it if:
a. The ad is in the form of a menu choice (although I don't really like
this, I feel that we should allow the poor coder some ability to
generate some custom).
- The ad must not interrupt or delay one's work. This includes an ad
window that must be clicked to put it away ("Yahoo groupo hell").
- I think that E is OK, for people often come here asking for help,
perhaps for a need that's urgent.
Richard
El Gee
news:11falda...@corp.supernews.com:
TMK, Quicken is not "adware". I do not know of a place you can download
it or get it 'free'. I know it comes bundled with some new PC's but
that does not make it free.
Also, some adware is discussed here (Deepburner for one, Opera is
another) but not as a viable choice.
I am going to have to go with the majority. It is ACF, not ACA. We
have our 'accepted' definitions of the 'wares' and while not perfect, it
serves us well.
A. No, absolutely not!
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee // www.mistergeek.com <><
Know Christ, Know Peace - No Christ, No Peace
Remove .yourhat to reply
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
badgolferman
No, this tired old subject has come up before. I daresay you will not
have to wait until 08/14 to have your answer.
--
"I miss. I miss. I miss. I make."
Seve Ballesteros describing his four-putt at Augusta's No. 16 in 1988.
tim
<Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>A. No, absolutely not!
tim
JoeA
Opera Browser.
The Six Million Dollar Man
>>B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
>
> Exact criteria?
>
> I would only opt for B. if the ads can easily be hacked out of the
> software! ;-)
>
> Nick
I disagree.
Some programmers put advertisements into their programs so they can earn
some extra revenue by displaying ads for unrelated products or to
encourage you to upgrade to a more complete program. It's called adware.
I don't like it, you don't like it, and I suspect most who respond to
this poll won't like it either.
If you agree to adware in the EULA, then you must permit the program to
display the ads. If you find the advertising to be intrusive, then the
honest thing to do, is to remove the program. Hacking a program so you
can contravene your agreement is just plain wrong.
coolchinchilla
> A. No, absolutely not!
No absolutely not!
jb
Mike Dee
news:Xns96ABD4C...@194.134.69.69:
My choice:
A. No, absolutely not!
My observation:
Another possibility omitted from your poll.
F. Only if it's to warn others about adware in a product.
--
dee
The Seabat
<Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
choices:
>>A. No, absolutely not!
No, no. no, NO!
--
The Seabat
Lew/+Silat
Dick_Hazeleger <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> types these words
of wisdom:
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
>
> Dick Hazeleger
A. No, absolutely not!
--
Lew/+Silat
narcippias
Dick_Hazeleger
news:xn0e5on9f...@news.readfreenews.net:
> No, this tired old subject has come up before. I daresay you will not
> have to wait until 08/14 to have your answer.
That a subject has been up for a vote before, is not a reason to ask again.
I am not going into forecasting anything... we'll see on the 14th
Regards
Dick
Dick_Hazeleger
news:9boaf1dlduls7m72j...@4ax.com:
> "Dick_Hazeleger" <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>>
>> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>>
>> The choices:
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
Vote recorded
> That's no and never!
>
>> B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
> Exact criteria?
See "Opanda discussion"
>
> I would only opt for B. if the ads can easily be hacked out of the
> software! ;-)
Hacking in ACF??? ;-) Would the TSW author be right then when he wrote
that even free software is cracked?
Cheers,
Dick
Petersen, Vegard Krog
> A. No, absolutely not!
--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway
http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, My fishy site (fishing games),
a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------
ranrad
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
The following answer is the only one possible in a FREEWARE group.
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
I really hope you're not some politician who thinks he knows what's best
for us, and is going to ask the same question over and over until we get it
right and allow him to have his wicked way.
Vic Dura
here in a.c.f.? "Dick_Hazeleger"
<Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
F. Yes, provided that it is identified as freeware with an ad and the
type of ad is described.
However, this poll only serves to indicate individual preferences. An
un moderated NG, the preference is not binding or enforceable on
others. IMO that's what un moderated NGs are about: tolerance of
minority opinions and expressions.
BTW, this has been covered thoroughly by Susan Bugher who does a very
competent job of tracking and recording these preference polls.
--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
dubber
mike ring
news:Xns96ABD4C...@194.134.69.69:
E
mike
REM
> "Dick_Hazeleger" <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>The choices:
>A. No, absolutely not!
>B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
>D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
>E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
I'm leaning toward voting to allow each program to stand on its own
merit.
Individuals decide C and D, both as to recommendations here in ACF and
as the ultimate end users.
I'll never knowingly recommend something with spyware.
I would only mention adware if there were no freeware alternatives I
suppose, and the program was exactly what someone asked for. That's
not very likely and I would point out that it was adware.
While I don't really want to encourage programmers to use ads to pay
the bills, I don't see this as great a threat as the majority here do.
I don't mind the mention of Opera. I'm very satisified with Moz.
Adware is a big minus, but so is sloppy coding, undue registry usage,
unattractive and unintuitive interfaces, bloat, etc.
We are very fortunate to have such a large selection of freeware that
we can discriminate! The best of the best is what we are after. I
don't mind any discussions that seek to find this based upon the merit
of each program.
I don't think that we will be inundated with programs that run ads in
the mention of the best of the best. The mention does serve to educate
those of us who choose not to try such programs.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Gert van der Kooij
(Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid) says...
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
>
Onno Voors
>
--
Onno Voors
Joe P
Many regulars here know the fine nuances of software types and the
implications. I think a lot of people who search for freeware or
specific types of programs will still be suprised when the new program
they downloaded displays ads, slows their connection, or does anything
they don't expect.
Including adware in this group will diminish the value of the group.
People come here for recommendations not only of programs but of
quality programs. Until the majority of users are as well versed in the
software licensing/revenue model as the most well educated users here,
it's a bad idea.
Too many software licenses are so long and obscure that no one reads
them. Let's help users out by not recommending programs that are
adware.
Joe P
Dick_Hazeleger wrote:
> Hi to all!
>
Mel
"REM" <REMbr...@inu.net> wrote in message news:9jkbf11o2h0cjds4n...@4ax.com...
>
> > "Dick_Hazeleger" <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>
> >The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> >Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> >The choices:
>
> >A. No, absolutely not!
>
> >B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
> >C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
>
> >D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
>
> >E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
>
>
> I'm leaning toward voting to allow each program to stand on its own
> merit.
>
Seconded!
An adware program would have to be exceptionality good, or the
advertising exceptionally non intrusive for me to consider that it merited
recommendation, and I would certainly mention its deficiencies.
> Individuals decide C and D, both as to recommendations here in ACF and
> as the ultimate end users.
>
> I'll never knowingly recommend something with spyware.
>
Neither would I, but If I catch a supposed freeware program spying on me
or download and install something that didn't admit to being Adware, or
someone recommends such software without mentioning it is ad/spyware,
then I certainly consider it appropriate to discus it here in order to alert others.
I also would not recommend adware of the invasive type that runs in the
background even when you're not using the associated program.
Cullen Skink
> Hi to all!
>
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> The choices:
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
A. No, absolutely not!
Ivan V. Klattrup
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
A. No, absolutely not!
--
Ivan V. Klattrup
http://klattrup.dk
http://freewindows.dk
Mike Bourke
of responses have suggested option F.
The problem is that most people here seem to have seen the word "discussed"
and read the word "reccommended".
In order to achieve what the majority have voted for, all that is required
is to block every post that uses the word "adware". Including this survey,
and most of John Corlis' posts concerning Opanda Photofilter and anyone who
wants an alternative that's not Adware and anyone asking "is this adware?"
and, well, you get the idea.
For the record:
Discussion: Yes
Reccommendation: Only for REALLY superior products where there are no
genuine freeware alternatives, and excluding anything that downloads or
calls home. If the "ad" is visible all the time or interferes with the
operation of the program, that's enough reason to say that it's not a
"REALLY" superior product. For 99% of adware - or more - that would be a no.
Mike
"Dick_Hazeleger" <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote in
message news:Xns96ABD4C...@194.134.69.69...
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> The choices:
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
>
> B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
> C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
>
> D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
>
> E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
>
> The poll is open for voting till Sunday, August 14, 2005 00.00 hrs (UTC +
> 2) timestamp counts.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Also, some adware is discussed here (Deepburner for one, Opera is
> another) but not as a viable choice.
Is DeepBurner considered adware? I have a toolbar flag for the "Pro"
version on mine, but I've never seen an external ad shown there.
I'd say there's a huge -- absolutely huge and fundamental -- difference
between unobtrusively flagging a "pro" version and serving third-party
revenue-stream ads. Banning the former wipes out an awful lot of
programs (including Zone Alarm, which seems to me to try very hard to
flog the "Pro" version, fairly often).
--
Cheers,
Harvey
The Seabat
<mbou...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>I find the majority of answers to this survey to be shortsighted. A couple
>>of responses have suggested option F.
OK, so let me get this straight.......the vast majority of folks that
posted to this thread have have indicated that they go with choice
"A"! Yet you, in you infinite wisdom, have decided that we are all
<quote> shortsighted </quote>.
I, for one, find this kinda insulting. Did somebody die while I was
sleeping and make you king? :)
>>The problem is that most people here seem to have seen the word "discussed"
>>and read the word "reccommended".
(sic)
Now it seems that we can't read and comprehend the post, either! It's
sure nice to know that someone, who seems to be omnipotent, is looking
out for us lowly peons.
Free means no cost, no obligations, period! You're probably one of the
folks that bought into the free iPod or Canon camera for free scam
that is ongoing. You just have to buy from six other venders to get
your FREE item! Geezz!
--
The Seabat
Michael Laplante
message news:Xns96ABD4C...@194.134.69.69...
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
> C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
I don't mind an unobtrusive hyperlink to a pro version. Even better if one
has the option to turn it off.
I DO mind banners that take up a significant portion of the program's real
estate. A recent example was the PageBreeze HTML editor where a large bright
yellow banner suddenly appeared after a certain period of time. I've not
used Opera but I understand that it has largish ads as well.
I DO mind if a unnecessary splash screen appears, especially if it insists
on staying around for 10 seconds or so.
Anything that phones home or retrieves ads -- as a rule NO.
M
Susan Bugher
> On 06 Aug 2005 23:18:27 GMT, RE: Poll: Should adware be discussed
> here in a.c.f.? "Dick_Hazeleger"
> <Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>>
>>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> F. Yes, provided that it is identified as freeware with an ad and the
> type of ad is described.
>
> However, this poll only serves to indicate individual preferences. An
> un moderated NG, the preference is not binding or enforceable on
> others. IMO that's what un moderated NGs are about: tolerance of
> minority opinions and expressions.
I agree. Too much intolerance leads to flame wars. but. . . IMO unmoderated newsgroups are also
about adherence to the group consensus. An overabundance of irrelevant posts makes a newsgroup less
valuable to newsgroup participants. IMO this group has a pretty good balancing act.
> BTW, this has been covered thoroughly by Susan Bugher who does a very
> competent job of tracking and recording these preference polls.
I posted a "ware" poll in May of this year. The response was very low (only 10 ballots were cast).
Dick seems to be doing a much better job of getting out the vote. :)
I'll show the results of the Adware poll on the web site when the poll is complete. Results of the a
"ware" poll taken in October 2003 are shown now. 36 ballots were cast in that poll. Ware definitions
were those in the ACF Ware Glossary.
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Posting.php
The current Adware poll offers these choices:
A. No, absolutely not!
B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
I don't agree with any of the choices. There is no definition for Adware. I'll use ACF's definition
as the basis for my vote::
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php
"Adware: software that displays advertising for other products and/or services (often downloaded
from the internet by the software). "
my vote:
G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com.gr/groups?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware&hl=en
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson
> The current Adware poll offers these choices:
[Choices A to E snipped]
> I don't agree with any of the choices. There is no definition for Adware.
> I'll use ACF's definition as the basis for my vote::
[Adware definition snipped]
> G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
Although we don't (entirely) agree about the wording of the Adware
definition itself, we *do* agree about the acceptable extent of
Adware discussions in acf. ;-)
I support:
G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===
Vic Dura
discussed here in a.c.f.? Susan Bugher <whoise...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > However, this poll only serves to indicate individual preferences. An
> > un moderated NG, the preference is not binding or enforceable on
> > others. IMO that's what un moderated NGs are about: tolerance of
> > minority opinions and expressions.
>
>I agree. Too much intolerance leads to flame wars. but. . . IMO unmoderated newsgroups are also
>about adherence to the group consensus. An overabundance of irrelevant posts makes a newsgroup less
>valuable to newsgroup participants. IMO this group has a pretty good balancing act.
Well said.
tim
<mbou...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I find the majority of answers to this survey to be shortsighted.
Perhaps the answers are not shortsighted. Dick posed the parameters
of the poll. IMO, those posters advocating option F should be
discounted. Their responses do not fall under the guidelines of his
poll.
>A couple of responses have suggested option F.
I'll stick with my original decision posted in the original thread,
followed with option G as posted by Susan in this message
Message-ID: <42f62...@newsfeed.slurp.net> (keeping in mind that this
also should be discounted for this poll)
tim
David
<Dick_Hazeleger@reply_to_newsgroup.invalid> typed furiously:
>Hi to all!
>
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
>The choices:
>
>A. No, absolutely not!
>
>B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
>
>C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
>
>D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
>
>E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
>
>The poll is open for voting till Sunday, August 14, 2005 00.00 hrs (UTC +
>2) timestamp counts.
>
>Regards to all,
>
>Dick Hazeleger
E.
--
David
Remove "farook" to reply
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
Rob Kelk
>Hi to all!
>
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
This group is about freeware. Adware is not freeware. Therefore...
>The choices:
>
>A. No, absolutely not!
...is my "vote".
<snip>
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address, in ROT-13: eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
Buzzy
> Hi to all!
>
> The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
>
A. No, absolutely not!
--
--- Buzzy's Stall Wall ---
www.buzzys.net
"The World Wide Web's Rest Area"
Warning: This site contains MY
version of freeware! All are welcome!
heldmar
John Fitzsimons
>Hi to all!
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
In alt.comp.FREEWARE ?
Golly, this really is a hard one. How long are we allowed to think
about this ?
Ummm.
>A. No, absolutely not!
El Gee
news:Xns96ABA371...@62.253.170.163:
Good point. However anything that advertises anything I consider
adware. External ads, "pro" ads, whatever :)
If that is too all encompassing for the group, that is ok.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee // www.mistergeek.com <><
Know Christ, Know Peace - No Christ, No Peace
Remove .yourhat to reply
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vic Dura
Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 07 Aug 2005, El Gee wrote
>
>> Also, some adware is discussed here (Deepburner for one, Opera is
>> another) but not as a viable choice.
>
>Is DeepBurner considered adware? I have a toolbar flag for the "Pro"
>version on mine, but I've never seen an external ad shown there.
Yes
REM
> "Mel" <news.s...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>Seconded!
>An adware program would have to be exceptionality good, or the
>advertising exceptionally non intrusive for me to consider that it merited
>recommendation, and I would certainly mention its deficiencies.
Google comes to mind. Although it is not installed on a users machine
it is a very complex program that makes the WWW easily accessible to
us all; possible one of the most valuable programs out there. It
serves ads in the process in order to make web searches free for us.
Hands down, I do not consider this "malware." It rocks.
I'm really not sure about the other search engines out there, Google
is my _best_ friend. But is this statement out of line with the group
consensus here?
So, never say never is my view. Regardless of how we choose to slice
and dice there will always be exceptions. I'd really hate to have to
tally the, "Go Google," Google for it," Google is your friend,"
comments that have been posted in reply to questions posed here in ACF
over the years. I don't recall any objections to these. It is a matter
of personal perception that we all seem to share that this program is
well worth the paid for advertising. It stands on its own merit.
>I also would not recommend adware of the invasive type that runs in the
>background even when you're not using the associated program.
No merit there!
bambam
> The current Adware poll offers these choices:
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
> B. Yes, under the condition that it is not intrusive to my privacy.
> C. Yes, but only if the ad is not too "eye-catching"!
> D. Yes, but only if an ad is not of the "nag screen" type
> E. Yes, if there is no ad-free alternative...
>
> I don't agree with any of the choices. There is no definition for Adware. I'll use ACF's definition
> as the basis for my vote::
>
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php
>
> "Adware: software that displays advertising for other products and/or services (often downloaded
> from the internet by the software). "
>
> my vote:
>
> G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
Thanks Susan, for clearing the mud.
Isn't democracy great, all those candidates and I don't like any of them
either. ;)
I vote G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
Eric Huebner
Jsp
> Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
Jsp
Lou
What is the name of this newsgroup? Freeware.
Why shouldn't it be discussed here?
Zo
>Hi to all!
>
>The following question I want to put up for vote here:
>
>Should adware be discussed here in a.c.f.?
>
>I agree with Susan,
>
>
G. off-topic - brief mention sometimes okay.
--
Zo
Never say Never
John Corliss
> What is adware? It is freeware.
No, it is not freeware. The price you pay for using it is your attention
and your desktop screen real estate.
> What is the name of this newsgroup? Freeware.
No, it is "alt.comp.freeware".
> Why shouldn't it be discussed here?
Because this group is supposed to be for the discussion of freeware and
Adware is not freeware.
--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls. No adware, cdware, commercial software,
crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware,
time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez please.
Lou
news:eshff15c6og13si35...@4ax.com...
> returns you quickly change channels to another channel that is airing a
> Commercial... and so it continues surfing from Commercial to Commercial
> to Commercial... Did I mention they are free?
>
> Adware - Software that is given to the user with advertisements embedded
> in the application.
>
> Adware is considered a legitmate alternative offered to consumers who do
> not wish to pay for software. Programs, games or utilities can be
> designed and distributed as freeware. Sometimes freeware blocks features
> and functions of the software until you pay to register it. Today we
> have a growing number of software developers who offer their goods as
> "sponsored" freeware until you pay to register. Generally most or all
> features of the freeware are enabled but you will be viewing sponsored
> advertisements while the software is being used. The advertisements
> usually run in a small section of the software interface or as a pop-up
> ad box on your desktop. When you stop running the software, the ads
> should disappear. This allows consumers to try the software before they
> buy and you always have the option of disabling the ads by purchasing a
> registration key.
>
> In many cases, adware is a legitimate revenue source for companies who
> offer their software free to users. A perfect example of this would be
> the popular e-mail program, Eudora. You can choose to purchase Eudora or
> run the software in sponsored mode. In sponsored mode Eudora will
> display an ad window in the program and up to three sponsored toolbar
> links. Eudora adware is not malicious; it reportedly doesn't track your
> habits or provide information about you to a third party. This type of
> adware is simply serving up random paid ads within the program. When you
> quit the program the ads will stop running on your system.
>
> Unfortunately, some freeware applications which contain adware do track
> your surfing habits in order to serve ads related to you. When the
> adware becomes intrusive like this, then we move it in the spyware
> category and it then becomes something you should avoid for privacy and
> security reasons. Due to its invasive nature, spyware has really given
> adware a bad name as many people do not know the differences between the
> two, or use the the terms interchangeably.
>
> Spyware is considered a malicious program and is similar to a Trojan
> Horse in that users unwittingly install the product when they install
> something else. A common way to become a victim of spyware is to
> download certain peer-to-peer file swapping products that are available
> today.
>
> Spyware works like adware but is usually a separate program that is
> installed unknowingly when you install another freeware type program or
> application. Once installed, the spyware monitors user activity on the
> Internet and transmits that information in the background to someone
> else. Spyware can also gather information about e-mail addresses and
> even passwords and credit card numbers.
>
> Because spyware exists as independent executable programs, they have the
> capability to monitor your keystrokes, scan files on the hard drive,
> snoop other applications, such as chat programs or word processors,
> install other spyware programs, read cookies, change the default home
> page on the Web browser, while consistently relaying this information
> back to the spyware author who will either use it for advertising and
> marketing purposes or sell the information to another party.
>
> Licensing agreements that accompany software downloads sometimes warn
> the user that a spyware program will be installed along with the
> requested software, but the licensing agreements are not always be read
> completely by users because the notice of a spyware installation is
> often couched in obtuse, hard-to-read legal disclaimers.
>
> It is important to remember that not all companies who claim their
> software contains adware are really offering adware. There is always a
> chance that adware is spyware in disguise so to speak, and that programs
> with embedded spyware may not state its existence at all. Always stay on
> the side of caution and be sure to research privacy policies and
> licensing agreements that come with freeware. You should also become
> familiar with Internet lists of companies reported to be using spyware.
> Much like a firewall or anti-virus program, anti-spyware software is
> crucial to maintain optimal protection and security on your computer and
> network.
>
> So Lou, most people in ACF don't opt for Adware, and don't want to
> discuss Adware.
>
Evidently we are talking about two different programs.
I do NOT receive any "commercials" with my adware.
And the only time I spend with it is well spent as it helps me weed out
those people who place unwanted cookies on my computer.
Tramp
says...
|No, it is not freeware. The price you pay for using it is your attention
|and your desktop screen real estate.
The whole "screen real estate" thing is a pretty petty argument for not
using Adware. Not all Adware is designed the same. Some don't display
ads on the program at all, some stick "ads" on printed documents. Some
have small ads. Hell some programs even let you choose if you want to
install the ads or not.
And the price you pay for using non adware programs are
screen real estate (for poorly designed GUI's)
annoyingly long start up and shut down screens
bandwidth
cpu power
space on your hard drive
security risks
program crashes
program conflicts
copyright violations
time to learn the program just to find out that it's crap
of course not all of these things apply to all non Adware programs. Just
like the screen real estate is not an issue with every Adware program.
|Because this group is supposed to be for the discussion of freeware and
|Adware is not freeware.
Yes it is freeware.
--
The one and only http://www.pricelessware.org
The best of the best in Windows Freeware,
as determined by the readers of alt.comp.freeware
Service with a smile since 1999
Tramp
says...
|So Lou, most people in ACF don't opt for Adware, and don't want to
|discuss Adware.
Which is fine for them. Others may opt to discuss it. Adware is freeware
and since this group is about freeware then Adware can be discussed
here.
Frank Bohan
"REM" <REMbr...@inu.net> wrote in message
news:1123503407.cdb4d14b2ac52fa506cbef0b14f12323@teranews...
>
>> "Mel" <news.s...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>>Seconded!
>
>>An adware program would have to be exceptionality good, or the
>>advertising exceptionally non intrusive for me to consider that it merited
>>recommendation, and I would certainly mention its deficiencies.
>
> Google comes to mind. Although it is not installed on a users machine
> it is a very complex program that makes the WWW easily accessible to
> us all; possible one of the most valuable programs out there. It
> serves ads in the process in order to make web searches free for us.
>
> Hands down, I do not consider this "malware." It rocks.
You can get the links without adverts by using Scroogle:
http://www.scroogle.org/
===
Frank Bohan
ś Carpe diamond = Seize a girl's best friend
Mike Andrade
news:71pff15e210jrhb6s...@4ax.com:
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:50:31 GMT, "Lou" wrote:
>
>>Evidently we are talking about two different programs.
>>I do NOT receive any "commercials" with my adware.
>>And the only time I spend with it is well spent as it helps me
>>weed out those people who place unwanted cookies on my computer.
>
> What is the title of this Adware program?
>
If you don't want to discuss it, why are you attempting to discuss
it?
--
Mike
Melted fruit snacks found on Keyboard. Delete nephew [Y/N]?
Tramp
says...
|SPAM is free! Do you want to discuss that too?
SPAM is not a program.
|
|Just because Adware comes with some Freeware Programs, that doesn't make
|it Freeware too.
You have it backwards. Adware does not come with some FREEWARE programs.
Some FREEWARE programs are Adware. Just like some FREEWARE programs are
Spyware, Nagware, Linkware, Liteware, Registerware, Requestware and so
on. FREEWARE is an umbrella term. If it doesn't cost you any money and
you can obtain it legitimately then it's FREEWARE.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <eshff15c6og13si35...@4ax.com>, M...@nospam.com
>says...
>
>|So Lou, most people in ACF don't opt for Adware, and don't want to
>|discuss Adware.
>
>Which is fine for them. Others may opt to discuss it. Adware is freeware
No, it isn't. Quoting from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware>:
'What differentiates adware from other shareware is that it is primarily
advertising supported. Users may also be given the option to pay for a
"registered" or "licensed" copy, which typically does away with the
advertisements. Other types of shareware include demoware, nagware,
crippleware, freeware, loyaltyware, and even spyware.'
Adware is shareware. Freeware is shareware. But adware is not
freeware.
>and since this group is about freeware then Adware can be discussed
>here.
You appear to be in the minority in that belief.
Tramp
rob...@deadspam.com says...
|No, it isn't. Quoting from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware>:
|'What differentiates adware from other shareware is that it is primarily
|advertising supported. Users may also be given the option to pay for a
|"registered" or "licensed" copy, which typically does away with the
|advertisements. Other types of shareware include demoware, nagware,
|crippleware, freeware, loyaltyware, and even spyware.'
|
Why not quote the whole thing next time? You missed the first sentence
"Some adware is also shareware, as such it may be used as term of
distinction used to differentiate between types of shareware software."
SOME Adware is shareware. But most Adware is FREEWARE
|Adware is shareware. Freeware is shareware. But adware is not
|freeware.
|
Adware is FREEWARE
|You appear to be in the minority in that belief.
Never said otherwise.
Mike Andrade
4ax.com:
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:12:23 GMT, Mike Andrade wrote:
>
>>If you don't want to discuss it, why are you attempting to discuss
>>it?
>
> Curious as to what Adware program doesn't have Ads:
He didn't say it didn't have "Ads." He said it didn't have
"commercials." You do know the difference, don't you?
>
> Maybe the program isn't really Adware, but without the title:
>
> How can one know?
>
Because he said it was adware.
--
Mike
Abbott's Law
1) If you have to ask, you're not entitled to know.
2) If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <flqff118dqdql07dp...@4ax.com>,
>rob...@deadspam.com says...
>
>|No, it isn't. Quoting from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware>:
>|'What differentiates adware from other shareware is that it is primarily
>|advertising supported. Users may also be given the option to pay for a
>|"registered" or "licensed" copy, which typically does away with the
>|advertisements. Other types of shareware include demoware, nagware,
>|crippleware, freeware, loyaltyware, and even spyware.'
>|
>
>Why not quote the whole thing next time?
Because I didn't think anyone needed to be told what "shareware" is.
> You missed the first sentence
>"Some adware is also shareware, as such it may be used as term of
>distinction used to differentiate between types of shareware software."
>
>SOME Adware is shareware. But most Adware is FREEWARE
You're doing this deliberately, aren't you? <sigh>
Once again, removing all the extraneous bits: 'What differentiates
adware from other shareware ... Other types of shareware include ...
freeware ...'
Adware and freeware are two different kinds of shareware.
>|Adware is shareware. Freeware is shareware. But adware is not
>|freeware.
>|
>
>Adware is FREEWARE
I'm going to replace three terms in the above two paragraphs, and use
*_exactly the same logic_*:
Pseudo-me: "New Yorkers are Americans. Hawai'ians are Americans. But
New Yorkers are not Hawai'ians."
Pseudo-you: "New Yorkers are HAWAI'IANS."
Here's a different three terms, using the same logic:
Pseudo-me: "Gliders are aircraft. Jets are aircraft. But gliders are
not jets."
Pseudo-you: "Gliders are JETS"
And yet another set, once more using the same logic:
Pseudo-me: "Dogs have four legs. Tables have four legs. But dogs are
not tables."
Pseudo-you: "Dogs are TABLES"
Do you still agree with your own logic, now that it's been applied to
other items?
>|You appear to be in the minority in that belief.
>
>Never said otherwise.
--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable
from - self-righteous sixteen-year olds possessing infinite amounts of
free time." - Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>
> |No, it is not freeware. The price you pay for using it is your attention
> |and your desktop screen real estate.
>
> The whole "screen real estate" thing is a pretty petty argument for not
> using Adware.
In your opinion. I don't consider it to be petty at all. Depends on how
much a person hates advertising I suppose.
> Not all Adware is designed the same. Some don't display
> ads on the program at all, some stick "ads" on printed documents. Some
> have small ads. Hell some programs even let you choose if you want to
> install the ads or not.
That's right and it's why my personal definition of adware is simply
"Software that displays advertising". As I mentioned in another post
though, the term "advertising" is poorly definedd. As a result, there's
a continual parade of various forms of it trying to get a toe in the
door of the definition of freeware. Freeware has *no* cost of any kind
attached to its useage.
> And the price you pay for using non adware programs are
"can be" instead of "are"
> screen real estate (for poorly designed GUI's)
> annoyingly long start up and shut down screens
> bandwidth
> cpu power
> space on your hard drive
> security risks
> program crashes
> program conflicts
> copyright violations
> time to learn the program just to find out that it's crap
And all of this can apply to any kind of software.
> of course not all of these things apply to all non Adware programs. Just
> like the screen real estate is not an issue with every Adware program.
>
>> Because this group is supposed to be for the discussion of freeware and
>> Adware is not freeware.
>
> Yes it is freeware.
No, it is not. You are in a very small minority indeed if you believe that.
Vic Dura
wrote:
>In article <11ffh2g...@corp.supernews.com>, jcor...@fake.invalid
>says...
>
>|No, it is not freeware. The price you pay for using it is your attention
>|and your desktop screen real estate.
>
>The whole "screen real estate" thing is a pretty petty argument for not
>using Adware. Not all Adware is designed the same. Some don't display
>ads on the program at all, some stick "ads" on printed documents. Some
>have small ads. Hell some programs even let you choose if you want to
>install the ads or not.
>
>And the price you pay for using non adware programs are
>
>screen real estate (for poorly designed GUI's)
>annoyingly long start up and shut down screens
>bandwidth
>cpu power
>space on your hard drive
>security risks
>program crashes
>program conflicts
>copyright violations
>time to learn the program just to find out that it's crap
>
>of course not all of these things apply to all non Adware programs. Just
>like the screen real estate is not an issue with every Adware program.
Well said Tramp.
John Corliss
> Mel wrote:
>
> |SPAM is free! Do you want to discuss that too?
>
> SPAM is not a program.
>
> |
> |Just because Adware comes with some Freeware Programs, that doesn't make
> |it Freeware too.
>
> You have it backwards. Adware does not come with some FREEWARE programs.
> Some FREEWARE programs are Adware.
No, they are not. Adware is adware, freeware is freeware.
> Just like some FREEWARE programs are
> Spyware, Nagware, Linkware, Liteware, Registerware, Requestware and so
> on.
NONE of these are freeware. Freeware is freeware.
> FREEWARE is an umbrella term.
Says you. I absolutely do NOT agree.
> If it doesn't cost you any money
Who says the cost has to be monetary? Perhaps it's time for yet ANOTHER
poll!
> and you can obtain it legitimately then it's FREEWARE.
That is one of the features of freeware indeed.
John Corliss
> Robe Kelk wrote:
>
> |No, it isn't. Quoting from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware>:
> |'What differentiates adware from other shareware is that it is primarily
> |advertising supported. Users may also be given the option to pay for a
> |"registered" or "licensed" copy, which typically does away with the
> |advertisements. Other types of shareware include demoware, nagware,
> |crippleware, freeware, loyaltyware, and even spyware.'
> |
>
> Why not quote the whole thing next time? You missed the first sentence
> "Some adware is also shareware, as such it may be used as term of
> distinction used to differentiate between types of shareware software."
>
> SOME Adware is shareware. But most Adware is FREEWARE
>
> |Adware is shareware. Freeware is shareware. But adware is not
> |freeware.
Freeware is NOT a form of shareware. Shareware is shareware and freeware
is freeware. Adware can be a form of shareware, but it can never be a
form of FREEware.
> Adware is FREEWARE
No, it is not. Not only that, but that Wikipedia definition is very
flawed. For instance, from the Wikipedia definition of shareware comes
the following:
"A shareware program is accompanied by a request for payment, and often
payment is required per the terms of the license past a set period of time."
If freeware is shareware (and it isn't), then what "payment" are they
referring to here? And don't come back at me with stuff like "what about
donationware or postcardware or the like?" because neither of those are
freeware either. However, the majority consensus in this group seems to
be that they are appropriate subjects for discussion here.
> |You appear to be in the minority in that belief.
>
> Never said otherwise.
--
Tramp
says...
|In your opinion. I don't consider it to be petty at all. Depends on how
|much a person hates advertising I suppose.
You're right of course on how much someone is bothered by the ads.
|That's right and it's why my personal definition of adware is simply
|"Software that displays advertising". As I mentioned in another post
|though, the term "advertising" is poorly definedd.
Yes it is poorly defined.
|"can be" instead of "are"
Oops, thought I had changed that.
|And all of this can apply to any kind of software.
Yes, and that's my point. Just because some Adware has obnoxious ads
doesn't mean that all Adware has obnoxious ads.
|No, it is not. You are in a very small minority indeed if you believe that.
Never said otherwise.
Tramp
says...
|Who says the cost has to be monetary?
Well, as you have your own personal definition of what constitutes cost
so do I. And for me it's money and that's it.
|Perhaps it's time for yet ANOTHER
|poll!
The whole poll thing is really funny. No matter what the outcome is of
any poll people are still going to do what they want. But by all means
poll away.
Tramp
rob...@deadspam.com says...
|Adware and freeware are two different kinds of shareware.
Dude, I would be surprised if anyone here would agree with you that
Freeware is a form of Shareware.
John Corliss
> In article <11ffsjk...@corp.supernews.com>, jcor...@fake.invalid
> says...
>
> |In your opinion. I don't consider it to be petty at all. Depends on how
> |much a person hates advertising I suppose.
>
> You're right of course on how much someone is bothered by the ads.
>
> |That's right and it's why my personal definition of adware is simply
> |"Software that displays advertising". As I mentioned in another post
> |though, the term "advertising" is poorly definedd.
>
> Yes it is poorly defined.
>
>
> |"can be" instead of "are"
>
> Oops, thought I had changed that.
>
> |And all of this can apply to any kind of software.
>
> Yes, and that's my point. Just because some Adware has obnoxious ads
> doesn't mean that all Adware has obnoxious ads.
I would agree with that. Still, an ad is an ad is an ad.
> |No, it is not. You are in a very small minority indeed if you believe that.
>
> Never said otherwise.
But I personally don't have a problem with there being a menu entry
under the Help category that links to information about other programs
by the author or company. That's pretty common in fact. Another common
method is to put a link in the "About" window. However, when advertising
is shoved in the user's face, that's adware.
The problem as I see it is that if advertising is allowed a toe in the
door, it will eventually grow to the point where every time you want to
access a feature of the program, you will need to batter your way past a
commercial or ad.
When I was a kid, television advertising consisted of there being a
mention of the sponsor at the start of the show, which was otherwise
uniniterrupted.
Look at television now. I tried to watch a movie on ABC last night, gave
up in desperation and taped the remainder of it. This evening I replayed
the tape and was able to fast forward through the commercials. Still
though, it ruined the continuity of the film and diminished the impact
of the plot. In essence, the quality of the experience was lessened.
Since experience is a part of life.....
What I'm trying to say here is, advertising has gone so overboard in all
aspects of media and other environment, that it seriously impacts the
quality of life for everybody. It has the potential to totally ruin the
computing experience as well.
I think an appropriate venue for the discussion of adware is
alt.comp.shareware, but not this newsgroup.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>
> Well, as you have your own personal definition of what constitutes cost
> so do I. And for me it's money and that's it.
>
> |Perhaps it's time for yet ANOTHER
> |poll!
>
> The whole poll thing is really funny. No matter what the outcome is of
> any poll people are still going to do what they want. But by all means
> poll away.
Heh. I agree. Thus my signature file.
John Corliss
>> Tramp wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't cost you any money and
>> you can obtain it legitimately then it's FREEWARE.
>
> that doesn't make them FREEWARE.
Legal, free procurement is a feature common to both those types of
software. The main issue however, is not procurement but rather the
indefinite continued *useage* of the software.
John Fitzsimons
<louisreh(nospam)@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>What is adware? It is freeware.
No adware is adware. You cannot use it for free. You have to
have the adverts. That's why they call it adware.
>What is the name of this newsgroup? Freeware.
>Why shouldn't it be discussed here?
Because it is off topic for this newsgroup.
Apparently some people cannot tell the difference between the
alt.comp.freeware and alt.comp.adware newsgroups.
They might have noticed that the spelling is different but from
there on they have comprehension troubles.
Either that or they don't want to discuss adware in the adware
newsgroup. Where it would be on topic.
John Corliss
>
> Well said Tramp.
Vic, lately that seems to be all you say. Why don't you contribute to
discussiona rather than simply continuously indicating your agreement
with somebody? What are you trying to accomplish by doing so?
John Corliss
>> John Corliss wrote:
>
>> I think an appropriate venue for the discussion of adware is
>> alt.comp.shareware, but not this newsgroup.
>
> will have no problem being heard.
So much the better (just kidding).
I still say that the best solution in this *unmoderated* group is for
people to use signature files like the following:
CharlieDontSurf
Yes, provided that the fact that it's adware is *always* disclosed by
the topic starter.
Anyhoo, the chances of my dragging adware into this group is just a hair
better than nil, since most of it isn't worth a spit. Don't be alarmed
by the heretic in your midst :)
Jeff
"CharlieDontSurf" <d-u-s-t-y-c-l-o-s-e-t-@-y-a-h-o-o-.-c-o-m> wrote in
message news:MPG.1d61dfd62...@news.east.cox.net...
If adware, hostageware, shareware or whateverwear other than freeware is
brought into this group I think one requirement should be that it is
identified as such in the Subject so people like me can skip it. Anything
but Freeware on this group will ruin what is clearly one of the best groups
on Usenet.
Richard Steinfeld
> Richard Steinfeld <rgsteinBUT...@sonic.net> wrote
>>- We can refer to adware as a reference. For example, when discussing
>>a free personal finance program and compare it to Quicken, _which is
>>adware_ (At least my version: it interrupts my work perhaps 4 times
>>per year to sell me something else from the publisher).
>>
>>- I'm in favor of allowing it if:
>>a. The ad is in the form of a menu choice (although I don't really
>>like this, I feel that we should allow the poor coder some ability to
>>generate some custom).
>>- The ad must not interrupt or delay one's work. This includes an ad
>>window that must be clicked to put it away ("Yahoo groupo hell").
>>- I think that E is OK, for people often come here asking for help,
>>perhaps for a need that's urgent.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> TMK, Quicken is not "adware". I do not know of a place you can download
> it or get it 'free'. I know it comes bundled with some new PC's but
> that does not make it free.
>
> Also, some adware is discussed here (Deepburner for one, Opera is
> another) but not as a viable choice.
>
> I am going to have to go with the majority. It is ACF, not ACA. We
> have our 'accepted' definitions of the 'wares' and while not perfect, it
> serves us well.
>
> A. No, absolutely not!
Sorry. I should have been clearer. Quicken is not a fit program for
recommendation in this forum, and I wasn't advocating it. I used it as
an example because many of us are familiar with it -- unsettlingly, it
has become "the currency of the realm" in the same way that Windows has,
perhaps worse. I recently took a small business course, in which the
accountants stressed the importance of using Quicken because business
people would not be able to use most bookkeepers -- most bookkeepers
having already standardized on Quicken themselves (ouch!!!!).
I used Quicken (payware) as a point of comparison, as I'd mentioned
earlier. Quicken, in fact, is a piece of work that falls into the
category of eggregious: not only do you pay for it, but then it turns
around, interrupts your work, and advertises at you -- and there's no
way to even get the damn thing to stop. And you can't even complain to
them because they'll block your email and won't answer the phone. Wow.
Some chutspah, huh?
So, despite the fact that it's not freeware, its behavior seemed too
juicy to overlook.
Richard
REM
> "Frank Bohan" <fra...@sparkingwire.com> wrote:
>>"REM" <REMbr...@inu.net> wrote in message
>> Google comes to mind. Although it is not installed on a users machine
>> it is a very complex program that makes the WWW easily accessible to
>> us all; possible one of the most valuable programs out there. It
>> serves ads in the process in order to make web searches free for us.
>> Hands down, I do not consider this "malware." It rocks.
><snipped>
>You can get the links without adverts by using Scroogle:
>http://www.scroogle.org/
I've never heard of this Frank. It looks like a great example of how
even the best ad supported program can be shot down by the amazing
amount of collective knowledge in ACF. Nice find!!
Vic Dura
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>Adware can be a form of shareware, but it can never be a
>form of FREEware.
Not that is not so. Adware has some kind of an ad associated with it.
You don't have to send $$$ to use it. That makes it free which is
freeware.
Thanks for reminding me to do more than just agree with people.
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.
Vic Dura
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>Vic Dura wrote:
>>
>> Well said Tramp.
>
>Vic, lately that seems to be all you say. Why don't you contribute to
>discussiona rather than simply continuously indicating your agreement
>with somebody? What are you trying to accomplish by doing so?
How about if I just disagree with you?
Is there anything else you want to control besides how, when, and what
people post?