CD Freaks does it again...

[thecoalman]

No. The content never leaves my computer. No one, least of all the software company, is publishing it.

But its been edited before it got to your computer.

No, it's not being defaced, the original content is unchanged.

It is absolutely changed, how can you say that it is not? Here's the code from cdfreaks homepage:

<div id="survey"> 
  

	 

<span lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">CD Freaks.com can   always be improved! We would be interested in knowing more about you to see how   we can improve the content of the website. Please give us two minutes of your   time to complete our user profile survey. It&rsquo;s anonymous and with your help we   can make CD Freaks a lot better.</span></p>
	   Will you help us? Now / Never / Later  </div>

The only way to block that is to remove it... Explain to me how you would block that without changing it.

[thecoalman]

I'll put into code that is little easier to understand:

 <div>Some text</div>

<div>Some more text</div>

<div>My ad</div>

<div>Some more text</div>

<div><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"></div>

As you can see the google ad requires an external file to load, "My Ad" however is part of the source code and can't be blocked without altering the source code.

[AlanHK]

No. The content never leaves my computer. No one, least of all the software company, is publishing it.

But its been edited before it got to your computer.

No. It's edited ON my computer.

No, it's not being defaced, the original content is unchanged.

It is absolutely changed, how can you say that it is not?

The original file, on their server, isn't changed. My copy can be put through a blender, doesn't affect (deface) the original, or what anyone else sees.

The only way to block that is to remove it... Explain to me how you would block that without changing it.

My transient copy is changed. The original is not.

Here's the code from cdfreaks homepage:

If anyone has violated copyright, you did by republishing their source code here without permission. Turn yourself in.

You're either amazingly obtuse, or trolling.

[thecoalman]

No. It's edited ON my computer.

Correct, I mispoke. It's been editied on your computer by a third party before you see it which still doesn't change the fact its been edited by someone else other than the author before the recipient sees it.

My transient copy is changed. The original is not.

So now we're getting somewhere, we've gone from unchanged to changed. Your agument fails because you never see the original. Maybe it's just the ads missing but maybe it's lots of things missing and you have no clue. Suppose something gets blocked that completely destroys the context of the article I wrote and makes me look like a fool, maybe it destroys the layout or navigation and I look like a poor web designer. See what I'm getting at, this has more to do with than just ads.

If anyone has violated copyright, you did by republishing their source code here without permission. Turn yourself in.

That would clearly fall under fair use.

You're either amazingly obtuse, or trolling.

No need to insult but in the famous words of a once prolific poster "whatever" . If anyone is being obtuse it would be you if you cannot see the difference between blocking ads and blocking source code. There is huge difference and can impact a site well beyond blocking ads. If you cannot see that from the examples I've provided then I do not how to dumb it down any further.

[AlanHK]

No. It's edited ON my computer.

Correct, I mispoke. It's been editied on your computer by a third party before you see it

No. Wrong. False. Incorrect. Untrue.

There are no "third parties" in my computer.

The rest of your "argument" makes even less sense.

[t0nee1]

Noahtuck wrote" And if you like it so much.... fine... go hang out there and stop posting in this thread & bashing people here who DO NOT like it and STFU!!!!!

Guess you missed the JM(shitty) opinion, hardly qualifies as bashing eh! if there's a site I dislike I just don't go there, and I don't bash it or keep on whining about........

[Rich86]

They must go out of their way to annoy the crap out of people with that stupid survey overlay. Web design at it's worst!

one click on "never" - and it's gone for good? what's the problem?

Until you clear your cookies that is. What you don't clear yours?

I handle cookies selectively via Firefox. It remembers which sites I'm willing to allow cookies - and which not. CDFreaks is not a problem site, cookies are allowed. So "no" - I don't clear primary cookies from CDFreaks. If you don't trust the CDFreaks site - maybe you should not go there and stop complaining about them?

[thecoalman]

No. Wrong. False. Incorrect. Untrue.

There are no "third parties" in my computer.

Now you truely have me baffled, you're just grasping at straws to try and win this argument. If a third party is not changing the original document you would see the ad .

[lordsmurf]

obnoxious = lordsmurf ....... the only one FOS is you. Go home and get your shine box!!!!!!!

Ah, yes. Nickyboy4, banned once here at VH before for being a troll. Doesn't know squat about video/media, just babbles with an attitude. A perfect example of the "myspace/youtube/wikipedia" generation. All the while, you're totally unaware of what is happening around you, between online misinformation and having ads/surveys crammed down your throat.

What cdfreaks is doing here is really out of line, it's overly intrusive. And "don't visit the site" is what I consider bullshit advice. Quitting an activity because of bullying/unfair tactics of others is political correctness at its best. You would be crying your eyes out if your favorite magazine put a 5" sticker on the front of the magazine, and it could not come off easily (if at all). It's a fair complaint. Most IT-based sites lose sight of the PR/marketing required to keep a site successful (assuming it ever existed to begin with). Blunders like this lose audiences. While they clearly need to make their money and manage a budget, it comes with some degree of expectation that the publication be easy to use and not be obnoxious. The first way to deal with something like this is to complain. If they don't listen or don't care, then you quit and go to competitors (because let's face it, there is ALWAYS a competitor).

[Rich86]

What is really amusing is that, like so many other examples, this thread has probably caused more folks to run over to cdfreaks.com to check out the website than anything cdfreaks.com ever could have done intentionally to generate so much free publicity . . . and I don't see much complaining about the survey pop-up in their forums . . just here.

[thecoalman]

and I don't see much complaining about the survey pop-up in their forums . . just here.

They would have to have cookies enabled to use the forum and will only see it once. CDFreaks has the right to display whatever they want, it's just a poor choice in the way they chose to display it. There's too many usability issues with that code.

[SLK001]

I just clicked "Never". It doesn't pop up anymore. Unfortunately, I can't find the forum now.

[AlanHK]

No. Wrong. False. Incorrect. Untrue.

There are no "third parties" in my computer.

Now you truely have me baffled, you're just grasping at straws to try and win this argument. If a third party is not changing the original document you would see the ad .

My computer is changing its temporary copy of the file. That is NOT A THIRD PARTY.
There are NO third parties in this process.

By your reasoning, the Mozilla Foundation is a "third party" contributing to copyright violation, for supplying the browser which downloads it. As is Seagate, for supplying the hard drive it's stored on. As is Sony for making the monitor it's displayed on. As is Hewlett Packard for making the printer I print it with....

Still baffled? I don't care any more. Troll on. I'm done.

[thecoalman]

My computer is changing its temporary copy of the file. That is NOT A THIRD PARTY.

You know this could be two way street, for a moment lets say you are correct. There's ISP's right now injecting ad code into other peoples web pages. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Injecting-Ads-Into-Pages-85222 At the moment the code is injected prior to it being served to the client however this could also easily be done by using client side software that the ISP could force you to install to use their service. By your argument this would be perfectly acceptable because the temporary file on your computer is being changed, if it's OK for ad blocker to remove code it shouldn't be any different if code is being injected.

Again there is no litigation that I'm aware of where any of these practices have been tested in a court of law but with the recent introduction of the aformentioned hardware there's no doubt in my mind there will be. Whether code is being removed or added both are bad practices for both the user and the website owner. The only winner in the end is the company profiting by altering the work of others.

By your reasoning, the Mozilla Foundation is a "third party" contributing to copyright violation, for supplying the browser which downloads it. As is Seagate, for supplying the hard drive it's stored on. As is Sony for making the monitor it's displayed on. As is Hewlett Packard for making the printer I print it with...

Again you are showing how truly ignorant you are of the process involved here. None of the examples you provided above will change the source code on a web page. They can be used to display an edited version but do not change anything by themselves.

[Moontrash]

i don't see the problem...i just clicked on never and...gone...firefox and all

i don't know if its a rivalry type issue but seeing that cdfreaks has been there quite a few years and has helped me in my quest for authoring/encoding knowledge as much as here,saying the site isnt worth a damn or is crap or whatever is sad.Reason being,you can't get all your ?'s answered here.If you cant you try elsewhere then whats are your options.If they're to dog a site for having a stupid survey then thats just....again....sad

A perfect example of the "myspace/youtube/wikipedia" generation.

isnt the beginning comment of this thread the same thing? i mean i don't wanna anger one of the smarter video guys online but man.Your tutorials Smurf have helped me a lot but so have ones at freaks,doom,afterdawn and Video Digest.Ima member of freaks and havent been back in a while not because of this threads topic,i just dont need to.If i go back and have to deal with a survey,i deal w/ it by trying to figure it out,not complaining.Surely the rudmentary or shaky homebrew testing methods have been narrowed down to a science in there to a few of the users who know what they're doing.I've been burning discs as long as any one and have done the exact methods they have and my success rate is fine.Surely 300,000+ members cant be wrong

no offense intended

*this rant was brought to you by me.....very tired and needs sleep

[lordsmurf]

Surely the rudmentary or shaky homebrew testing methods have been narrowed down to a science in there to a few of the users who know what they're doing.

Not really. Misinformation revolving around the value of scanning has snowballed for too long. Regardless of how many folks do it there, it's still far, far less important than folks at that one site on the entire Internet make it seem.

It's not much different than people who rely too much on an insurance policy that doesn't actually over them for losses they may experience.

This is one reason the media preferences there blow like the wind. In reality, media is relatively stagnant, in terms of who makes what and in what quality. They go back and forth on media like Ritek being best then worst, then okay, etc. etc ..... and in reality it was always a mediocre grade of media with an unreliable pass/fail rate (albeit shifted to pass more than fail).

Watching those folks grade media is a lot like watching the mood swings of a teenage girl.

When you rely on faulty testing method, it's no surprise your findings end up all over the map and change as often as underwear.

Scanning media at home might make you feel better, but it's not giving you any kind of reliable results. I consider to be on par with pre-20th century medicine. Would you want your doctor to test you with a medical procedure from 1850? No? Then why do you test discs with an equally unreliable method?

For the record, I've been involved with recordable DVD media from the beginning (2000-2001). Most folks who insist on scanning are latecomers to the game (2003 and later), believing anything they see online to be truth. It was about 2004 when scanning really became popular.

... and this could go on and on with examples of how unstable the methods are and how the people who believe in it change their minds regularly ...

However, this is not related to the original post anymore, so maybe best to put it to bed for now. Let's put them on a pike for irritating marketing methods. Worry about site content another time.

[nicky57]

obnoxious = lordsmurf ....... the only one FOS is you. Go home and get your shine box!!!!!!!

Ah, yes. Nickyboy4, banned once here at VH before for being a troll. Doesn't know squat about video/media, just babbles with an attitude. A perfect example of the "myspace/youtube/wikipedia" generation. All the while, you're totally unaware of what is happening around you, between online misinformation and having ads/surveys crammed down your throat.

You are so full of yourself, everything you say is true and everyone who has another opinion is a jerk. You bash away but anyone with a brain knows all about you. You think I am of the younger generation but I am sure I am older then you(im 50). You abused your mod status here and got fired, then you seek out other forums to push your one sided bias on everything and insult anyone and everyone who has a different opinion of you. All I have left to say to you is:
"Now go home and get your shine box"

[lordsmurf]

You abused your mod status here and got fired

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Another moderator at the time had some disagreements and got into a public arguments. Rather than argue it out further and try to answer that question, we both just left for a cooling off period and never came back. End of story. Both he and I can still participate as we want as forum members, and the truth of the matter is there were already enough forum mods at the time. Nobody was fired. I concentrated my efforts elsewhere. I do still moderate part of the site, it's just not in the forum. Once again you just babble and have no clue or concept about what's going on around you.

And for the record, other opinions are fine, as long as they're based in truth. I don't respect any number of opinions, such as the one that 9/11 was staged or that the moon landing was done in a movie studio. Quite a few video-related opinions are based on the same myth-type BS and are not worthy of being repeated or spread around.

Please stop hijacking the thread with your lies and myth-laden antics.

EDIT: I have removed the term "mental meltdown" because there was no intention to be offensive to the other parties involved at the time.

[thecoalman]

You abused your mod status here and got fired

I don't know nothing about the "Mental Meltdown" part but everything else LS posted was pretty much what happened. I wasn't presnet for anything that happened behind closed doors but that was pretty ugly public display. If you search the feedback forum you may still find some of those threads if they are still present.

[gll99]

@LS

Quote removed by gll99

Looked more like you guys were playing games by banning each other and stuff until some things got heated and things went public. I'm pretty sure that a lot of that information has been removed now. It was ugly and it almost affected other mods who didn't deserve to be pulled into the fray. We weren't privy to the details so most of it went away with little notice by most members.

If you don't mind a suggestion. It might be best to remove that (edited) statement. If you do I'll remove my quote and if thecoalman does too it's gone.

[adam]

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Another moderator at the time had some sort of mental meltdown, and took me down with him. If anything, the whole situation was because I didn't agree with everything he said and he didn't like it. Now who abused what? Rather than argue it out further and try to answer that question, we both just left. End of story.

You should add that language to your website, then it will magically become true and indisputable. Grow up and logoff the internet once in a while. We were both fired as mods. Deal with it. Do you want me to post Baldrick's PM here? How about the dozen or so ones from all of the other mods filling me in on what was going on "behind the scenes?" Since you're not a mod anymore you can't edit my posts to protect yourself. Now do you remember why I "had a mental meltdown?"

[lordsmurf]

Do you want me to post Baldrick's PM here? Since you're not a mod anymore you can't edit my posts to protect yourself. Now do you remember why I "had a mental meltdown?"

- (A) I never edited posts, aside from my own. That's usually because I have typos or think of a better way to say something. That's why the edit feature exists. If nobody wants the ability to edit posts, then petition Baldrick to disallow editing.
- (B) I never got a PM "pink slip". I got something different. If you want to share yours, PM it to me, we'll talk in private. From what I gathered, we were being let go for a cooling off period, and then I sort of lost interest and got wrapped up in other things, and never inquired back on the matter. If you consider that fired, then fine, we were fired.
- (C) We all have mental meltdowns from time to time. Mine tend to be offline, usually on phone calls because I hate the telephone. If you don't like my use of that term, then I'd say gll99's description is a fair neutral-party assessment. I've removed my use of that term and replaced it with something more neutral, as per gl99's example.
- (E) Names were left off the post on purpose.
- (F) There's no reason to fight again after two years of truce.
- (G) The real peckerwood here is some guy named nickboy4/nicky57 who only comes here to argue with me. Just look at his dozen or so past posts.

Seriously, two years ago.

And again the topic is getting hijacked.

NOTE: Edited to be more neutral and to keep the peace.

[AlanHK]

there's ISP's right now injecting ad code into other peoples web pages

Completely different circumstances. Irrelevant.

By your reasoning, the Mozilla Foundation is a "third party" contributing to copyright violation, for supplying the browser which downloads it. As is Seagate, for supplying the hard drive it's stored on. As is Sony for making the monitor it's displayed on. As is Hewlett Packard for making the printer I print it with...

Again you are showing how truly ignorant you are of the process involved here. None of the examples you provided above will change the source code on a web page. They can be used to display an edited version but do not change anything by themselves.

The examples related to "copyright violation", nowhere did I say anything about "change the source code" in that passage. Though Firefox certainly can.

But I could easily cite a dozen other pieces of software that could and do change the "source code" en route to the screen. None of them are "third parties" in any legal sense, because they operate on my computer, under my control, and their creators have no part in their operation.

You've missed that point a dozen times now.

As for "ignorant": I studied computer design at university and have been using them in my daily work for the last 20 years. I work in publishing now and have written contracts regarding copyright, so excuse me for thinking I have a clue on this subject.

[lordsmurf]

Firefox is like a pair of scissors. I can cut out ads I don't want to see in magazines, tear out pages, tear out ad cards, etc ... and I do on a regular basis. Most of my magazines come so loaded down with cards and crap that you can't even turn the pages easily.

Last I checked, nothing illegal about throwing away what you don't want.

...except for those tags on bed mattresses.

[nicky57]

You abused your mod status here and got fired

Please stop hijacking the thread with your lies and myth-laden antics.

Adam has confirmed that it is you who lies. You edited and removed my posts back when you had me banned, and everyone knows I broke no rules, my only crime was not agreeing with you.
You are not man enough to admit you were fired. You lost interest! What a crock. Grow up, get a life, stop attacking everyone you disagree with.
I am done with you, you are not worth another second of my time on THIS forum.
Enjoy your JVC recorder and TDK discs. Now go home and get your shine box!

[budz]

So when is a moderator gonna lock this thread? LS I have had my words with you many times before and I've decided to refrain from bringing up the past but enough is enough. Just stop bashing other websites. Is it that difficult to do?

Anyway if there's any moderator out there at this time my suggestion is to lock this thread to prevent anymore bashing of members & the cdfreaks website. Just my freaking 2 cents for what's worth!