There are 2 userID I'd like some info on but when I search the forums with the advanced search they are not found. I know they posted a review of a software since I can read their comment but how does someone access profiles to see the join date if they have no other posts?
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn and record Netflix! :)
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn and record Netflix! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
Their join date should be shown under their user name (on any post they made).
To access a profile, doesn't clicking on their user name do the trick for you?
^^ The OP stated that these 'users' have not made any post just some comments in the tools section.
You can search for a user from the search function but if there are no posts the only links go back to those comments and the user's profile can not be accessed.
Maybe Baldrick should do something about that and treat these comments like normal posts so then the profile can be accessed. Not much of a 'user' who can not be arsed to make even a single post in the forums
I thought there was a way to search all users in the past. Maybe it's been removed or I just forgot how to do it.
Something could be going on. I don't want to use the report function on multiple posters without some type of foundation and a proper explanation or it wouldn't make sense to those moderating the forums. The list has now grown to maybe 5 (sorry make that 6 or more another one just showed up today). 2 posted in the same subject thread so I can see their join date. One has been around a few months so may be legit or possibly a second ID activated this past spring but he/she only comments regularly in the same thread. It seems very unusual that so many would come out of the woodwork in such a short time praising something that is probably good but not unique. If these are plants to allay fears over legitimate concerns and encourage VH visitors and members to download it is totally unnecessary since the object of their affection is fairly desirable in interested circles. (that should be enough if someone cares to search a bit).There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
It looks like Baldrick caught on to the potential offender although I don't know if any of the new accounts who posted highly positive reviews were bogus and if they have been deleted. At least the thread is locked and the links to the tool has been removed. IMO it was adware with some other sneaky tricks going on. Too many brand new posters showed up within a couple of days to oversell the tool as working fine. I've never seen that many people sign up just to say how fantastic a GUI is compared to others. At least now if the tool is legit the author will have to convince Baldrick that it's safe.
That takes care of my current reason for wanting to know the sign up date for those who only post reviews in the tools forum but it would be good if the option to check their profile was available so we could see when a lot of new users sign up just to sell a product and at the very least we could flag them for the mods to review and decide. I don't think we want to flag regular users who might happen to all like a tool but 6-7 or even more new signups in 3 days all posting similar positive things is too much to be normal.
Last edited by gll99; 2nd Sep 2017 at 16:08.There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
So what you suspect is that these 'users' worked like those fake bidders at fleabay to bump up the price of items. In this case to bump the topic to the top of the pile to keep it noticed.
I have located that thread so I do see what you mean. I have also used the software from an earlier version - in fact I suggested the s/w to a member only a few days ago. It did appear useful yet if the author has stolen code then that can not be tolerated. I can not speak of latest versions but the one I used certainly appears 'clean' .
What is not visible now since it's been removed is in the software reviews. Just since Aug 30 5+ (hard to confirm the number exactly without the join date) new posters signed up just to praise the Gui with no other posts. Those who did post in another place only did so in the thread in question to praise this tool and in some cases say how much better it was than the competition. That jumped out at me since I don't remember seeing so many new posters sign up just to add a review especially since a few of us had just posted that our versions contained a script that deleted all DLL files from the Program Directory, deliberately crashed the computer, changed the home page, opened multiple ad pages in the browser, interfered with the reinstalling of virus checkers and who knows what else. In spite of this all these new posters claimed it worked fine in some cases for months. They must have skipped right over version 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 and maybe the 1st release of 1.12 which all contained malware and all started using 1.14 which made them so excited that they all signed up just to post positive reviews within days. Based on post date only, 1 on Aug 30, 3 new signups on Sept 1 and another 1 on Sept 2. Suddenly v1.14 is out and wow they all come out singing the same song seemingly not worried at all about previous possibilities of damage to their OS. Were they all the same guy or buddies trying to vouch for the software just to get more downloads and more clicks for the adware and who knows maybe a different version of malware. I think it's fair to be suspicious after getting burned and seeing this sudden influx of praise by newbies coming out of nowhere. You'd think some would have expressed concern when reading previous reviews and that's what made me wonder even more. One user did but he isn't a new signup. This user said he used "virustotal.com" to check the latest available version v1.14 which the author had just confirmed was 100% clean in his previous review just one comment prior yet 4 of 50 search flagged the software. He posted a jpg of the results. It seems there was possibly still something suspicious going on. Maybe that's not 100% conclusive but in light of previous reviews and this one you'd think it should have raised some doubts. At least it was worth raising questions but he might as well have not posted his review since most everyone (4 newbies and one other fairly new who only posts positive remarks in that thread) gave it glowing reviews and no one questioned what the concerned reviewer wrote nor seemingly had they any doubts in using the tool in spite of reading what was said. Weird to say the least. You'd think someone would have asked *especially someone new) "Is this really fixed?" "what do those results mean?" instead of posting "thanks for the update" "love it" and "big Fan" etc...
I wish this tool was clean and did what it is supposed to do without any spyware, adware or whatever. I have other questions about the explanations given in the thread concerning the sudden appearance of the corrupt unofficial version of youtube-dl (unrelated to this link which is a good original version), the washing of hands and the assigning of blame that don't appear to match up with information given in the thread but I'll save that for later. Maybe the rest belongs elsewhere if and when the tool reappears.
Last edited by gll99; 2nd Sep 2017 at 22:30.There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
The version I download was 1.7 and installed on June29. The youtube-dl.exe is dated June18.
That one certainly has done nothing as you describe. The member to whom I suggested the software did state in that topic that there were claims that it was screwing up computers. That comment did surprise me but I did not follow it up since he was more concerned in getting his downloader of choice working.
So it seems I had a fortunate escape.
Seems that the author felt he should be rewarded for his hard work (nothing wrong with that). A lot of free software eventually goes down that route. It's just the way one goes about it.
And it is a shame since the original program was really useful in the incarnation that I downloaded.
Two days after the thread was 'locked' and the s/w removed from the tools section, it is back via direct download in the thread (which has also been un-locked)
Maybe the author saw the error of his ways and there is yet another new version with 'engine replacement'.
Caught my eye since he is promoting it in another topic.
Time will tell but I am sure he has lost the confidence of those who used the corrupt versions. Apology for that ? I can not see any.
The thread is unlocked but VH hosted links to the software are dead as far as I can tell and the tool isn't in the software section yet. If he's promoting it elsewhere in other threads that's up to Baldrick and the mods to decide. Maybe his new program is clean and clearly identified as not associated with the original youtube-dl.
The original authors have placed the youtube-dl code "in the public domain" but when someone is a different unrelated programmer then he should add something to differentiate modded versions for goodness sakes and not refer to it as simply youtube-dl which is misleading.
ORIGINAL command line youtube-dl:
We have no idea where xplorr got his version of the source code for which he wrote the gui. Obviously he didn't write it since he disavows any responsibility for the bad code and blames a 3rd party but he still calls it youtube-dl when he says that which might imply the original was at fault yet he claims he uses a modded version. Strange to say the least. It doesn't add up.
xplorr wrote this in the tool review
Even though in the tool section he said he reverted to the original youtube-dl in the thread he says he is still using a modified version after the fix.
I looks like at least in v1.141 which is the last I downloaded the core code is wrapped in a dll so if this thing is resurrected it should be made clear that it doesn't use the original unmodified youtube-dl. I can't vouch for any newer versions since I won't use it until I'm convinced it's not malware. Still of some concern is that he was using hybrid 3rd party code over which he had no control. A good question would be is he 100% in control of the code he is using now or is someone else modding the original youtube-dl he's now using in the latest releases.
Last edited by gll99; 4th Sep 2017 at 23:02.There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
I see the s/w is back now, complete with feedback, in the site's software section.
But, unless my eyes deceive me, I see some feedback from the author himself. Surely that should not be allowed. Unless he forgot which ID he was logged in as