Anybody recognize this?

[Matthew N. Wright]

maybe it is not so constant exposure after all ?

this could be interactive advertizing,
u follow bitcoin - they serve you mining equipment adds,

someone else could get adds about weight loss...

Doesn't Google use cookies to bring ads relevant to your searches up? I don't know if cypherdoc's browser choice/settings permit such a thing, but that would definitely explain why I get weird Japanese tentacle porn advertisements on Home and Gardening's website. (Just kidding)

[2112]

I get just regular doubleclick ads in that place, usual generic fin-serv ads. I also noticed that the screenshoot from cypherdoc has "Ads by Browse to Save", mine doesn't in any browser.

I binged "ads by browse to save" and there are removal instructions for them, like for a malware.

 

Edit: After further research: clearly a locally installed adware on cypherdoc's machine. But it would be still usefull to learn which ad network BFL is using to serve their adds. Following the interlinking between malware vendors and ad networks is always interesting and educational. I wonder if any recognizable brand-name ad network would serve a well targeted ad through the malware.

[cypherdoc]

i think the odds of them being a scam are close to zero.

In what sense? Do you include the scenario that I am also a "scammer" (i.e. defaulting or being unable to deliver even with good intention)?

i'm glad i wasn't stupid enough to have bet with you.  i'm smart enough to have assumed you wouldn't deliver.

I believe you are smart. I just meant, do you think that it's possible BFL could be considered a scam in the sense that they have honest intentions but may not be able to deliver? That is a possibility I have not outruled yet for anything related to ASIC (including Avalon).

Do you think that it's possible Tom could be considered a scammer in the sense that he had honest intentions but was not able to deliver, coupled with not communicating one iota to those of whom bitcoins are owed to?

i was neck deep in that crap in December having ordered a bunch of bASICS.  as soon as he announced the first delay i pulled out luckily by doing a chargeback.

the thing that got me was that i spoke to him several times on the phone as well as right after he disappeared thru the Thanksgiving weekend.  he promised me that the units would be delivered within one week in early December.

i think he got in way over his head but lying never helps.  

scammer?  not really.  failure?  definitely.

[Lethn]

Sounds about right cypherdoc, I think it's fine to have dates and stuff in your head or in your company but never put out a release date unless your product is ready to be released in the first place, that's why they're called release dates >_< people seem to forget that.

[cypherdoc]

maybe it is not so constant exposure after all ?

this could be interactive advertizing,
u follow bitcoin - they serve you mining equipment adds,

someone else could get adds about weight loss...

Doesn't Google use cookies to bring ads relevant to your searches up? I don't know if cypherdoc's browser choice/settings permit such a thing, but that would definitely explain why I get weird Japanese tentacle porn advertisements on Home and Gardening's website. (Just kidding)

thing is i never use google to "search" for anything Bitcoin related as i already know where to go.

when i go back to Zerohedge i see a totally different ad.

seems like they're rotating.

[BlackLilac Jordan]

ZH does not run their own ads, so either someone is specifically site targeting them on the display network (assuming they allow it, most large sites do not as its a cheap way for a competitor to own your page) or YOU are being tracked. Most likely the later. Adwords fuels the machine that runs the world. Do not think it doesn't know about you.

Far from just adwords tracking us these days:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/drudge-report-looks-old-school-but-its-ad-targeting-is-state-of-the-art/253902/

[hardcore-fs]

Sorry ... have to call for the SCAMMER tag.
not because he failed to deliver product but because:

1. He has NOT paid back the bitcoins
2. He continued to state March Guaranteed, you had his word on it
3. Disappeared and has not attempted to justify why it failed.
4. Shown complete disrespect for the community... with blatant lies.
5. The current bitcoinasic site appears to be a complete fabrication and a scam.... Using fake details and addresses....

if the community is unable to police itself and weed out scammers BEFORE the damage is done, then how the hell can we expect bit-coin to accomplish anything other than become a haven for criminals and scammers.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Sorry ... have to call for the SCAMMER tag.
not because he failed to deliver product but because:

1. He has NOT paid back the bitcoins
2. He continued to state March Guaranteed, you had his word on it
3. Disappeared and has not attempted to justify why it failed.
4. Shown complete disrespect for the community... with blatant lies.
5. The current bitcoinasic site appears to be a complete fabrication and a scam.... Using fake details and addresses....

if the community is unable to police itself and weed out scammers BEFORE the damage is done, then how the hell can we expect bit-coin to accomplish anything other than become a haven for criminals and scammers.

Was this posted in the right thread? I'm confused.

[Richy_T]

i think the odds of them being a scam are close to zero.

In what sense? Do you include the scenario that I am also a "scammer" (i.e. defaulting or being unable to deliver even with good intention)?

i'm glad i wasn't stupid enough to have bet with you.  i'm smart enough to have assumed you wouldn't deliver.

I don't know why anyone considered the bet valid without both parties having submitted funds to escrow in any case. I mean sure, Matthew should have not made bets he shouldn't cover but it's not like bitcoin can't make a bet enforceable if everyone is sensible about things. (I'm sure this has been covered in other threads though).

[v3miner]

Ah, now we're in my arena.

Do a search (lol) on "retargeting". This form of advertising doesn't require that you search for anything, the cookie is placed by the owner of a website that you visit so that they can directly market to you their own, or similar offers, anywhere you go on the web.

The fact that you saw it on that site and assumed BFL was shelling out $$$ to advertise there on an authority site is one of the main reasons I use it.

[2112]

Ah, now we're in my arena.

Do a search (lol) on "retargeting". This form of advertising doesn't require that you search for anything, the cookie is placed by the owner of a website that you visit so that they can directly market to you their own, or similar offers, anywhere you go on the web.

The fact that you saw it on that site and assumed BFL was shelling out $$$ to advertise there on an authority site is one of the main reasons I use it.

I'm extremely curious. I don't want you to disclose any proprietary information, just generic market overview.

Is there any generic information on how likely "behavioral retargeting" is going to happen because:

1) site owner does retarget
2) site owner uses a traffic retargeting service, eg. trafficholder
3) adware will retarget

[v3miner]

Ah, now we're in my arena.

Do a search (lol) on "retargeting". This form of advertising doesn't require that you search for anything, the cookie is placed by the owner of a website that you visit so that they can directly market to you their own, or similar offers, anywhere you go on the web.

The fact that you saw it on that site and assumed BFL was shelling out $$$ to advertise there on an authority site is one of the main reasons I use it.

I'm extremely curious. I don't want you to disclose any proprietary information, just generic market overview.

Is there any generic information on how likely "behavioral retargeting" is going to happen because:

1) site owner does retarget
2) site owner uses a traffic retargeting service, eg. trafficholder
3) adware will retarget

Are you asking if the traffic provider extrapolates the data for their own use? Officially? No. In Reality? Probably.

Retargeting itself is a crude form of behavioral targeting, and can be somewhat accurate depending on the person managing the campaigns, but it's done a little bit backwards. Some big companies are doing it already at the scientific level and it is more or less automatic other than tweaks. On the non-giant-corporation front... I imagine eventually the 'little fish' marketing companies will be able to specifically target based on what a user "likes", but without them having explicitly said "yeah I like this" on sites like trafficholder and sitescout, and other more general behavioral patterns.

I may have misunderstood the question, feel free to clarify if that's the case.

[2112]

I may have misunderstood the question, feel free to clarify if that's the case.

It was me who misasked the question. I understand your answer, but I just didn't ask properly.

I want to understand the situation from the point of view of an ad buyer: a vendor of a product that isn't an outright scam, but is of somewhat questionable value: no rebilling involved and no high chargeback risk. But also the general public will not explicitly search for it, it appeals only to a fringe.

Such a vendor might have run a test campaign on doubleclick and adbrite. Doubleclick yielded very bad conversion rate (which is bad). Adbrite yielded good conversion rate, but used not-really-legitimate means of ad serving: malware, DNS redirection, etc. (which is also bad, but short term good). (Network names used as a historical example, I have no current knowledge.)

My presumption about the screenshot in the original post: Zerohedge tried to serve a generic doubleclick ad. They don't bother with any targeting on their own, bud doubleclick may have meant to target. Adware intercepted it and served an ad from another network. Zerohedge and doubleclick have seen it as somebody using adblock or similar.

How difficult would be to organize such a campaign? Is anyone offering it, maybe not openly, but after a longer discussion and some sort of background check?

I see trafficholder as a sort of middle point between legitimate and illegitimate ad serving. They need at least token participation from the site owner. Am I right? Zerohedge would never use hidden, random redirects.

I'm assuming that a site like zerohedge is beyond reproach and would never knowingly trick their readers to install adware. Am I right?

[v3miner]

I have a strange feeling that you are a bit hesitant about fielding your question publicly, feel free to PM me

Anyway, I'm still a little unclear... but if it helps answer your question, that ad is being served through the actual
double-click ad placement. There is nothing shady going on there at all. Inventory isn't always prioritized the way you would think because of unknown variables like impression capping or advertisers that have maxed out their daily budgets. In my opinion, there is nothing weird going on in this instance.

The idea you are talking about is certainly possible, and I can verify that it has been done. It's still not ideal. Metrics rule the land with this stuff and the ability to track is much more important and worth the extra cost. I don't know what type of product we are talking about here, but the traffic exchanges are such a cluster-fuck that if there is something you want to be able to run on double-click/google and can't get it through, you almost undoubtedly can (with a few obvious exceptions lol) by going through an exchange if you are persistent.

In terms of traffic holder, the sites that are redirecting you are getting paid for it. The way it works is not really shady at all, but some of the advertisers utilize it for nefarious activity.

[2112]

I have a strange feeling that you are a bit hesitant about fielding your question publicly, feel free to PM me

Anyway, I'm still a little unclear... but if it helps answer your question, that ad is being served through the actual double-click ad placement.

I apologise for being too generic in my questions. I actually prefer to speak publicly, nothing to hide on my side. The historical example I used was: medicines that are OTC in Europe and Rx-only in the USA. Doubleclick used to frown on it and forced forfeit of the funds of the advertiser. On the other hand Pud, when he was launching AdBrite had no such reservations and was even giving some directions on how to best use the funds through the non-traditional means of adware, DNS redirect, strange bundled toolbars and other channels that AdBrite used to serve at that time.

You are saying that the BFL ad in the OP looks like a normal Double-Click ad.

I identified the screenshot as the result of adware infection: "Ads by Browse to Save".

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141448.msg1506399#msg1506399

Obviously neither of us can be 100% sure without inspecting cypherdoc's computer. But just give me your professional opinion: am I full of bullshit and completely out of date? Can a legitimate doubleclick ad look exactly like so many examples of "Ads by Browse to Save" infection that are discussed in the past couple of week on the numerous web sites like Norton.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Ads-by-Browse-to-Save/td-p/901189

You can be as unforgiving to me as you wish. I just wanted to avoid the possible trollfest against BFL, cypherdoc, Windows users or whoever else.

Thanks again for your time.

[poon-TANG]

I don't think it is a legit double click ad. It was about 2 weeks ago I checked my old yahoo account and in the bottom right hand corner was a BFL ad and today the ad is valentines flowers.

[v3miner]

Ahhh now I see.

To be honest with you:

1. I didn't know about that "virus".
2. I didn't notice it said that above the ad.
3. Even if I had noticed, I almost guarantee you I would have thought it was pertaining to the white box above it, that appears to be an unloaded ad.

Obviously I'm the one "out of date" here

[2112]

Ahhh now I see.

Thanks. Given your understanding of the current market state in ads, how likely (or unlikely) is for an advertiser to know that his/her ads will be served by malware (or other non-traditional means)?

Is there a sort of generic knowledge that buying ads on certain networks will end up being served non-traditionally? There was such an understanding in the very early days of AdBrite.

Is there a sort of generic knowledge how malware writers are able to target the ads better? Do they search the computer for installed programs or saved files? Or do they place a "ultra-cookie" that lets them see everything that was typed/searched/clicked in a browser? Any other ideas on why the current "non-traditional" means of targeting could be better/more accurate than the "traditional"?

Thanks again.