sites.google.com deals?
It seems they are all amazon deals so I don't see why the deal poster isn't just posting from amazon. Or why these deals are being allowed. They started showing up last week some time and they are all being posted pretty much by the same person.
by
hobbit
asked 2 years ago
They're going to his account, just like that other tricky spammer that's in the thread over on popular. I tattled on a bunch of these, but I find it REALLY annoying when someone takes advantage. I should probably just send the links off to friends at GOOG. They have a rather dim view of cheaters.
@shrdlu: thanks I was wondering
I labeled one theirs as spam. I thought sites.google only contained an awesome FAQ!
@catbertthegreat: until I saw those deals I had never heard of sites.google.com
We change all the posts so lets hope they get the point. Thanks for this @hobbit you rock.
@prettywootprincess: blush Just like to see people play fair.
@hobbit: I just want it to go directly to the deal so its easy.
@prettywootprincess: Changing the deal is fine, but he still gets the revenue between his posting, and your noticing he did it again. For a while, he was just posting the amazon link directly (I'm sure that was revenue also), but started this sites.google thing perhaps last week.
I guess what I'm saying here is that I want the opportunity to stomp on his foot or something. I hate cheaters.
@shrdlu: i like you shrdlu. you make me smile. :)
@shrdlu: Don't stomp, shoot him/her in the foot or kneecap, he'll definitely remember not to screw with the users here for his/her own profit.
@catbertthegreat: Waste of perfectly good ammo. There's an occasional shortage of 9mm, in any case.
I could just do a gentle kneetap with the baby sledgehammer. It's just a little five-pounder I use for breaking up bricks. It'd hardly even hurt.
[Edit] On the other hand, I do want to say I'm not at all opposed to folks making a profit here; just opposed to cheating and underhandedness. I'm sure @catbertthegreat feels the same.
@prettywootprincess: Not to mention he still gets the reputation kudos for a great deal. I am kind of with @shrdlu with on this.
If it is a truly great deal, though, is it really that much of an issue? What does it hurt if we give him 1-2% and Amazon 99% versus giving Amazon 100%?
@kamnet: You need a class on ethics.
Why is it unethical? If amazon is going to pay someone a small percentage for driving traffic to their site - how is them putting an ad on their website ethical, but them showing us here a good deal, and taking a small cut, unethical? Its not like it costs you more to buy through his link...
Now if hes spamming garbage and lying about stuff, that I have a problem with. But if the guy has a legitimately good deal, that gets voted popular here, who cares if me makes 50 cents on each one sold?
I'm failing to see the ethics issue. I see a jealousy issue, but not an ethics one.
@lorddamax: because he is lying. he is directing folks to a sites.google.com link when in fact the deal is on Amazon not on google, that is lying. Just like the folks who post deals from fat wallet. They get credit for folks who click through those deals too, but those deals are not on fat wallet they are on another retailer's site, they are lying as well, AND they are making money off it.
@hobbit: This gets back to the issue of negative reviews. There should be a way to 'downgrade' someones reputation when they use dubious tactics.
Quick question, would anyone have an issue if:
1. It was truly a deal.
2. They included the information in the deal itself that it went through their sites.google account and redirected to Amazon so they could get a referral percentage.
3. They included a direct link in the deal description.
And no, I will never post a deal like that, just curious because people are complaining on ethics point of view.
@emhodew: Not voting works, I know it isn't the same, but it does work. If they are truly misleading members there is also the tattle link, because I believe that removing deals affects one's reputation. Also folks get the idea that a person who posts shady deals is a person to not vote for so they will generally go out of their way to avoid voting for that person's deals. Even if that person posts what looks like a good deal, I know there are many people who will not vote for it. See the discussion on being conflicted we are discussing similar issues about voting.
@kelshir: Here it is. When you post a deal from many places, Deals.woot may (sometimes) replace your link with an intermediate link, and collect a trifle when they do so. I have absolutely no problem when vendors post deals from their sites, in a responsible manner, and without trying to flood Fresh with their entire inventory in a day. I object when someone posts a deal as though they are one of us (for want of a better word) amateur deal posters, when in reality, they are a vendor, and need to abide by different rules.
You will note that we have some very responsible vendor types here, and then some that suck. Most fall in between.
The thing is, by using sites.google.com, it seems that the poster is using GOOG in a way that violates GOOG's terms of service (I'm suspecting this, but have not verified it). Besides, it ought to show WHERE the deal is from. I don't buy from 90% of the sites that I see here on Deals. I don't want to have to guess where a link is taking me.
Edit : nevermind
Stats
- Asked
- 2 years ago
- Asked By
- hobbit
- Answered
- 21 times
- Viewed
- 1084 times
- Voted Against
- 0 times
- Voted For
- 12 times
21 Answers answer
Sort By: