Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The .feedback scam

everythingsysadmin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: The .feedback scam

#101

Post by foldr »

cstrat wrote: post #19
oh_sigh wrote: post #14

How is this a scam? The result is obviously just a ratings site which never purports to be the sites referenced in their URL...why does it matter if you type in google.feedback or feedback.com/google or google.feedback.com into your browser? No reasonable person could be misled to believe that google.feedback/ was at all related to Google. edit: Okay, I guess it is a pretty messed up website. If you go to reply to so…

> No reasonable person could be misled to believe that google.feedback/ was at all related to Google. Mate, that is 100% confusing to anyone on the internet. Especially more so now that google uses their own TLD for some of their blogs/services. So `blog.google` is google. `google.com` is google, but `google.feedback` isn't. Please explain...

People who don't understand how domain names work are probably just as likely to be fooled by 'feedback.com/google' as they are by 'google.feedback'. I don't really get this either. It's obvious from the content of the site that it's not run by Google.

Re: The .feedback scam

#102

Post by malka »

publicopinionsa wrote: post #16

I might want to include that IMHO all new TLDs are trick. Brand proprietors are compelled to enroll their name in a large portion of them.

I consider any "non standard" tld as crap. If you have a weird tld i wont go to your website.

Re: The .feedback scam

#103

Post by 7952 »

egeozcan wrote: post #37
bencollier49 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or threatened to sue them into a smoking hole in the ground..

Amazon makes that money in about 6 seconds. I don't think they would even bother to threaten them, but that's just my opinion. Maybe that's the motivation behind the scam as well?

Maybe because it is less hassle than getting a purchase order authorised.

Re: The .feedback scam

#104

Post by vidarh »

emidln wrote: post #97

I worked for a feedback company in the past. Nobody cares even when they pay for a feedback widget and get the reports emailed/pushed to their managers. Most of the clients didn't even login to the site or collect the feedback (sign up for notifications, download a csv, etc). AFAICT, companies paid for the feedback widget to check some box on a yearly powerpoint along the lines of "manages user feedback". It's a good…

The places I've seen collect feedback use it partly for what you say, partly to collect praise they can plaster on their sites as well as on powerpoint to boast to the board. The complaints go nowhere, but the praise is sometimes cherished.

Re: The .feedback scam

#105

Post by H4CK3RM4N »

PietdeVries wrote: post #100
H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "Stack Overflow Admin"'s response to Dan Manny should speak for itself: > You fucking moron!!! You lost money because you were so stupid and not being able to differentiate bad code from good code. StackOverflow is not you free personal assistant. You should kill yourself for being so stupid.

From reading the "reviews" at http://www.stackoverflow.feedback/reviews , I get the feeling the entire .feedback TLD will soon be hosting all kinds of 4chan-alike pages and the owners will have to take the sites down because of the NSFW things that will be posted there...

Im pretty sure they're all from here though(including the one I quoted), and the ones before today are somewhat civil.

Re: The .feedback scam

#107

Post by corin_ »

klodolph wrote: post #53
SolarNet wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they word it differently I'm sure.

Wording things differently rarely has any significant legal impact. (Except in advertising, right?)

Wording things differently very often has significant legal impact, depending on the situation and context.

I have no legal training, but regularly review lengthy legal contracts and discuss them with lawyers, and tiny changes in wording can have huge implications in what they mean.

Outside of legal contracts, many agreements (such as an agreement over email, or even verbal) can be considered legally binding, and so could be affected similarly when it comes to wording.

An example away from contracts (written or otherwise): salesmen and bribing. "I'd like you to buy my company's product, let me take you to an expensive restaurant to discuss the opportunity" is fine (roughly, in some cases and depending on the monetary value of the meal it might be against company policy or in some cases even illegal, but usually fine), vs. "If you buy my company's product I will take you to an expensive restaurant" which isn't fine. (Speaking from experience, having a) had plenty of experience on both sides of the sales table, including being specifically offered bribes and including being "client entertained" including some cases where I couldn't accept even though it would have been legally not considered bribery, and also from the experience of having to write, and enforce, anti-bribery / anti-corruption company policies.)

Re: The .feedback scam

#108

Post by davidsong »

blazespin wrote: post #40
SimonPStevens wrote: post #31

The real scammers here are ICANN and the atrocious way they handled the generic TLDs.

Not necessarily. TLDs don't rank any better than anything else. Google/Bing don't rank you just because you have a word in your tld. It's a minor signal.

It's not so much what the machines think, it's that moving from the convention of `company.domain` to `.company` confuses users and allows scams like this to happen.

Re: The .feedback scam

#109

Post by janekm »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #33
janekm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$600 is less than the cost of lawyer time for a worthwhile response, so they may well collect more than we would like to think...

It's also about half the cost of starting an ICANN dispute resolution process.... even without a lawyer.

Especially since an ICANN dispute resolution against the registry seems a bit like uncharted waters...
Post reply on HN