.. and that's why running an ad-blocker these days is not even a moral question; It's proper hygiene. I don't eat without washing my hands first, and I don't browse without an ad blocker.
Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
51–60 of 249 posts
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert Why? Are there hundreds of ad campaigns being created per second?
It would be possible to handle the quantity of ad campaigns, but not without false positives or missed fraudulent ads. If you paid a person or a team of people to remove adverts promoting fake websites, the person reviewing the advert would have to understand the product being sold, the company selling the product and the companies real website. For Chrome this may be easy, but for more obscure projects such as a cry…
[deleted]
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#53The title of this article is deceptive clickbait.[1] The problem has nothing to do with the Edge browser, it has to do with search results returned by Bing, which happens to be Edge's default search engine. If you have a new Windows 10 PC and want to download Chrome, how else could you do it besides "using Microsoft Edge to download Chrome"? So "stop using Edge to download Chrome" is not useful advice. Better advice…
> And the problem seems to have been fixed. When I search for chrome download on Bing, the top result is https://www.google.com/chrome . Which could be faked, as seen in the referenced tweet: https://twitter.com/GabrielLandau/status/1055300918101598208 Yes, they show the word "Ad", alongside the domain name "google.com" - except the user doesn't end up on "google.com".
Data point: For me, the first result for 'download Chrome' is a legitimate ad that directs to google.com
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bing makes it clear when a site is promoted by prepending "ad" to the search result. Other search engines such as DuckDuckGo and Google do the same. They very specifically do not make it clear, they (and I mean all of them) intend to make sponsored results look as identical as possible to organic results to improve the likelihood that you'll click them. They only have subtle markings showing that they're ads becaus…
>the Bing ad shows the domain as `google.com There's a reason for this - ad tracking for conversion, performance or even to make sure the advertising network is honest. The ad tracking domain is not always the same as destination domain. AFAIK, this problem seems easily solved. All Ms has to do is flag ads whose displayed URL do not match the final URL for manual review. Or simply ban it.
This does not excuse displaying false information, especially when that information misleads users into downloading malware.
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#55[flagged]
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#56.. and that's why running an ad-blocker these days is not even a moral question; It's proper hygiene. I don't eat without washing my hands first, and I don't browse without an ad blocker.
But if you don't eat with filthy hands, you'll be putting antibiotic content creators out of business!
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#57Bing makes it clear when a site is promoted by prepending "ad" to the search result. Other search engines such as DuckDuckGo and Google do the same. It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert so perhaps it would be beneficial for search engines to provide a way for users to report rouge promoted links, similar to how YouTube allows you to report its sidebar ads.
> perhaps it would be beneficial for search engines to provide a way for users to report rouge promoted links
You're absolutely right - it would be beneficial for them to dump their responsibility on the end users.
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#58I never quite understood the appeal of giving some unknown third-party the right to put links and text and javascript onto your site.
It might be labour intensive to have human eyes on every ad that is sold when you're at Google, or even Bing, scale. But it seems a little bit too hands-off, and irresponsible, to take money without vetting the input and then letting every scammer get into that very "blessed" and visible top spot of a search page.
If you want something done right, do it yourself. You can't expect scammers to not to be scamming.
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert Why? Are there hundreds of ad campaigns being created per second?
It would be possible to handle the quantity of ad campaigns, but not without false positives or missed fraudulent ads. If you paid a person or a team of people to remove adverts promoting fake websites, the person reviewing the advert would have to understand the product being sold, the company selling the product and the companies real website. For Chrome this may be easy, but for more obscure projects such as a cry…
> It would be possible to handle the quantity of ad campaigns, but not without false positives or missed fraudulent ads.
That calculus applies to just about everything.
Re: Bing has been serving up malicious Google Chrome ads for months
#60I never quite understood the appeal of giving some unknown third-party the right to put links and text and javascript onto your site. It might be labour intensive to have human eyes on every ad that is sold when you're at Google, or even Bing, scale. But it seems a little bit too hands-off, and irresponsible, to take money without vetting the input and then letting every scammer get into that very "blessed" and visib…
I spent some time trying to understand googles ads and seo structure for a project, as a sysadmin. My conclusion was the reason greyhat and blackhat techniques werent dealt with was because they make too much money from it... I wrote a big report on it, but that was the gist. Im sure the same is true of MS et al.