[deleted]
An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
21–30 of 195 posts
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it a “scam” if the terms are clearly posted? EDIT: The percentage increase from 2% to 30% was not posted; I withdraw my opinion on that.
The "30% markup if our algorithm thinks you're doing something sneaky" was not disclosed.
True, it was not. I concede this point.
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#23At least the plugin guy was reasonable-ish. That does sounds like a really odd experience. It does pay to always check all of the dependencies you are using and their terms. When I was younger I got hit by limits when using a free tier of a service, but they just throttled us which lost us users.
In any scam there's a part where you cool off the mark so as to not have them go squealing to the cops. Maybe you give 'em some money back, maybe you teach them the lesson of how to bounce back after a loss. Google "cooling the mark out" to read some academic research on this.
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#24So he used code straight off GitHub, didn’t read the license terms, and then has the gall to call it “stealing” when the program does exactly as it says it would. Either learn to read licenses, or have a list of approved licenses (MIT, GPL, etc.) and only use software thus licensed. EDIT: What I mean above is the 2% which is specified in the “Licence Agreement” page – the article author is clearly considering this, t…
That's incorrect. The license stated he would share 2% of the ad traffic, but it looks like the plugin was taking 100%.
100%? I can only see references to 30% at most. Which is questionable, since the license only specifies 2%. But not 100%.
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plugin guy can afford to be reasonable-ish. It reduces the likelihood of the scam being publicly disclosed, and I'd wager that 99% of people never notice the plugin is doing this.
How is it a “scam” if the terms are clearly posted? EDIT: The percentage increase from 2% to 30% was not posted; I withdraw my opinion on that.
Huge red flag: they offer you some money back in hopes you don't turn them into the "authorities".
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#26So he used code straight off GitHub, didn’t read the license terms, and then has the gall to call it “stealing” when the program does exactly as it says it would. Either learn to read licenses, or have a list of approved licenses (MIT, GPL, etc.) and only use software thus licensed. EDIT: What I mean above is the 2% which is specified in the “Licence Agreement” page – the article author is clearly considering this, t…
The software license is MIT, but there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says they take a cut of your earnings over 1000$. It definitely does not mention 30% however: > If you have used this plugin for FREE but monetized more than $1000, you are also required to get a license, or share us some Ad traffic as stated in win-win partnership model below > Ship our code with yours to end-user, no need paying a cent at al…
> there's a page on their wiki that vaguely says
A page titled “License Agreement”, clearly linked from the home page.
(Regarding the 30%, I agree – this was questionable at best.)
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#27Stealing seems an almost libellous term for using a software with a revenue model the author did not bother checking out.
The software says nothing about taking 30% under certain circumstances.
> Kindly reminder, do not use a fake license key or a license key from others, do not share your license key with others. Abuse of the license key may cause negative impact. [0]
This is the closest it gets to calling out the the 30% but I agree, it should be clearer.
[0] https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic...
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GitHub page said it would take 2% but actually took 30%. How is that "exactly as it says it would"?
He called the 2% “stealing”, too. Sure, the slow increase to 30% was not documented, and I can see a good argument being made there.
The 2% is stealing because no reasonable person would expect to see such a clause in an open source software project. The 2% clause was hidden, all the way at the end of the doc. The plugin author is a conman.
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it a “scam” if the terms are clearly posted? EDIT: The percentage increase from 2% to 30% was not posted; I withdraw my opinion on that.
Huge red flag: they offer you some money back in hopes you don't turn them into the "authorities".
Wouldn’t not offering any money back be an even bigger red flag?
Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software says nothing about taking 30% under certain circumstances.
> Kindly reminder, do not use a fake license key or a license key from others, do not share your license key with others. Abuse of the license key may cause negative impact. [0] This is the closest it gets to calling out the the 30% but I agree, it should be clearer. [0] https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic...
It shouldn't be clearer - the plugin author should require an affirmative response from the developer that they accept those terms.