Advertising.com being Draconian...

From: Philip Mak <mfraser_at_SEAS.GWU.EDU>
Date: Wed 5 Jul 2000 13:15:48 -0700

This morning, I received the following message from
Advertising.com. I had their adsearches.com search box
on my site. The HTML coding they provided used a
JavaScript document.write() function that loaded from
their server. To speed up page loading for the sake of
my site's visitors, I replaced the script tag with the
actual search box code.

A couple days later, I get this message saying I'm
terminated without warning. I realize that the
agreement allows them to do this, but don't you think
they could be more accommodating about it? And I'll
probably have to just apply for another account with
them, considering they're the best search box program
that I know of... (highest payout, actual search
results are good)

google.com: 3 cents per click

altavista.com: 3 cents per click

searchtraffic.com: 5 cents per click,
                    but they use Goto.com which
                    doesn't give good results for
                    the specific queries that my
                    search boxes are pre-filled with

adsearches.com: 5-7 cents per click;
                    they use alltheweb.com which
                    is pretty good

MESSAGE FROM ADVERTISING.COM:
> Subject: Your AdSearches Account has been terminated
>
> account name = "pmak12" has been terminated without pay
> as per our terms and conditions which clearly state:
>
> "All search boxes must be served from Web Publisher's
> server, and must be a search box that is provided by
> the Program. In the event a member wishes to use a
> search box other than one provided by the Program, the
> search box must be pre-approved in writing by
> Advertising.com."
>
> If you wish to use the program legitimately, you will
> need to apply for another account. We require that we
> serve all panels and coding from our server for
> auditing and other purposes, and your large
> modifications to our server for auditing and other
> purposes, and your large modifications to our coding
> disabled this feature.




Received on Wed Jul 05 2000 - 15:15:48 CDT