Well Done DFW's! But we're not finished yet!

MKDon

Richard_S wrote: »

How about some form of DDS attack on their miserable site; there must be enough IT knowhow on here to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I loathe people that profit from others misery, and CCCS were a Godsend for me, I'd love nothing more than to throttle bottom dwellers like the organisations that seek to profit from their good name; it's just the means to do it that I'm questioning.;)

It's miserable sites BTW. They don't appear to be well defended at the moment, but a DoS attack is far less ethical (down right illegal in fact) than simply responding to their own advert placed via a sponsored link, nothing wrong with that because when you think about it, they have invited us to do exactly that:) .

I don't think that any of us expect ML to campaign on this, but if we can simply be "a small grain of sand in their shoe" then we will have made a difference.

welshgirl78

Just seen this and wanted to say....

THAT THE MOST FUN I'VE HAD CLICKING................... EVER!!!!!!!

southernscouser

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Just seen this and wanted to say....

THAT THE MOST FUN I'VE HAD CLICKING................... EVER!!!!!!!

Really? I'll have to send you some of the sites I click! Wahey! :rotfl:

MKDon

SarahNeedle1872 wrote: »

Does it count if I do it thru Webfetch? They take from Yahoo, Google, Ask and others?

That will work fine, it just means that google or Yahoo have to share some to the ad revenue with Webfetch

tigtag02

southernscouser wrote: »

Really? I'll have to send you some of the sites I click! Wahey! :rotfl:

welshgirl DONT click on anything he sends you :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

well, most, some are good

Richard_S

southernscouser wrote: »

I can see your point mate and it's not an ideal situation.

The perfect solution would be Google and co refusing to have them as sponsored links. But like you say, it probably isn't high profile enough for Martin to put his efforts and resources into and although frustrating I can understand that.

So it seems our next best method of attack is our current one. It's not satisfying lining Googles pockets but if they are gonna make their money I'd rather it was from us clicking the links than some unsuspecting person in desperate need of help.

It takes minimal time and effort for us so it isn't a problem to me. Who knows, if there are enough of us and we're persistent enough maybe in time Martin might be looking for a new project.

The CCCS have already seeked legal advice about c-c-c-s.co.uk (I hope this is public information ) so maybe our actions will make it slightly more high profile.

As for the DDS attack. I don't know whether it was said in jest or not but what we are doing isn't illegal. We're simply following the sites ethos. Screwing companies back, legally!

Join the revolution! :beer: :rotfl:

Ok mate,

I'm a convert; you've radicalised me:D . I've got approximately 7,000 email addresses on my work "All Users Address Book". I'll have to clear it with the I.T department but it's Public Sector and they're always keen to champion a good cause.

Not quite sure what the web sites in question will think though, if they start to get "hits" in the hundreds or thousands from the same I.P address.:eek:

Regards

Comrade Richkins:D

immoral_angeluk

southernscouser wrote: »

Don't forget to spread the word hun.

You're diary is one of the most popular threads on here. Would be great if it appeared in there! :whistle:

consider it done...

Burlesque_Babe

I'm in!...click.........

MKDon

Not quite sure what the web sites in question will think though, if they start to get "hits" in the hundreds or thousands from the same I.P address.

Hundreds or thousands of hits from the same IP address or IP address range will alert them to abnormal activity. The best approach is a few clicks from lots of users, which appears to be working so far :T

chevalier

does anyone know just how many clicks we will have to do to get the banner removed and for how long it will stay removed?
chev