Page 1 of 1

[Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 11:55 am
by ManuelC
Proposed filters:
Code: Select all
||viglink.com/images/pixel.gif?ch=2$third-party
@@||viglink.com/api/insert^$third-party


Link to a test page:
http://hometheaterreview.com/emotiva-up ... r-reviewed ("UMC-1")
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1531937/vizio ... tical-look ("Vizio E550i-B2")

Advertising type:
Insertion of affiliate links in the text.

Additional Technical Information:
The blocking rule has the purpose to measure the impact of the whitelisting.

Concerns:
None

It might be necessary to whitelist third-party resources for conversion tracking in the future, respective filters will be posted in this topic.

Re: VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:58 am
by ManuelC
Added.

Re: [added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:56 am
by shabie
Whitelisted Ads as of March 2015.

The blocking rule has the purpose to measure the impact of the whitelisting.
Image

Re: [Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:49 am
by raitchison
Don't agree that these ads fall under the established Acceptable Ads Criteria.

1. The ads are not clearly marked as advertising.
2. The ads are misleading because they give the impression that the author of the forum post inserted the ad into the text (see 1 above).

Re: [Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:21 pm
by shabie
Whitelisted Ads as of October 2015.

Advertising type:
Insertion of affiliate links in the text.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-f ... -look.html
http://i.imgur.com/nG2mi96.png

Re: [Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:33 am
by ZPrime
I hate these ads with a passion. Why are these considered acceptable? As a previous user stated, they are not clearly marked as advertising.

Ads should always be recognizable as ads, and distinguishable from all other content (e.g. are not hiding the label, are not misleading users into thinking an ad is part of the primary content). Ads should be clearly marked with the word "advertisement" or its equivalent.


When I see these scattered throughout a forum, my initial reaction is that forum users have actually included links in their posts, until I realize they're all viglink garbage. Then I have to play the "mouse scrubbing" game throughout the entire forum in order to determine if links are actual user-generated content or if they're just adverts. It makes forum reading supremely frustrating.

I am all for Acceptable Ads and I prefer to leave that option enabled in ABP, but viglink, to me, are not acceptable.

Re: [Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:35 pm
by st753m
Agreed. These ads are not acceptable.

Re: [Added] VigLink affiliate links

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:53 pm
by edmundo
new tacking pixels for improved implementation


Code: Select all
@@||prebid.s-onetag.com/*/prebid.min.js$domain=deseretnews.com|lolcounter.com|ancient-origins.net|fantasypros.com|theodysseyonline.com|nextechclassifieds.com