- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 4
Yeah, you all look cool bent over like that...
Sorry, but the DNN article is lacking objectivity and it's failing to disclose certain facts.
NamePros.com Gets Outed In Browser History Sniffing Fiasco
I didn't write the article.
-=DCG=-
he he he...Transisterize Facebook.Heck, I use Feedjit and a Facebook link on my antique radio site. Maybe I'll soon be accused of trying to illicitly corner that 'huge' market.
I thought that mentioning other domain forums was considered a no-no here? .
Putting the Namepros "news" on a thread here gets the true situation better understood and correct information to those interested was a good thing.
No, esse. That not Jesus. That his hermano Jose."It's important for people to conduct their own research before deciding what's right and what's wrong."
I think Jesus said that, but don't quote me, research it first
Really? Even when the blog post that is posted is a copy paste from a site that got it wrong? ..When confronted by the facts Adam Strong says "DNN didnât create the study, DNN didnât write the other 10 articles that came out the same week before this one, nor the ZDNet one we cited. We re-reported information from other credible venues/sources." .. Washing his hands.. Just like Adam Dicker does in this thread. At some point it would do good to fact check before you post dis-information. But no, people have agendas so why not just run with the libel. I must admit I thought that Dotcomgod was above that sort of thing though. Must be a tough time.
Well.. This is very professional in return to post this article.Ron has always acted professionallly towards Dnforum and me and I appreaciate that.
I don't think it's fair to blame Nampros for this since it was just stats codes causing the harm that I am sure Ron was unaware of.
from what i've read they are saying sites like youporn used some kind of browser exploit that would allow them to 'track' the users arrow (what they clicked on) after visiting youporn.There's literally no such thing as "browser history sniffing" and there is no such thing as "history hijacking". The best you can do is track the user's referrer. There's literally thousands upon thousands of sites that show content based on referrer.
The lawsuit makes absolutely no sense.
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators