New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
There was no honest mistake here, if there was, it would have been rectified by pulling all the offers of the offending company, but only one was pulled to appease the masses. It didnt work, of course, so a real solution should be found to ensure fair play.
It could be done as in Google ads, place the CC group of companies at top and/or mark them as such, for example bold, this way it would be transparent and honest, people will know whom they are buying from, but I am afraid the goal is to confuse and trick people, far from transparency and honesty. At least BuyVM didnt make 100 sites to post offers when they were ruling this place and their offers were always clearly marked.
I didnt leave because of an honest mistake, but because of a pattern of mistakes and attempts to silence the disclosures, we are now beyond any shadow of a doubt.
There have been many proposals here, yet the same old excuses are used to delay the clarification and this proves intent. How hard it is to mark the offer as ColoCrossing affiliated ? It should be a badge of honour and the symbol of quality if we have nothing to hide.
I do not mix prometeus here, our offers were always treated more than fairly. I protest as a regular user taking offers from LEB 2-3 years before I even posted there or here. While it looks like only customers stand to lose from this and CC offers will benefit, this is only in appearance, in the end everything will collapse and the foundation is already deeply cracked. I do not know if CC wishes to drain the place totally and then leave it, but it looks like that. I would just keep the ad revenue and leave the editors free to choose what is best for the consumer, they will have another place to advertise in the years to come.
Better 10% of a huge pie, than 50% of a rotten pie where only abusers come.
^This is the spirit. Maybe the proposals are often miss understood?
What do you term 'affiliated'? Supplier, co-marketing, partial ownership, being friends?
Strictly crossing
... and in the end big money wins again ...
I mean colocrossing brands, such as those where cc people work/worked or own partially or totally, the sites with hidden whois and the like.
Putting the truth up will avoid embarassing moments and silencing bans, sunken threads and all that drama. It will also show CC people are proud of their product do not try to sneak it through the backdoor.
It certainly appears that way now.
I have nothing against CC offers being featured more frequently, it is their right, but stop trying to trick and confuse people that run from one failure to buy from the same people with a different URL all over again.
I think 'worked' should probably be dropped. It's a small industry. Otherwise BuyVM for instance would have had a CC-brand a few months ago too because of past-employee dealings. Other than that, I don't see a problem with having them subtly put CC branding somewhere at least if they're financially backed.
There is a story behind any drama. Someone ask an honest question to Company A whether they are related to Company B because he had a bad experience with Company B.
Company A said "no we are not related to Company B.
This someone then ask another question "If you are not related, why your IP belongs to Company B"
The simple answer from the beginning should have been "Yes, Company B is our upstream provider", case closed.
One day, a piece of data leaked to the Internet, and revealed employees of Company B listed as Admin in Company A
This someone would feel that he was cheated.
This is not only happening with Company A, but Company C when asked by someone whether they have any relation to company Company D, they also denied until another piece of data leaked to the Internet.
IMHO if it wasn't for a leaked data, such drama wouldn't had happened and wouldn't happened in the future.
IMHO Company A and Company C need to have a better PR and should have not lied in the first place.
That is what usually happened.