Author Topic: Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky  (Read 9270 times)

Offline krissel

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 14691
    • View Profile
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2006, 01:38:38 AM »
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Dec 16 2006, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's still one of my biggest complaints about Apple's lack of ability to 'discover' its own apps on my hard drive, if they aren't lose in the "Applications" directory. Good grief, why can't the OSs developers be as flexible as all the other developers? No other updater for third-party apps requires me to keep it anywhere in particular, even when they suggest using the Applications folder. If they can find their own apps, anywhere on the drive, why can't Apple? It's ridiculous! rant.gif



The main reason Apple "recommends" putting their apps in the Applications folder is for ease in upgrading. When you go to the next version of the OS it expects certain files to be in certain places and named properly. There are other apps that also require you to have not changed the name or moved parts of the app.

That said you can move the Apple apps to other locations and they will be found for general use but expect possible problems when you update a program. If you always do an archive and install it won't matter of course. At one point in the past I had iTunes and iPhoto on another partition due to space problems. But now my drive is large enough to keep things together.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2006, 01:40:37 AM by krissel »


A Techsurvivors founder

Offline tacit

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
    • View Profile
    • http://www.xeromag.com/
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2006, 04:20:47 PM »
QUOTE(sandbox @ Dec 20 2006, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well that's a drag. They also claim that spamassasin gives your domain a score of 15.
Did you have a form back in Feb. when the complaint was lodged?


Yep, I sure did. When I wrote to the SiteAdvisor staff back then, they said that the form was probably the reason that my site was listed.

I rewrote the form so that it mangles the email addresses of users who post in it. I dropped an email to SiteAdvisor letting them know about the change, and received a reply the next day saying that the site would be removed from their list.

Instead of removing it, they actually increased its "threat level"--it used to be "yellow," now it's "red." They also redlisted every site that links to it--and that is a whole lot of sites.

The pragmatic side of me suspects their redlisting is mere incompetence, the sort of laziness you see in any business or entity that operates with no oversight whatsoever. The cynic in me suggests that maybe some employees of McAfee have a personal agenda of their own, and redlisted the site because they do not like what I have to say.
A whole lot about me: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2006, 02:46:03 AM »
I had noticed the RED listing. wink.gif

Is there no way the FTC or a third party could intervene?

Maybe a good ol anti SiteAdvisor campaign would tune them up? Or maybe your already doing that and their reaction has increased the level?

If there is no oversight there really isn't much you can do, is there?  coolio.gif

Offline tacit

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
    • View Profile
    • http://www.xeromag.com/
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2006, 06:54:28 PM »
QUOTE(sandbox @ Dec 21 2006, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I had noticed the RED listing. wink.gif

Is there no way the FTC or a third party could intervene?

Maybe a good ol anti SiteAdvisor campaign would tune them up? Or maybe your already doing that and their reaction has increased the level?

If there is no oversight there really isn't much you can do, is there?  coolio.gif


Unfortunately, no. There's not much I can do.

I wrote an email to them again at the beginning of the week; as of today (Thursday), I have received no response. I can understand what they are attempting to do, and even admire it; unfortunately, the site seems to work with no accountability and without even any stated policy on how a site becomes listed, nor any stated policy or procedure by which a person may challenge that listing.
A whole lot about me: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Offline Xairbusdriver

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 26083
  • 27" iMac (mid-17), Mac mini, both 10.14.6
    • View Profile
    • Mid-South Weather
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2006, 07:58:26 PM »
QUOTE("krissel")
The main reason Apple "recommends" putting their apps in the Applications folder is for ease in upgrading. When you go to the next version of the OS it expects certain files to be in certain places and named properly. There are other apps that also require you to have not changed the name or moved parts of the app.
That's exactly my point! But the ease is for the Apple installer/updater, not the customer. Apple designed they OS and the updaters to specificly not perform any kind of search, all they do is sniff for the app in the "Applications" directory ( either yours or the hard drives ) if it ain't there, and despite the fact that its dom file is where it's supposed to be, the installer simply quits.

Of course, third-party developers can't take that monopolistic, Microsoft inspired attitude, they depend on goodwill and customer satisfaction, so they make upgrades simple even if somewhat more computer intensive. But they don't require rigid compliance with procedures that make using the computer and maintaining its logical arrangement of apps/documents less than personal. I feel for those who have an Application folder crammed to overflowing with every conceivable app they ever 'installed'! WOW.gif That, simply chaos, IMHO.

Spotlight was not designed to find applications. Why would it have been, if everyone followed Apples rules? dntknw.gif Secondly, if Spotlight is so handy and is used by so many other developers, why shouldn't Apple use it for its own operations, like finding its own apps? You can't have it both ways. Either Apple is to stupid to use its own technology or it just doesn't care about.

If you want to use a single Documents folder, fine. But that's no better than having Documents folders for each app. I suppose that's what you mean you've done by having multiple folders and even sub folders. But there is no installer/ipdater that I know of that needs to 'see' where the docs for any program may be located, so I don't see what that has to do with my complaint about the "Applications" directory 'rule'.

I usually avoid the problem by simply moving Apple's apps to the Application folders top level so their crippled installers can do their thing. Fortunately, that is not too often, as they usually update the updater within a few days of making the first one available. harhar.gif As noted by many here, I usually wait a few months, until the final updater arrives! blush-anim-cl.gif That way I only have to move the Apple app twice, instead of twice for every new updater until the final one.

While Apple still makes the best consumer OS in the known universe, IMHO, that doesn't mean they are perfect ( as in every thing works the way I want it to ). I think that quality of "for the rest of us" is starting to disappear from the corporation. That is easy to do as they grow and the connection from the top to the customer gets further and further increased and crowded with 'managers' who are usually more concerned about their paycheck than making 'waves'. And the fact that His Steveness has a somewhat strong personality probably doesn't help.

Oh well, I need another shot of eggnog! And a few of my Great-Grandmother's cookies! yum.gif smile.gif
I don’t like the fact that my chances of survival seem to be linked to the common sense of others. :Thinking:
CAUTION! Childhood vaccinations cause adults! :yes:

Offline krissel

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 14691
    • View Profile
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2006, 03:48:39 AM »
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Dec 21 2006, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh well, I need ... a few of my Great-Grandmother's cookies! yum.gif smile.gif



 eek2.gif  Wow, they must be pretty hard by now.    getsick.gif   grinch.gif


A Techsurvivors founder

Offline Gregg

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 11748
    • View Profile
    • http://
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2006, 07:54:34 AM »
Internet Search is a game of chance. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Cupertino can have better TV reception.

Offline kimmer

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
    • View Profile
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2006, 10:51:20 AM »
QUOTE(krissel @ Dec 22 2006, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
eek2.gif  Wow, they must be pretty hard by now.    getsick.gif   grinch.gif

 rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif

That's what I thought. Maybe we should all send XABD a tin of *fresh* cookies?

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2006, 11:12:41 AM »
QUOTE(kimmer @ Dec 22 2006, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif

That's what I thought. Maybe we should all send XABD a tin of *fresh* cookies?




Enjoy  yum.gif http://www.selmas.com/
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 11:14:26 AM by sandbox »

Offline kimmer

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
    • View Profile
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2006, 11:30:15 AM »
^Oh yummy! I was thinking a tin of homemade ... but ... those do look yummy.

Offline Xairbusdriver

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 26083
  • 27" iMac (mid-17), Mac mini, both 10.14.6
    • View Profile
    • Mid-South Weather
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2006, 02:51:37 PM »
Not stale at all! I used to make them by the hundred's to hand out when stopping at different FedEx stations ( don't think I ever got to Canada in December, Karl! at least not after I got some seniority! smile.gif ). Now I just make them for my wife's DAR party, close friends and to keep my weight up! blush-anim-cl.gif

The original recipe was really for a kind of Ginger Snap, but by lowering the oven temp and shortening the cooking time, they end up being chewy! So far, no one has reported sickness due to under cooking! harhar.gif They are best when still warm, especially with ice-cold milk in a frosted glass! yum.gif
I don’t like the fact that my chances of survival seem to be linked to the common sense of others. :Thinking:
CAUTION! Childhood vaccinations cause adults! :yes:

Offline kimmer

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
    • View Profile
Study shows one in twenty-five search results are risky
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2006, 03:00:46 PM »
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Dec 22 2006, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The original recipe was really for a kind of Ginger Snap, but by lowering the oven temp and shortening the cooking time, they end up being chewy! So far, no one has reported sickness due to under cooking! harhar.gif They are best when still warm, especially with ice-cold milk in a frosted glass! yum.gif

Well, I'll share a cookie recipe if you will share this one with us. wink.gif