5 ms·

Yes, I've run afoul of the "download button" adverts before. I'm not surprised to see them on torrent sites etc, but it amazes me that some supposedly reputable

Yes, I've run afoul of the "download button" adverts before. I'm not surprised to see them on torrent sites etc, but it amazes me that some supposedly reputable download sites would allow such things.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Good rule of thumb is to look for the smallest "Download" link on the page.
- vermontdevil 14y ago
  Won't be long before this rule of thumb goes out of the window. They'll probably make a one by one pixel link that links to the clean download file.
  - philbarr 14y ago
    Maybe we could write a chrome/firefox plugin that highlights downloads that are from the same domain? Or perhaps hides non-domain ones? Would that clean up most of these issues? You'd probably have to have a button to toggle this on and off.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Most of these freeware download sites tend to use mirror sites for the actual downloads. The download link for the actual product will often really be a redirect to a page with a "your download will start in 5 seconds" and then some JS triggers the actual download. Even the legit download will usually offer you toolbars and crap anyway.
      - philbarr 14y ago
        We could add the most common mirror sites as exceptions, you could add your own, and of course you can always toggle it on and off? I think that may make it useful enough...
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        You could certainly create such a plugin, however those who would have the most use for it may not be those savvy enough to find and install it.
        philbarr 14y ago
        @jiggy2011 - oh, the irony...
    - lmm 14y ago
      Adblock covers the use case.
- bjustin 14y ago
  So true, the real one is almost always an ordinary looking link rather than a button.
TeMPOraL 14y ago
CNet/Download.com is not reputable. It's malware distributor. The best rule of thumb is: if it looks shady, don't go there ever again. Another: every good program has an author, and this author has a valid, non-malware-installing link on his/her website.
- evolve2k 14y ago
  If this is true then I imagine there is space for a trustworthy curated library which can replace CNET.
  - veidr 14y ago
    On OS X, there is MacUpdate. Not curated, but user-unfettered. There used to be another very similar one, called VersionTracker, which was much more popular... and then it was acquired by CNET. And everybody gradually stopped using it. There's probably some kind of lesson hiding in there somewhere...
  - jakub_g 14y ago
    Filehippo.com and Oldapps.com give the real, original installers, not the crap-wrapped. Sadly, both sites usually are not in top 5 in Google, so you need to know of their existence. Actually I rarely use them, addiction to Google is too big (though I usually go to the author's page from the results list). But when I can't find a 'normal' installer it's awesome to have them.
- cookingrobot 14y ago
  I learned this the hard way just the other day - installed an app from them and ended up with half a dozen adware installs as a side effect of their installer. I used to think that cnet was above board, but apparently they're not anymore.
slavak 14y ago
This is why I have no moral qualms about using AdBlock on most of the internet. I made the mistake of disabling it on one such download site once, and it took me a while to find the actual download link in the mess of DOWNLOAD! ads. Then I went back to having plenty of whitespace on that page... For me blocking advertisements online is no longer about blacklisting bad sites, but whitelisting the few good ones I want to support.
smacktoward 14y ago
Seriously. Take a look at the official site for the excellent open-source Windows graphics editor Paint.NET, for instance: http://www.getpaint.net/ http://www.getpaint.net/ Now tell me where you are supposed to click to download the actual application. It confuses me, and I'm an experienced user who knows to look out for these sorts of things. I have no idea how normal people ever find the damn thing. My question is: whose fault is this? Is it Paint.NET's, for allowing the ads onto their site? Or is it the ad network's (Google, in this case), for accepting the ads into their network?
- tanzam75 14y ago
  The blame belongs to both. Google should not allow ANY ads that contain a Download button, when the page has a link containing the text "Download." These ads can have no other purpose but to confuse users who are looking to download software. The problem is that Google makes money from these ads, and these ads have fantastic clickthrough rates. If they banned these types of ads, they'd make less money. The author of Paint.NET is making good money every time a user mistakenly clicks on such an ad. This money also reduces his incentive to get rid of the confusing ad. I get around this problem by running an ad-blocker, so I only see the one legitimate download link. But most users do not.
  - smacktoward 14y ago
    The problem is that Google makes money from these ads, and these ads have fantastic clickthrough rates. If they banned these types of ads, they'd make less money. This is how industries get regulated -- when they refuse to regulate themselves. I hope Google realizes that and takes action on their own initiative...
- pit 14y ago
  Pardon me, but Paint.NET is not open-source. "You may not modify, adapt, rent, lease, loan, sell, or create derivative works based upon the Software or any part thereof." I did find this, but I've never used it: http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/ http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/

jiggy2011 14y ago

Good rule of thumb is to look for the smallest "Download" link on the page.

vermontdevil 14y ago
Won't be long before this rule of thumb goes out of the window. They'll probably make a one by one pixel link that links to the clean download file.
- philbarr 14y ago
  Maybe we could write a chrome/firefox plugin that highlights downloads that are from the same domain? Or perhaps hides non-domain ones? Would that clean up most of these issues? You'd probably have to have a button to toggle this on and off.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Most of these freeware download sites tend to use mirror sites for the actual downloads. The download link for the actual product will often really be a redirect to a page with a "your download will start in 5 seconds" and then some JS triggers the actual download. Even the legit download will usually offer you toolbars and crap anyway.
    - philbarr 14y ago
      We could add the most common mirror sites as exceptions, you could add your own, and of course you can always toggle it on and off? I think that may make it useful enough...
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        You could certainly create such a plugin, however those who would have the most use for it may not be those savvy enough to find and install it.
      - philbarr 14y ago
        @jiggy2011 - oh, the irony...
  - lmm 14y ago
    Adblock covers the use case.
bjustin 14y ago
So true, the real one is almost always an ordinary looking link rather than a button.

TeMPOraL 14y ago

CNet/Download.com is not reputable. It's malware distributor. The best rule of thumb is: if it looks shady, don't go there ever again. Another: every good program has an author, and this author has a valid, non-malware-installing link on his/her website.

evolve2k 14y ago
If this is true then I imagine there is space for a trustworthy curated library which can replace CNET.
- veidr 14y ago
  On OS X, there is MacUpdate. Not curated, but user-unfettered. There used to be another very similar one, called VersionTracker, which was much more popular... and then it was acquired by CNET. And everybody gradually stopped using it. There's probably some kind of lesson hiding in there somewhere...
- jakub_g 14y ago
  Filehippo.com and Oldapps.com give the real, original installers, not the crap-wrapped. Sadly, both sites usually are not in top 5 in Google, so you need to know of their existence. Actually I rarely use them, addiction to Google is too big (though I usually go to the author's page from the results list). But when I can't find a 'normal' installer it's awesome to have them.
cookingrobot 14y ago
I learned this the hard way just the other day - installed an app from them and ended up with half a dozen adware installs as a side effect of their installer. I used to think that cnet was above board, but apparently they're not anymore.

slavak 14y ago

This is why I have no moral qualms about using AdBlock on most of the internet. I made the mistake of disabling it on one such download site once, and it took me a while to find the actual download link in the mess of DOWNLOAD! ads. Then I went back to having plenty of whitespace on that page... For me blocking advertisements online is no longer about blacklisting bad sites, but whitelisting the few good ones I want to support.

smacktoward 14y ago

Seriously. Take a look at the official site for the excellent open-source Windows graphics editor Paint.NET, for instance: http://www.getpaint.net/ http://www.getpaint.net/ Now tell me where you are supposed to click to download the actual application. It confuses me, and I'm an experienced user who knows to look out for these sorts of things. I have no idea how normal people ever find the damn thing. My question is: whose fault is this? Is it Paint.NET's, for allowing the ads onto their site? Or is it the ad network's (Google, in this case), for accepting the ads into their network?

tanzam75 14y ago
The blame belongs to both. Google should not allow ANY ads that contain a Download button, when the page has a link containing the text "Download." These ads can have no other purpose but to confuse users who are looking to download software. The problem is that Google makes money from these ads, and these ads have fantastic clickthrough rates. If they banned these types of ads, they'd make less money. The author of Paint.NET is making good money every time a user mistakenly clicks on such an ad. This money also reduces his incentive to get rid of the confusing ad. I get around this problem by running an ad-blocker, so I only see the one legitimate download link. But most users do not.
- smacktoward 14y ago
  The problem is that Google makes money from these ads, and these ads have fantastic clickthrough rates. If they banned these types of ads, they'd make less money. This is how industries get regulated -- when they refuse to regulate themselves. I hope Google realizes that and takes action on their own initiative...
pit 14y ago
Pardon me, but Paint.NET is not open-source. "You may not modify, adapt, rent, lease, loan, sell, or create derivative works based upon the Software or any part thereof." I did find this, but I've never used it: http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/ http://code.google.com/p/openpdn/