Throw away your camera. Tests on Smartphones Shown to Outperform DSLR's!

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:05:36 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

While the author of http://tinyurl.com/gobdx94 should watch his use of
apostrophes, the reader of the linked article should read the fine
print at the bottom.

that's a perfect reason to *not* use a url shortener.

I could have given you

http://savinghomeownerstips.com/hdfx...867-4163-8000-
000000000000__vpid..127cd000-e7b3-11e5-8a7b-00d7011a844c__caid..fde875f8-c7f8-
4632-8b86-f43367148810__rt..R__lid..a629195e-eb97-4f2e-a80f-c752f23ed8bc__oid1.
.09271f50-c98c-4792-b467-c37aac5aba51__var1..hdfx1__rd..news\.\yahoo\.\com_ _ai
d..__sid..&s4=hdfx1

that's the same spam link it redirects to.

either way, it's bogus.

you link redirects to a page at the following site:
http://savinghomeownerstips.com/

That's strange. Both the TinyURL and the full address that I have just
given you take me directly to where I intended you to go. I think the
problem is at your end.

nope. the same thing happened to savageduck.

the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

doesn't matter. the site is a spam site.

See my latest reply to Savageduck.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:02:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:59:59 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

While the author of http://tinyurl.com/gobdx94 should watch his use
of
apostrophes, the reader of the linked article should read the fine
print at the bottom.

that's a perfect reason to *not* use a url shortener.

I could have given you

http://savinghomeownerstips.com/hdfx...-e867-4163-800
0-


000000000000__vpid..127cd000-e7b3-11e5-8a7b-00d7011a844c__caid..fde875f8-c7f
8-

4632-8b86-f43367148810__rt..R__lid..a629195e-eb97-4f2e-a80f-
c752f23ed8bc__oid1
..09271f50-c98c-4792-b467-
c37aac5aba51__var1..hdfx1__rd..news\.\yahoo\.\com_ _a
id..__sid..&s4=hdfx1

you link redirects to a page at the following site:
http://savinghomeownerstips.com/

That's strange. Both the TinyURL and the full address that I have just
given you take me directly to where I intended you to go. I think the
problem is at your end.

Nope! The problem is you are posting a URL to a spam, and email harvesting
site, using bots. Safe browsers and search sites such as Google will use
the
“Robots exclusion protocol� and not permit the crawler injected by your
site to access vulnerable date on the computer of the individual attempting
to open the URL.

I get the same result as nospam, a blank, and so does Google who has this
to
say:
"A description for this result is not available because of this
site'srobots.txt(http://lifestylesresearchinfo.com/robots.txt)�
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608?hl=en&rd=1


the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any
other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

OK! I was able to open that, which confirms that it is SPAM.
Note the header which reads, “Advertorial�.

That is followed up by a bunch of BS claims and the fat disclaimer:

"THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER
PROTECTION UPDATE.�

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

"THE STORY DEPICTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE STORY ARE NOT
ACTUAL NEWS. RATHER, THIS STORY IS BASED ON THE RESULTS THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO
HAVE USED THESE PRODUCTS HAVE ACHIEVED. THE RESULTS PORTRAYED IN THE STORY
AND IN THE COMMENTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE, AND MAY NOT BE THE RESULTS THAT YOU
ACHIEVE WITH THESE PRODUCTS. THIS PAGE COULD RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR CLICKS
ON OR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FEATURED ON THIS SITE.�

So the basis in fact is zero.

....and once the thin veil of sheep’s clothing is lifted there is a clue as
to their true purpose, but not the whole story:

"ADVERTISING DISCLOSU This website and the products &services referred to
on the site are advertising marketplaces for flashlight products. This
website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of
persons used on this site are models. The owner of this site and of the
products and services referred to on this site only provides a service where
consumers can obtain and compare."

Please, please, please check what you are posting out before you spread the
disease.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

that results in the same blank page.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:02:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:59:59 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

While the author of http://tinyurl.com/gobdx94 should watch his use
of
apostrophes, the reader of the linked article should read the fine
print at the bottom.

that's a perfect reason to *not* use a url shortener.

I could have given you

http://savinghomeownerstips.com/hdfx...-e867-4163-800
0-


000000000000__vpid..127cd000-e7b3-11e5-8a7b-00d7011a844c__caid..fde875f8-c7f
8-

4632-8b86-f43367148810__rt..R__lid..a629195e-eb97-4f2e-a80f-
c752f23ed8bc__oid1
..09271f50-c98c-4792-b467-
c37aac5aba51__var1..hdfx1__rd..news\.\yahoo\.\com_ _a
id..__sid..&s4=hdfx1

you link redirects to a page at the following site:
http://savinghomeownerstips.com/

That's strange. Both the TinyURL and the full address that I have just
given you take me directly to where I intended you to go. I think the
problem is at your end.

Nope! The problem is you are posting a URL to a spam, and email harvesting
site, using bots. Safe browsers and search sites such as Google will use
the
“Robots exclusion protocol” and not permit the crawler injected by your
site to access vulnerable date on the computer of the individual attempting
to open the URL.

I get the same result as nospam, a blank, and so does Google who has this
to
say:
"A description for this result is not available because of this
site'srobots.txt(http://lifestylesresearchinfo.com/robots.txt)”
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608?hl=en&rd=1


the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any
other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

OK! I was able to open that, which confirms that it is SPAM.
Note the header which reads, “Advertorial”.

That is followed up by a bunch of BS claims and the fat disclaimer:

"THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER
PROTECTION UPDATE.”

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

"THE STORY DEPICTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE STORY ARE NOT
ACTUAL NEWS. RATHER, THIS STORY IS BASED ON THE RESULTS THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO
HAVE USED THESE PRODUCTS HAVE ACHIEVED. THE RESULTS PORTRAYED IN THE STORY
AND IN THE COMMENTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE, AND MAY NOT BE THE RESULTS THAT YOU
ACHIEVE WITH THESE PRODUCTS. THIS PAGE COULD RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR CLICKS
ON OR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FEATURED ON THIS SITE.”

So the basis in fact is zero.

...and once the thin veil of sheep’s clothing is lifted there is a clue as
to their true purpose, but not the whole story:

"ADVERTISING DISCLOSU This website and the products &services referred to
on the site are advertising marketplaces for flashlight products. This
website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of
persons used on this site are models. The owner of this site and of the
products and services referred to on this site only provides a service where
consumers can obtain and compare."

Please, please, please check what you are posting out before you spread the
disease.

[1] At the time of posting I saw no sign of a disease. I still don't.

[2] In my original post I wrote " the reader of the linked article
should read the fine print at the bottom". You seem to have overlooked
that.

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:13:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

that results in the same blank page.

Not to me. If Savageduck reports the same then it suggests the problem
is inherent in Apple. If he can see it while you still can't then it
suggests the problem is something more subtle.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:02:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:59:59 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric
Stevens
wrote:

While the author of http://tinyurl.com/gobdx94 should watch his
use
of
apostrophes, the reader of the linked article should read the
fine
print at the bottom.

that's a perfect reason to *not* use a url shortener.

I could have given you

http://savinghomeownerstips.com/hdfx...-e867-4163-800
0-

000000000000__vpid..127cd000-e7b3-11e5-8a7b-00d7011a844c__caid..fde875f8-c7f
8-

4632-8b86-f43367148810__rt..R__lid..a629195e-eb97-4f2e-a80f-
c752f23ed8bc__oid1
..09271f50-c98c-4792-b467-
c37aac5aba51__var1..hdfx1__rd..news\.\yahoo\.\com_ _a
id..__sid..&s4=hdfx1

you link redirects to a page at the following site:
http://savinghomeownerstips.com/

That's strange. Both the TinyURL and the full address that I have
just
given you take me directly to where I intended you to go. I think the
problem is at your end.

Nope! The problem is you are posting a URL to a spam, and email
harvesting
site, using bots. Safe browsers and search sites such as Google will
use
the
“Robots exclusion protocol� and not permit the crawler injected by
your
site to access vulnerable date on the computer of the individual
attempting
to open the URL.

I get the same result as nospam, a blank, and so does Google who has
this
to
say:
"A description for this result is not available because of this
site'srobots.txt(http://lifestylesresearchinfo.com/robots.txt)�
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608?hl=en&rd=1


the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at
my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any
other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

OK! I was able to open that, which confirms that it is SPAM.
Note the header which reads, “Advertorial�.

That is followed up by a bunch of BS claims and the fat disclaimer:

"THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER
PROTECTION UPDATE.�

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

"THE STORY DEPICTED ON THIS SITE AND THE PERSON DEPICTED IN THE STORY ARE
NOT
ACTUAL NEWS. RATHER, THIS STORY IS BASED ON THE RESULTS THAT SOME PEOPLE
WHO
HAVE USED THESE PRODUCTS HAVE ACHIEVED. THE RESULTS PORTRAYED IN THE STORY
AND IN THE COMMENTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE, AND MAY NOT BE THE RESULTS THAT YOU
ACHIEVE WITH THESE PRODUCTS. THIS PAGE COULD RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR
CLICKS
ON OR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FEATURED ON THIS SITE.�

So the basis in fact is zero.

...and once the thin veil of sheep’s clothing is lifted there is a clue
as
to their true purpose, but not the whole story:

"ADVERTISING DISCLOSU This website and the products&services referred to
on the site are advertising marketplaces for flashlight products. This
website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of
persons used on this site are models. The owner of this site and of the
products and services referred to on this site only provides a service
where
consumers can obtain and compare."

Please, please, please check what you are posting out before you spread the
disease.

[1] At the time of posting I saw no sign of a disease. I still don't.

This type of web site is problematic ant should not be spread.

[2] In my original post I wrote " the reader of the linked article
should read the fine print at the bottom". You seem to have overlooked
that.

....and that alone should have been enough to restrain you from clicking on
that send button.

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.

Fortunately as a Mac user my OS provided a degree of shielding, which I was
eventually able to work around to see the POS you shared. You should be
alarmed that you didn’t see the behaviour nospam and I reported. That
behaviour was a solid sign that the URL led to a toxic,sneaky, SPAM site.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

....but it wasn’t funny, stupid, but not funny.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:31:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasn’t funny, stupid, but not funny.

I'm sorry 'duck, but I'm not going to vet links for compatability with
your news reader and ISP before I post them. I could load the referred
site without any sign of problems and if you can't it's your problem
not mine. So please don't take your problems out on me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens