Hi Vorpal, and many thanks for your valuable contribution - I can confirm that, initially, I was unable to discover anything untowards myself, although I was eventually redirected from the MediaCoder console to an Amazon webpage which shouldn't happen. I then checked the license agreement on a second install, and found the following:


Browsing to the opencandy website, it is clear the WOT community consider that site a risk as per comments here: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/opencandy.com.

We have therefore decided to withdraw our support for MediaCoder, and although a useful piece of software, it's a great shame they have decided to use the services of sites with negative ratings and questionable tactics.

Thanks again for your support and assistance on this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Kind Regards
Marko

Hi Marko, et al,

I'm Dr. Apps, the Software Community Guru for OpenCandy. My job is to listen to the user and develop community and provide feedback to the OpenCandy team.

I love WoT and there's a great community of people (of which I'm a part) rating websites for the benefit of everyone. Since WoT ratings are user-generated there are bound to be inconsistencies and yes, currently OpenCandy's ratings are conflicting. The reason for that, however unfortunate, is that some people are adamantly opposed to anything that has to do with making money from software. And no matter how hard we work to provide a USER-centric way to do it, there will always be people who disagree with us. Given how bad we (as users) have been treated throughout the years, it's not surprising to see that some people have rushed to judgement about us without doing their homework first.

Just as FreewareBB relies on Adsense for generating revenue to support the site, consumer software providers (whether freeware, open source, and sometimes shareware) need to be able to generate revenue to support their projects and users. The very reason we exist is because there was a lack of a legitimate, user-friendly (i.e. recommendations are opt-in only, only for high-quality software, etc) way for developers to make money from their software's distribution. In the case of freeware or open source, we enable those developers and companies to continue to keep their software free, provide support for their users and provide an additional incentive for them to make sure their apps are the best available.

While a software recommendation made during the installation (and in our case, ONLY during installation) of a piece of software is an ad, I don't believe that it makes the underlying software adware. Simply because (again, at least in our case) the underlying functionality of the app itself (and the user's system) is NOT changed in any way. I think that we (users, security & privacy advocates, etc) need to come up with a term to accurately describe an app whose installer is being monetized while also accurately labeling the underlying software's actual licensing type. Maybe (for freeware), "Freeware with ad-supported installer" or something like that.

Regarding the type of information we collect: it's anonymous and non-personally identifiable (and we do NOT store IP addresses). Specifics are listed here: http://www.opencandy.com/faqs/#running-an-...wered-installer. We also have extensive faqs available about what we do, how we go about doing it and what happens during the recommendation process: http://opencandy.com/faqs.

It's not my intention (or place) to try and convince anyone they should like OpenCandy (not everyone will like everything in life). But rather to be part of the conversation and listen to feedback because then we are doing the best we can to accomplish our mission... which is to try and make the software world a better place (fuel competition, innovation, prosperity to benefit all).

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to DM me here or you can use our contact form at http://opencandy.com/contact and I'd be happy to listen and help any way I can.

Be well everyone! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Andrew, we always welcome discussion and debate, particularly when it comes to matters such as this. Your considered and informed approach goes some way towards reassuring me personally of your honourable intentions although we nevertheless still have slight issues.

First and foremost, I myself found that I was redirected to a page I didn't ask for whilst using MediaCoder, I asked for something, the specifics of which I can't remember, but the problem was I asked for something within MediaCoder which should have been to do with MediaCoder, but it wasn't, instead it was a page from Amazon. Secondly, I was not given the option to opt-in to any form of sponsorship from MediaCoder, it was simply in the license agreement which, lets face it, nobody reads, they should, but they don't. If an opt-in had been present, chances are very few would have opted in at all. I can then only assume this is the reason an opt-in isn't present.

We can compare the advertisements from freewarebb to the methods used in MediaCoder and other software of a similar nature, however with freewarebb it is clear what you get, you get advertisements in a particular place which are there to hopefully compliment the content in which it appears. By this, I mean if someone is looking for an audio converter and see's an advertisement for an paid audio converter which will do everything they want (whereas the freeware version may not) then by clicking this ad they will be taken to the product page and can consider purchasing it if no suitable freeware version is available. We would never force anything on our users in an obtrusive way, that is why we never have and never will employ popups or inline text ads. Our ads are there, yes, although they won't just appear out of the blue, and 99% of internet users would expect to see this type of sponsorship on a website, it's more or less became the standard nowadays which also goes some way towards understanding why many are seeking alternative ways to serve ads as the visitor becomes 'blind' to these ads.

I personally can understand the need for advertisements, I couldn't run this site without the income (however little) generated from them, but developers are free to do the same on their websites which many do, although when we see ads displayed within the software itself or the software redirects us to advertisements, and in particular when that software can monitor us (however impersonal or anonymous) this is something that reduces confidence, and can be considered somewhat invasive, particularly as we do not know the ages of people taking part in these programs, whether they have knowledge of the program or not.

This, together with the poor ratings in WOT, all leads to a lack of confidence in the developer, the ad distributor and ultimately anyone becoming involved in the program.

Hope that explains the situation and thanks for taking the time to respond here.
Kind Regards
Marko

Marko,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I can only speak on behalf of OpenCandy and not MediaCoder, but I'd like to clarify a couple of things.

What I can say, with 100% certainty, is that the Amazon redirection is NOT related to OpenCandy in any way.

Software publishers using OpenCandy to monetize their distribution are essentially doing it for the same reason you use AdSense; to support their passion by providing a complimentary offer for another piece of software. When a user sees an opt-in software recommendation powered by OpenCandy the choice to download and install it is theirs (which is how it should be).

The accepted "norm" on the web is that we (users) do NOT have to to opt-in to be shown ads when visiting a site. Nor do we have to opt-in to providing anonymous information whilst visiting a page (not to the site owner, and usually, not to Google, if the site uses Google Analytics or Adsense, nor to any similar similar web analytics service from anyone else). The downloable software space is understandably much more sensitive because of how the installation process has been abused over the years (surreptitious installation of (dubious) software, malware, etc). Which ties back to why we exist... to do this the right way.

We strive to not only provide an easy way for users to discover high-quality software but to do it with two guiding principles: Disclosure and Transparency. Disclosure is letting people know something exists, transparency means being out in the open about what it is and does. In addition to our extensive FAQs, the Powered by OpenCandy program is another way we're helping the transparency part of the equation. It was unveiled a few months ago to help our publisher partners provide information (on their website) about their participation on the OpenCandy platform. Not every publisher partner (those who make recommendations) has completed a Powered by OpenCandy page currently.

As far as WoT is concerned, as more people have taken the time to learn, analyze or research what we do and how we do it, our ratings have increased. We still have a ways to go, and as I said before, not everyone is going to like OpenCandy, but I think the majority of people are supportive of what we're doing. We all know that with the Internet, people are most vocal when they disagree with something (I think that's life in general actually). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

We're a young company (we just "turned 2" and have been "public" for 16 months or so) trying to do (installer-based) software distribution and monetization the right way and we are constantly learning by listening to the relevant communities which helps shape our platform in a way that is beneficial to all of us (developers, users and OC's vision for helping drive better software and user-experiences).

Thanks again for the conversation, it's important for everyone.

Hi again Andrew, I agree it's important to have this discussion, unfortunately as it stands I would find it difficult to re-approve MediaCoder as it would appear there may be more going on with this particular app than possibly meets the eye, particularly when I experienced issues myself, although I appreciate this is a seperate issue and not necessarily related to OpenCandy, however as responsible webmasters we do have to set certain standards which safeguard both us and our users and part of this process involves WOT. It's probable to assume that not everyone gets it right all of the time, even WOT, but nevertheless, we do have to keep a standard and where this is considered to be wrong I would strongly recommend the afflicted party (i.e. OpenCandy) seeks redress to that resource (i.e. WOT).

If this were to happen to us, we would move heaven and earth so all I can suggest is you or others from OpenCandy challenge the information held in WOT as being incorrect as my past experience is they are extremely responsive and very proactive, especially when putting things straight. If you do decide to go down that road, please do keep us updated.

Kind Regards
Marko