# Viglink links in private messages? Come on!



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

I got a private message from another user who referred to Xbox Live.

I was surprised that it was linked to an Amazon page of Xbox Live content. Then I noticed the pop-up where it said that the link was added by Viglink.

Is it really necessary to modify the contents of our private messages and insert advertising links in them? That seems really, really tacky to me.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

As the "victim" of this, I did not appreciate it at all. I understand why stuff like this happens with public posts (whether I approve or not). But in a PM? Definitely tacky, to say the least.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Hasn't this been on forever? I don't know that the plugin is smart enough to distinguish the source. In any event, I haven't seen these on any site since clicking on their opt out.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Previously reported here by me: *"VigLink" is molesting our posts*

And my opinion on "opting out" stands.

It's not that I don't want to see VigiLink links; I can easily block the scripts in my browser.

It's that I don't want the posts that I make, to be edited to include links that I didn't put there myself. That's poor form. It's misleading and scummy.

I put links in my posts myself when they are helpful to the reader, links to referenced software, how-to's, etc. I don't need (nor want) any automatic software editing the content I create, by adding in spammy links for others to see, thinking I put them there myself.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Mike Lang said:


> Hasn't this been on forever? I don't know that the plugin is smart enough to distinguish the source. In any event, I haven't seen these on any site since clicking on their opt out.


Regardless, we were told by Peter Redmer that VigiLink molestation should only be active for visitors (ie: "guests.") (Mention of it being "fixed" here.)

Seems that's not the case, if registered users are seeing it in Private Messages too.


----------



## Peter Redmer (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi everybody,

I think Mike is on to something in that VigLink must not be discriminating by source, but it still shouldn't be showing up in PM's. It should only be invoked if the user is a guest and this is not desired behavior.

I made one small change to how the code is implemented on the site that may help. Take a look at that PM again and see if it's showing up. Could you also forward that PM to me? (If it's showing up for you, I should be able to see it also, and it might help to troubleshoot)

I just tested the regular operation of Viglink several times and it seems to be continuing to work properly on the forums (showing up only for guests)

Pete


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

I've just checked my PMs and I no longer see Viglink links in the bodies.

I'll double check with the sender of the PM to see whether it's okay to forward the PM. It should be alright, but I want to ask first.

I'll note that PMs that I sent to the sender didn't have Viglink links, just the ones that I received from the sender.


----------



## Peter Redmer (Jan 2, 2008)

Understood. They are private, of course! 

The fact that you are no longer seeing links in the body is a good sign that the change I made may have had an effect.

Pete


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Thank you, Peter. 

I'd prefer that Vigilink not molest our posts for anyone (even guests) as it all feels a bit scummy and spammy to me. If that's simply not a reasonable option to consider, then I do at least appreciate that you keep it out of PMs and out of the view of registered guests.

I appreciate your attention and hard work here. You're the best admin TCF has ever had :up:


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Peter Redmer said:


> Understood. They are private, of course!
> 
> The fact that you are no longer seeing links in the body is a good sign that the change I made may have had an effect.
> 
> Pete


I can try to resend the same message to Marc again, and see what happens. Will do now.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I can try to resend the same message to Marc again, and see what happens. Will do now.


No links this time. Looks like whatever you did worked. Thanks!


----------



## SueAnn (Oct 24, 2004)

Peter rocks !


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Report it?


----------

