Great program. Absolutely terrible website. Where's the download link? I can't find it amidst the giant "download this crapware!" graphics all over the place.
It's quite obvious, the site is all static content so even if you can't tell the ads from the contents by their visual appearance, just press F5. It also quite literally says "download" right at the top:
On the second page, scroll down if you don't see the buttons. Notice that the advertisement has an AdChoices button (and it also changes on reload). Also, the instructions are right there underneath the ad:
On the final download page, there are obvious signs to tell where you should click. The download button is surrounded by a huge click target in a box that features an AdChoices button and if you look closely you'll see it quite literally says "Advertisement" (FFS). Most importantly, the page tells you to click the link labelled "Free Download Now" to the right, where the ad sits below.
I wouldn't say it is obvious. The ads you got when you took your screenshots weren't the most confusing that show up. Here is what I got on the site: http://imgur.com/a/WvFd6
First impression for me of the page is that the content is on the left, and the ads are on the right. That's because the part I have circled in red looks like Google-style text ads. My mental ad blocker filters them out.
The download button I have circled in yellow then sets off alarms. It's in what I have decided is an ad column, and the color reminds me a bit of the deceptive download ads CNET's download.com likes to use on their site to trick people into downloading the wrong thing.
I return to the left column, which I have identified as the content column. The download button there, which I have circled in green, is in a place where a download button would not be unexpected. This is the one I will probably click, unless the small, greyed out, notice that it is an add for "Free Zip" somehow catches my attention.
If instead of trying to download from the front page, I click the download link at the top, we get to the second page. What I'd do there depends on how tall my browser window is. If it is tall enough to show the real download section at the bottom, my attention would be drawn to that, because it looks enough like download sections at other places (because of the layout, and because it lists versions, sizes, and mirrors).
However, if that ends up not visible, then I'd probably click the ad I have circled in green. This ad fits right into the flow of the content and is a place where a download link for paint.net would make sense.
I think pages can be classified into "consumption" pages and "activity" pages. A consumption page is a page where the reader is there to consume the content of the page. For example, a product page at an online store would be a consumption page. The reader is there to read the information about the product. The front page of the paint.net site is a consumption page.
An activity page is a page where you are there to perform some activity. At an online store, the checkout page would be an activity page. At the paint.net site, the download page would be an activity page.
Third party ads on consumption pages can be fine. People on consumption pages are often just looking, and ads give a chance to get some money from such visits. When people get to activity pages, they have usually gone beyond the just looking stage. You've got them on the hook, and now you want to reel them in. There should be no outside temptations or distractions put up at that point.
Sites like this need to be called-out and shitlisted.
They have no regard for whether computers get infected. It's even worse when it's a site for supposedly "legitimate" software (or any download) allowing huge green [DOWNLOAD] buttons and deceptive ads. These links almost always lead to spyware/malware traps. We all know it. Many of us wonder about how many people it hurts. It's obvious to most of us to decipher what is/isn't a correct file. However, it isn't obvious to a general audience. And that's a very serious problem for anyone who actually cares about other people.
It's also a reason I leave adblocking off for general browsing. I like to see which sites are careless. Regarding Paint.NET itself, it's one of the closed-source programs I use sometimes while on Windows. Sure, it's a good step above MS Paint. (Maybe one of these days it'll have basic effects brushes too.) Yet any credit I would've given to their effort goes right out the window with a shameful site. But that's a calculation for revenue they're making: one they'll have to live with.
or use the following command line for expedited service:
>> cat complaint.txt >> /dev/null
As an advertiser, you have very limited options for controlling the ads. If you try to manage them one by one, you'll be playing whackamole for forever. Probably the most effective method is disallowing all ads for software on your pages (via the Ad Review Center interface, handy picture available here: http://www.seobook.com/images/google-get-rich-quick.png), but if you're a software company, that a) denies legitimate advertisers the ability to put ads on your page and b) will result in you making very, very little revenue.
If getpaint.net wants to maintain a site with deceptive ads, that's their explicit decision. I couldn't care less about their limited choices. Excuses like that are worth a null device. It's not up to anyone else to figure out for them how they should create an honest/ethical source of revenue. Likewise, complaining to Google is nearly a dead-end. The only decent solution is calling 'em out. Express disappointment and recommend against them. Maybe they'll care. Maybe they won't.
Yep. I blogged about the Sick, Sad State of Windows Apps [1] and gave the Paint.NET website as an example of a terrible experience downloading and installing apps.
This is why browsers show you the link target in the status when you hover a link. It reads "googleads..." when you hover it, so those who still think it's legitimate when they see that deserve to get pwned.
