Minichan

Topic: Very gross fake review for porn app

Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #25,880

Okay, so, you guys, I was reading this advertisement for a product called "Badoink", which is an onomatopoeia for what sex sounds like or the conception of an erection or something like that. Anywho, there are all these "reviews" on the page, and they are all fake, overly positive, obtuse, obviously written by whoever made the advertisement. One of the reviews read as follows: Finally a Porn Developer that understands the Android
Logan343Worm 2/25/13

Add some sperm to your Ice Cream Sandwich!

> Add some sperm to your ice cream sandwich

Yes, yes, yes. Now, I know what they are alluding to here, but it doesn't make it much less unappealing. Dear, God.

Here is the site if you care to look:

www.badoink.com/mobile/android_offer/v10/index.php?t=1156&aid=102226&sid=0628_305x99_366&utm_source=Trafficjunky_PHhead_flat&utm_term=&utm_medium=Trafficjunky_PHhead_flat&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Trafficjunky_PHhead_flat

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #392,576

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #392,578

I've had both sex and erections numerous times, and never, ever did I hear a "badoink" sound.

Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #392,580

I have this drag feature from Firefox. Drag across Badoink and a scam report one of four

http://www.scambook.com/company/view/66526/Badoinkcom

This read is almost funny - Dude does not do porn but recommends?

http://www.feedhook.com/reviews/badoink/

http://www.badappreviews.com/apps/10650

Seems one pays a lot of cash for a crash but hey there is this new app called Google.

If I want to see a nakkid girl holding a cup of espresso I bet I could find it for freeeee.

Lots more negative reviews and the only quick positive review was that of someone who does not look at porn LOLOLOL

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #392,581

Oh, also one of the reviews is by "Gary Newman" ie Gary Numan, amongst the sex/masturbation puns and double entendres is a reference to 80's synthpop icon. Huh.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,611

@392,580 (Syntax)
Yeah, good luck. Dunno if you noticed, but Google censors that stuff now. Safe search is no longer optional.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,612

@previous (E)
LOLno

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,614

@previous (F)
You could have gotten that off bing. Show the google results.

Anonymous E double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,615

@392,612 (F)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=4&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=IY0GOT4tuoLm80GnE9bsGw&cp=9&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=naked+espresso&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmg&biw=1600&bih=771&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yDorUZLXB-KT0QHcw4GACg

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=4&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=IY0GOT4tuoLm80GnE9bsGw&cp=9&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=naked+espresso&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmg&biw=1600&bih=771&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yDorUZLXB-KT0QHcw4GACg#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=nude+espresso&oq=nude+espresso&gs_l=img.12..0i24l2.39057.40569.0.42975.5.5.0.0.0.0.103.304.4j1.5.0...0.0...1c.1.4.img.hVl3xu8gZMA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmQ&fp=3f860ea63a9fefaf&biw=1600&bih=771

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=4&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=IY0GOT4tuoLm80GnE9bsGw&cp=9&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=naked+espresso&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmg&biw=1600&bih=771&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yDorUZLXB-KT0QHcw4GACg#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=porn+nude+espresso&oq=porn+nude+espresso&gs_l=img.12...12741.16801.4.19177.10.10.0.0.0.0.65.498.10.10.0...0.0...1c.1.4.img.R5XzjLxEIrU&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmQ&fp=3f860ea63a9fefaf&biw=1600&bih=771

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,616

Image went missing@392,614 (E)

Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,617

@392,611 (E)
Actually they just changed it so you have to put in a keyword like "porn" or "nude". So searching for "Kyla Cole" will get you mainly SFW images, but searching for "Kyla Cole porn" will get you NSFW images just like the good old days.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,618

Image went missing@392,615 (E)
WTF

Anyway, thanks for prompting me to do that. There is something sexy about naked women holding coffee. I think I'm into coffee porn now.

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 second later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,619

Just another example of how full of shit Google is:

Google results for "pussy":
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=4&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=IY0GOT4tuoLm80GnE9bsGw&cp=9&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=naked+espresso&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmg&biw=1600&bih=771&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yDorUZLXB-KT0QHcw4GACg#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=pussy&oq=pussy&gs_l=img.12...49205.49985.14.52204.6.6.0.0.0.0.46.263.6.6.0...0.0...1c.1.4.img.Im01Vy7uiyg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmQ&fp=3f860ea63a9fefaf&biw=1600&bih=771

Google results for "pussy pussy":
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=4&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=IY0GOT4tuoLm80GnE9bsGw&cp=9&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=naked+espresso&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmg&biw=1600&bih=771&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=yDorUZLXB-KT0QHcw4GACg#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=pussy+pussy&oq=pussy+pussy&gs_l=img.3...77417.79355.16.79863.6.6.0.0.0.0.92.342.6.6.0...0.0...1c.1.4.img.qDDcahk_eio&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dmQ&fp=3f860ea63a9fefaf&biw=1600&bih=771

Bing results for "pussy":
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pussy&FORM=HDRSC2

Yeah, Bing is the clear winner, and what the fuck is with Google's ridiculous search URLs? Fuck them.

Anonymous E double-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,621

@392,617 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Well I tried "naked espresso porn" but still did not get explicit images despite specifying. If it did turn up explicit images, they were not relevant to naked women holding coffee, because there are plenty of images of nude women holding coffee that do not have "porn" as a tag and as a result get pushed out of the results or pushed way down as if they are not relevant even though they're exactly what you're looking for. So, google is completely full of shit.

Also, note my post above where I compare searching for "pussy pussy" on Google vs searching for "pussy" on Bing. Even with Google's retarded extra step of typing it twice to get explicit results it's very clear that bing is better and google is censoring results. What kind of retarded search engine gives different results by typing a word twice? Google, that's who.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 20 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,622

Image went missing@392,619 (E)
Tons of pussy happening.

Anonymous F double-posted this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,623

Image went missingI'll just post some more coffee porn. Sorry your Google is broken, Anon E.

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,625

Externally hosted image@392,622 (F)
This is what I get using the US site. You are either using the Google results of another country where they have not yet implemented it or you are showing an old screencap. They have disabled the ability to turn off safesearch completely and Google results no longer look like that. I posted links so that people can see for themselves.
If you want to tell me how I can get Google results in the old style just like that, I'm all ears. Until then I call bullshit and my links prove it.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 0 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,626

This one has a naked woman, coffee, and a cat! Fucking spectacular.

Anonymous F double-posted this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,631

Image went missing@392,625 (E)
> You are either using the Google results of another country where they have not yet implemented it
I'm in the US..

> you are showing an old screencap.
You're right. I keep dated screencaps of image searches for 'pussy' and 'nekkid woman holding coffee' lying around for occasions such as this.

> They have disabled the ability to turn off safesearch completely
LOL They really haven't.

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,633

@previous (F)
Yes they have.
http://www.webpronews.com/google-safesearch-changes-hit-the-u-k-australia-new-zealand-and-more-2013-01

Like I said, if you wanna explain how, I'm all ears, or at least post links to prove it like I did. They have removed the ability to turn off safe search completely and that is a fact. It's not just my computer. People are talking about it all over the internet.

Are you on an iPad or other mobile device by chance? I've heard that they haven't changed it for a few mobile sites.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,636

Image went missing@previous (E)
No, I'm on a laptop. Try telling Google you are using a horribly outdated browser. Send them a UA string for SeaMonkey 1.1.8 or something. You should still get the "old style" results.

Oh BTW, There is a name showing in the pic you posted @392,625 (E). If that bothers you, some of our friendly mods might help remove the post for you if you PM them.

DXMeowth joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,678

@392,625 (E)
You're wrong. I still have my safe search option and I'm in California...

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,863

@previous (DXMeowth)
Yeah, OK, all the articles all over the internet regarding it are just government propaganda then, and I'm a fucking liar even though I have links and screencaps to prove it.

You're one of the few, or you're using a device that Google hasn't changed over yet.

Anonymous E double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,864

@392,636 (F)
Lots of people have sent complaints to Google. Maybe bother reading up on the subject. They don't care. I've tried on several different up to date browsers. Google won't help because they don't consider a problem. It's an official change and they're backing it, even if just because they won't admit that they've made a mistake.

HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,867

If someone came on my ice cream sandwich, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,871

@392,864 (E)
I think you are misunderstanding what I have said. Try sending an older UA string when using Google. There are plenty of extensions for Chrome and FF that will do this on a per domain basis, and there are developer tools that allow you to selectively change HTTP headers that should also be able to accomplish this. Pretending to be an older browser may help.

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #392,899

@previous (F)
Sorry, just frustrated with other posters saying things like "You're wrong" instead of being rationale, which you clearly are.

Is there an extension you might recommend?

DXMeowth replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,921

@previous (E)
LOL. Sorry man, I had to do it, but in all seriousness I still have the option to turn it on and off on the top right next to the text field.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,923

@392,899 (E)
Any user agent switcher extension should work.

You seem to be using Chromium, so you can test it using built-in the dev tools first. The Board kept eating my longer posts, so a step-by-step description of what is happening in the screencap is available here in a pastebin.

If you get that working, you can put in a user agent switcher extension so all that happens in the background. In case you don't want to pretend to be an outdated browser for every site on the web, the User Agent Switcher extension for Chrome has a "permanent spoof list" so you can set it to send certain user agent strings to certain domains and not others. Firefox has a bunch of extensions that will do the same. As long as Google thinks you are using an outdated browser, you will get the older-style Google Image results page as well.

DXMeowth replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,929

@previous (F)
See, I use Chromium but maybe it's because I haven't updated it in a good while.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,933

@previous (DXMeowth)
Using an updated version of Chromium, I was able to get the same results he was showing. Fucking around with the user agent seemed to take care of it. I usually don't use an updated version Chromium though, so I didn't see what he was talking about at first. :\

DXMeowth replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,934

@previous (F)
Now it all makes sense. The only time I really update my Chromium is if I do a complete reinstall of my OS.

Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #392,935

@392,612 (F)
@392,871 (F)
No shit ya all looked and found a nakkid gal with a cup of Java.

Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #393,762

@392,923 (F)
Thank you, that works. There's a Google forum where 270 different users were all raging over this, bitching about Google refusing to give them their unfiltered results back. They were even going to Google sites of other countries that had not done the change over yet, but Google was quickly changing them over as well. Out of almost 700 posts, no one posted anything about this.

I went ahead and posted your solution there so that all 270 users stumped by this have a real solution and can give a big FU to the fascists at Google. Everyone visiting the forum searching for a solution will see it as well. You're their hero, Anon F.

Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #393,843

@previous (E)
Yay! Glad I could help.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.