Easy Duplicate File Finder

[guinness]

But it's true to say that the links you posted all the way back then were pointing to what appears to be official sites, somewhat different from a ZIP file located on a download website.

I think usdcs & webfork have both done an amazing job ensuring this forum is virtually spam free.

[webfork]

@ webfork: Good ideas, all.

Thanks

But it's true to say that the links you posted all the way back then were pointing to what appears to be official sites, somewhat different from a ZIP file located on a download website.

Yes but its more of an issue of not wanting to discourage anyone; I've had my links deleted out of hand on other forums when I posted and it destroyed any interest in participating. With the continued spam attempts, there's a real temptation to outright filter everything suspect, but I don't want to do that here.

I think usdcs & webfork have both done an amazing job ensuring this forum is virtually spam free.

Thanks guinness\.

[usdcs]

Yes, it is a delicate balancing act that we are trying to maintain. I thought quite awhile before I originally removed the link. It didn't occur to me to run the file through one of the online scanning services. But, I will do that in the future.

Given that the file came up clean, I couldn't, in good conscience, leave the link out. I figured that I'd leave it up to each individual to decide if they want to deal with the nagware. The last thing that I want to do is to discourage legitimate participation on the site.

If anyone feels that I make a mistake, PM me (or nudge me publicly, if necessary...) and I will do my best to make it right.

I mean this sincerely. I feel that I have gained so much from TPFC, and all of the contributors, which is why I volunteered to help Andrew. It is an honor and a privilege to serve you all.

Regards,
Dan

[joby_toss]

If anyone feels that I make a mistake, PM me (or nudge me publicly, if necessary...) and I will do my best to make it right.

No! Users should be allowed posting links only when they have 4 or more posts (there are many reasons for this)! Period!
You did nothing wrong!

[webfork]

No! Users should be allowed posting links only when they have 4 or more posts (there are many reasons for this)! Period! You did nothing wrong!

Obviously if spamming gets more intense and out of control, I'm going to change my mind on this, but I can imagine several situations where we would want to allow posters with less than 5 posts to include links:

• Software author tells us that actual home / download page is X. He or she doesn't have to be a regular here for that information to be valuable.
• Someone posts a negative or positive review about software to illustrate why they like/dislike it. We get enough meaningless "this just sucks" posts that a little more information would be nice.
• Linking to a picture with a better screenshot(s).

What I propose is just creating some type of extra step required to visit a less-than-5-poster's link.

I mean this sincerely. I feel that I have gained so much from TPFC, and all of the contributors, which is why I volunteered to help Andrew. It is an honor and a privilege to serve you all.

Agreed. I consider myself lucky to have a place like this to contribute to.

[guinness]

Linking to a picture with a better screenshot(s).

This would be great if it was actually true, rather than complaining about the ScreenShots.

[webfork]

This would be great if it was actually true, rather than complaining about the ScreenShots.

lol - nice

Obviously if spamming gets more intense and out of control

Wow, I think I just ate my words. I did a little digging for key words the last few hours editing/killing around 100 entries with some type of either spam or garbage responses. Lord. And with rare exception they were always entries with 5 or less posts. The others were users who would say something sort of on topic, then sneak in spam links later.

For reference, some of the keywords the spam loves (there's a period after the first character so I don't screw up my future searching): F.LV, M.P4, c.onversion, w.ealth, s.eo, m.oney, d.ebt.

[@rturo]

Sorry if you dont believe me because I only hacve 1 post (with this 2 lol) but I dont participate to much in forums but I always search this page for the updates and when I found that update I try to collaborate with this comunity

Regards
Arturo

[SYSTEM]

Sorry if you dont believe me because I only hacve 1 post (with this 2 lol) but I dont participate to much in forums but I always search this page for the updates and when I found that update I try to collaborate with this comunity

Regards
Arturo

This is exactly why I bothered to download and scan the file after usdcs deleted the link. Your post looked like constructive. I was able to see that you were trying to collaborate. I also appreciate that you do so, even though I still don't find the link too useful.

[MiDoJo]

The Version on this has greatly increased and it seems to be trialware now
http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1334

[I am Baas]

The Version on this has greatly increased and it seems to be trialware now
http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1334

Note: this software appears to have gone payware. If you have a copy of the last free version 2.4, please post to the forums.

[guinness]

I have an old version of Easy Duplicate Finder (V2.4) but I don't know what the license agreement says about redistribution.

[I am Baas]

I have an old version of Easy Duplicate Finder (V2.4) but I don't know what the license agreement says about redistribution.

This was the license for the free version:

This is a product of http://www.EasyDuplicateFinder.com

By installing this product, you agree to the following:

You accept that neither the developers, publishers, nor any other associates can be held responsible for any effect this software may have on your computer or to you in any way or form. This software includes all files installed by this program currently running.

If you do require support for this product, you may contact the developer at support@EasyDuplicateFinder.com.

[NickR]

On my version 2.4 zip - There is no licence.txt
When executed I see no mention of licence or freeware
on the screen or on the 'about' pane.
The 'about' pane however does display as a subtitle
'FREE DUPLICATE FILE FINDER'

On an earlier version 2.2.4 zip - There is a licence.txt
but it only specifies a damage waiver and
states no usage or distribution clauses. (neither here nor there)

Guinness is a better judge than I on such matters

[guinness]

Licensing is always a grey area for me, but it does mention nothing of redistribution. I'll wait to see what a Mod says.