Hacker News Reader

Comment by forcer | Hacker News Reader

Thanks! The download link goes to CNET download.com where they make sure all software is trusted. but I understand we should improve the page so people actually feel reassured before they click on download.

View on HN

Ehm... if anything CNET will add malware, not remove it.

Was many years since I've downloaded anything off of download.com and I have a hard time believing that I ever will.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/nmap-warns-download-c...

I want to add to mock's point - I will trust you more if I could download it from your site than from download.com. It has become such a dump that I actively avoid visiting it. Why delegate the user experience of downloading your products to someone whose interests don't align with yours?

OK. Point taken. We have done some A/B tests and see that download rate is the same as from our website. The benefit of redirecting to download.com is that with increased rankings we get more users who visit download.com. I know these issues you said and I saw the articles on HN before. However, you can tell download.com to stop injecting offers into the installer which we did and there are no issues.

However, you can tell download.com to stop injecting offers into the installer which we did and there are no issues.

How are your users supposed to know that?

Also, you are know asking your users to trust both you and CNET.

Provide an S3 link if you are worried about bandwidth, where the name of your company is in the URL (ie, bucket name).

Well my point wasn't about the installer (although it is too a good point). I'm mostly talking about the UI and UX benefits of having a streamlined experience of downloading a product.

download.com does not make me trust you. It's a red flag that makes me think you're even more likely to be malware. Especially given this: http://insecure.org/news/download-com-fiasco.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com