That’s a good technical answer, but it automatically implies the next question: Why don’t they audit the site periodically with the specific intent of watching for advertising abuses?
Hell, leave out “periodically”. That would be a good site maintenance practice, which would probably be too much to ask. How about “for the specific purpose of troubleshooting a reported problem?”
I’m a software engineer. If a user reports a bug, once the user has reported enough data to identify the location and circumstances of the bug, I attempt to reproduce the error in an environment similar to the bug report’s.
This is a bug. The environment is well documented. (Most forum pages, not logged in as employee or paid user.) I have seen no evidence of attempts to reproduce and confirm the bug.
The only action I saw in this entire thread is a query to the advertising contractor.
That’s “passing the buck”, and without specific detailed information, I’m sure they don’t feel any incentive to act. After all, their customer isn’t really being inconvenienced. (“Their customer” is the site. We, the site’s population, are the site’s customer. Our pain is not necessarily the site’s pain, and almost certainly not the advertising agent’s pain.)
I suspect the advertiser’s perspective is “that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.” They make money from every ad they display, even if it’s one against the stated wishes of the website they contract with. They only lose money if their website partner breaks it off because of it, and in this case, I’m not seeing much danger of that based on the efforts I’ve seen so far.
Of course, I could be wrong. This could all be playing out in tense unseen negotiations between SMDB and the advertisers. We may already be on the verge of having the issue resolved. I certainly hope so. But the action to date doesn’t support how I pictured the process working, so I remain dubious.