Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ads?

Kelly wrote:

"It is really bizzare that some folks whine about "obtrusuve ads", but give NO mention of which ad, what thread it was on, what browser was used, etc. It seems like some of this childish whining is made up, since NO references are made to who, what, when, where, why. If you worked as a newspaper reporter or photographer you would be fired for lack of follow thru, ie no real facts, just BS."

 

That's because I didn't look at the ads long enough to remember what they were about. I also use several computers so I don't remember which browser it was. It could have been IE or Firefox 1.0.6, probably the latter. My point is really that these ads should not be allowed in the first place, irrespective of subscriber status. One of the greatest things Phil ever did was a site without obtrusive ads and with an user interace which was concentrated around getting the information. A higher cost of subscription and greater limits on what non-subscribers can do would be infinitely preferable to having ads flowing through the area where e.g. the forum list is, or on the main page on top of actual content.

 

I'm not trying to be "a reporter", and thus I haven't written down the details (I have other things to do thank you very much). I only wrote my post because I wanted to note to Brian that subscribers sometimes do se these ads (I know I was logged in because "My Workspace" text was there). Right now I can't see an ad at the top of the screen but that wasn't the case a couple of days ago, and they were getting worse.

 

I'm not saying that photo.net shouldn't have any ads. A box here and there, outside of the main text area is acceptable, but as soon as the ad starts "snatching" mouse clicks which were meant to forum topics, things are not the way they should be. This is IMO true even if you do not subscribe. Who would be tempted to subscribe to a site which allows third party advertisers to grab mouse clicks not meant to them?

Subscriber or not, an ad that takes up nearly the entire screen and won't go away with a click, is a problem. I doubt Brian would approve such an ad. I'm grateful I never see any ads as a subscriber.

 

I don't see how anyone can use the presence of ads on this site to justify not paying a subscription (especially when subscribers see much fewer ads). For profit or Not for profit, it really doesn't matter. The question that should be asked is simple. Is it worth $25 a year to access all this site has to offer? I really don't care who does what with the money. All I care about is the value of the site to me. Unless you're a student, I can't imagine forking over the small sum would cause hardship for anyone with the resources to pursue a photo hobby. Anyone visiting this site likely has a computer, ISP, camera etc. Come on folks. We're talking about $25 not $100 or more.

 

For anyone that really can't afford the $25, I wish you well and hope things get better for you financially. For the rest that can afford it but choose not to, don't insult us by rationalizing your choice. It's your decision but don't expect those of us who complied with the site's policy to agree.

 

For the record, I'm also one of those suckers who supports public television.

I must admit I am not too happy with this particular ad, and on Monday I will be talking to the advertising agency about it. The ad is coming from a third party server, and I cannot turn off just one ad without underfulfilling on other campaigns and other advertisers to whom we have commitments.

 

The ad is supposed to be an expandable ad which collapses back into its banner area after a few seconds. It doesn't seem to do that. When I clicked on the "close" icon in my Firefox browser, it did collapse, but the area underneath was not repainted and was just a big white area. I had to refresh the page to read it.

Finally, the ad is supposed to be exposure-limited to one exposure per visitor per 24 hours, and if the reports in this thread are to be relied upon, that is not true.

"Do you have cable? Do you have satellite? Do you watch HBO or any of the PREMIUM channels?"

 

no. nothing, hardly watch the thing, when i do it's a rental dvd. but funny how you negate my point about paying ABC/NBC/CBC to "subscribe" though.

 

"Just because this site requires money to run it doesn't mean it turned into an advertisment cash cow, as you suggest."

 

i didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth. i don't appreciate it.

Brian, are there alternatives to an ad site and returning it to how it once was, ad free? Bigger sub fees? Less activity for non-sub's to encourage subscription?

"when you click the ad closed, what happens?"

 

You can't click the ad closed... not in Firefox on Linux. When it's done playing, it leaves behind a white box that covers most of the screen. (I posted a screenshot in another thread that was either deleted or rolled off.)

 

Flash ads that cover other content on the page are unacceptable, period. If I see another one I will not be renewing my subscription.

"I must admit I am not too happy with this particular ad, and on Monday I will be talking to the advertising agency about it. The ad is coming from a third party server, and I cannot turn off just one ad without underfulfilling on other campaigns and other advertisers to whom we have commitments."

 

I'm glad to hear that. But what I would really like to hear is that you are punishing this agency by immediately severing your business relationship with them, and publicly encouraging others to do likewise. Make an example of them so that other third-party ad services put stricter criteria on the media they serve. Advertisers seem to think they have a right to intrude in anyone's visual space, and they turn a deaf ear to complaints. They need to be put in their place with a swift kick to the pocketbook.

If I had my druthers, unsubscribers could read Pnet all they want but couldn't post until they subscribed.

 

that simple.

well, Kevin, i think you have to let them get addicted. i'm sure you became involved with conversations and asked a question or two prior to joining? but maybe restirct the amount like flickr does to free accounts? besides, i spend a heck of alot of time helping out others (the true value of this place) and answer questions as accurately as possible. there's no black and white solution.

The aperture ad is just plain annoying. No one should have to see it cover the entire page whether they are a subscriber or not. Sometimes, in fact most times, I don't want to log in.

<p>

Really, this site is becoming more annoying by the week. Management really needs to rethink the direction it is taking...because it surely isn't getting any better.

Using Firefox 1.0 today and and old 566 Celeron, win98SE on dialup this site appears clean; I still have not see any of these giant adverts yet. I am glad that some folks are starting to post images or mention what the ad name was, and what browser they used. There has to be more than a subscriber versus a non subscriber issue. Maybe more experimentaion is need to find this "Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ad", like bigfoot or ufo's some have seen them, others search in vain with no contact! Here I run Dos 3.2, 6.22, Win3.11, NT3.51, Win98SE, Win2000 and XP pro. Several boxes have Foxfire, IE, Netscape and Opera. One old NT box has IE version 2.0 ; the win3.11 boxes have old Netscape. <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/PNdesktop/desktopcrop14.gif">

It seems about 1/3 of the real estate of every webpage is now showing google ads of some form or another. In fact "Google" has become synonymous with "Banner Ads" and not search engine. What's really upsetting is how most these ads are made to look like regular links so people click on them thinking its menu link or something - basically cheating the advertiser.